Bionomic historicism: Darwinian ichthyology and non-Needhamian histories of Indian science

The “global turn” in history of science has produced an awareness of multiple traditions of writing histories of science. Much of this new interest, however, is still located in the shadow of a handful of European intellectuals and their global networks. Joseph Needham is the first among these. As a result, non-Western scholars who were outside Needham’s networks, and even opposed to them, have largely been ignored. In some cases, such as in the case of Sunder Lal Hora, who was involved in a public controversy with Needham, they have been presented by historians as simple-minded positivists and narrow nationalists. In this article, by looking more closely at Hora’s career, I want to make three interrelated claims. First, I want to argue that looking at Hora without prejudging him on Needham’s terms reveals a distinct and creative approach to writing the history of Indian science. Second, I argue that Hora’s historical method is deeply shaped by his earlier work as an ichthyologist who was interested in defending Darwinism by experimental means. Finally, I argue that Hora’s method, which I call “bionomic historicism,” advances a much more radical model of interdisciplinary scholarship than the Needhamian one.