Opinion Who writes history?

Left to themselves,politicians in India love playing historians,and one isn’t referring to Jaswant Singh. When one writes of politicians as historians,the ones in mind are the ones who fancy dabbling in,and the doctoring of,history textbooks in schools,colleges and universities,more often than not based on their narrow political ideology rather than a rigorous interpretation of history. Remember Murli Manohar Joshi’s tenure as Union HRD minister when all history textbooks,at least in schools,were revised to suit his own and his party’s view of Indian history? Of course,the BJP could have argued that the Congress had earlier imposed its own,usually leftwing/ Marxist view of Indian history in textbooks until the NDA came to power as the first genuinely rightwing government in independent India. But if the BJP wanted to credibly correct the leftwing bias,they needed to do it backed by proper,rigorous scholarship. Instead they chose second rate scholars to rewrite history. Of course,the Congress under Arjun Singh took little time in reversing all of that once the UPA came to power in 2004,but they went back to using their own set of (ideological) cronies. In the midst of this political ping-pong,and ideological bias on all sides,we can hardly expect good historical thinking. But that’s precisely what happens when politicians become historians.

Unfortunately,historians in India,barring a handful,are too caught up in the traps of patronage laid out not just by politicians but also by leading lights of their own profession. The government controls important institutions (Nehru Memorial,the Indian Council of Historical Research,to name just two of many) and decides who will hold key positions in those institutions. That gives the government a lever over academics. Even within universities and non-university research institutions,it is difficult to find jobs unless you conform to a particular worldview. This hardly promotes independent thinking or diversity in thinking. But the reality is that historians based in India are usually forced into games of petty politics,which take away from the kind of intellectual freedom historians (including historians of India) have in top Western universities. It’s no surprise then that some of the best historical work,particularly on modern Indian history,challenging the received nationalist consensus comes out of history departments in Western universities. Perhaps the most famous example of this tradition is the Cambridge school of modern Indian history pioneered by Anil Seal (an Indian) in the ’60s. Interestingly,many of the best scholars of modern Indian history are not even of Indian origin. Think of Percival Spear,Chris Bayly,Stanley Wolpert,Judith Brown,David Washbrook,and Ayesha Jalal to name just a handful.

This crude history-politics nexus clouds some of the genuine problems which exist with learning and teaching history. For one,history can rarely,if ever,be learnt or taught in an “objective” way. By themselves,historical facts mean little. It is only when they are interpreted that they add to understanding and learning. As with all subjects in the arts and social sciences — and this is unlike the natural sciences — all scholars approach their subjects with a certain value system (or system of thinking) which will inevitably affect the way they interpret historical facts for meaning. Thus,there may never be a singular historical truth.

The only fact in the study of history is that it is usually contested by multiple interpretations. Of course,multiple interpretations are not the same as inaccurate and false interpretations. Any acceptable interpretation (to be learnt and taught seriously) must have analytical rigour and be backed by credible evidence,something which is often missing in some completely amateur and politically motivated interpretations of history in this country,as a result of which the study of history in India ends up with a credibility problem.

That doesn’t seem an insurmountable problem though. We can surely keep out the interpretations which lack rigour and let people study multiple,but credible,versions of history and choose the one they think is the most accurate or convincing. That is what usually typifies the highest levels of scholarship in the subject in perhaps the top liberal arts departments in the world.

However,it’s not so simple. For one,a majority of people in our country (like in most other countries) acquire most of their formal learning in history in secondary school between the age of 10 and 15. Add to it the fact that the Indian education system,at least in schools,works on the principle of rote rather than free thinking,and one can easily understand why singular versions of history suit teachers,students and evaluators.

There is yet another factor in the teaching and learning of history in India — its purpose in nation-building. India,at the time of Independence,had the difficult task of constructing a secular and diverse nation. And a particular version of history may have helped in that task. However,as nations grow and evolve — we are past 60 now — we must have the courage to revisit the received wisdom. That’s the hallmark of liberal democracies,but a failure of ours.

dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com