The concepts of history and literature can easily become intertwined in ambiguous definitions; however, both historical and literary texts are needed in order to fully understand a time period in the past. History can be seen as an objective explanation of events that have occurred, while literature is the subjective interpretation of events that have occurred. History has long since been considered to be a factual account of past events, a way to explain cause and effect; however, there is not a possible way for historians to be completely unbiased and correct. Historians pick and choose the facts they wish to represent and assigns a meaning behind the facts; they may try hard to be objective and unbiased, but it's near impossible to hold a completely objective view. Literature, while does not explain cause and effect, is the "bearer of cultural significance," and therefore is up to the reader to interpret and understand the significance of literary text (Patterson, p 9). Literature can not be interpreted as history. As Patterson said, "While literature necessarily arises from a historical matrix, it can never be adequately understood in terms of that origin, no matter how carefully the scholar seeks to reconstruct it"(Patterson, p 9).
When it comes to interpreting the history of South Asia, one must look into literary as well as historical texts in order to see the big picture. If only historical texts were focused on, it would not be an accurate portrayal of Indian history. When the Europoean scholars arrived in India, wanting to learn more about the history, they received their information from Brahman priests; and therefore received a biased view of life in India. Even in the Dharmashastras (Law Books), a literary source, there are biased views due to the Brahman authors. They helped portray a rigid caste system that was followed strictly by all Indians; however, the caste system was, in actuality, quite flexible and there were variations within it.
