How to Read History

“What is history but a fable agreed-upon?” Napoleon Bonaparte

“I have yet to see a piece of writing, political or non-political, that does not have a slant. All writing slants the way a writer leans, and no man is born perpendicular.” E.B. White

Let us start with an anecdote, one day a Pathaan came back fuming and told his wife that he had an argument with this neighbour. On being asked why, he said that the neighbours argued that if one adds two and two the result is four while the Pathaan reasoned that it would be five. The wife smacked her forehead and with all politeness she could manage, told her husband that the neighbour was correct, two plus two does add up to four. At this the Pathaan smiled and said it would be four only if he agreed. Unfortunately, regarding history we have a similar outlook to the Pathaan, not agreeing to what is logical and factual staring at our face just because we don’t want to agree to another thought. So how should one read History?

Types of History and their versions

There are two kinds of Histories, the Prehistory and the Recorded History. The recorded History is further subdivided into Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary.

Prehistory technically defines the period from the beginning of universe to the start of writing. Most of the source of prehistory is archaeological and physical anthropology and since there is no written version, the interpretation is based on scientific study and logical conclusion. Any difference of opinion is based basically on an interpretation of the study or a different logical approach. As science develops and new technologies emerge, or new discoveries made, the interpretation of the history changes. Luckily there are not many biases or differences or versions of this portion of the History.

With the arrival of recorded History, the historians had more information to mine through. The information apart from archaeology, paintings and sculptures depended on writings. These writings were limited in the initial part and could be found on rock edicts, temple walls etc. Later as time progressed, the volume of written source kept on expanding. These sources could be divided into Primary, Secondary and Tertiary.

Primary Sources are artifacts, documents, diaries manuscripts, autobiographies, recordings, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Examples of primary sources include personal journals/diaries/memoirs, letters, court proceedings, legislative debates, newspaper and magazine articles, movies, music, art, etc. A British Historian Arthur Marwick says, “Primary Sources are absolutely fundamental to history”.[1] However understanding the primary sources which are before 20th century are challenging as they may be ambiguous and fragmented. In addition, there is a change of language, the meaning or the context in which words are used. Older primary sources may not exist in original but would be copies of the original Primary Source and with each copy the authenticity of the primary source diminishes. However, a primary source is not necessarily more of an authority or better than a secondary source. There can be bias and tacit unconscious views that twist historical information. As Kameron Searle said, “A history, whose author draws conclusions from other than primary sources or secondary sources actually based on primary sources, is by definition fiction and not history at all.” [2]

A secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source. In this source, the original information is selected, modified, and arranged in a suitable format. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information [iii]. Examples of Secondary Source includes Books, Journals etc. It is challenging to classify a source into Primary or Secondary and at many places the distinctive line blurs.

Tertiary sources are compilations based upon primary and secondary sources and often tell a more generalized account built on the more specific research found in the first two types of sources.

With more people writing about an incident even in the primary sources we get different versions or slants. These versions are the writer’s impressions based on his or her social belief, political considerations, lack of knowledge or at many times simply to hide certain facts and make some parts of the History look better. The term historian use for this is ‘Silencing’. Again, since writing and resources to write were limited initially, the people who wrote History were those who were close to power, a court chronicler for example. Thus, his version of History will have a political bias leaning towards his pay master portraying him as a Protagonist.

There will always be a second version of the Antagonist. This version of the History will be slightly different than the Protagonist version highlighting the other side of the story. Incidentally the protagonist and antagonist are again interchangeable as per the version.

To understand this let us take the example of Prithviraj Chauhan a legendary king who reigned from 1177 AD till his death in 1192 and we will only focus on the various versions of his death after the Second Battle of Tarain. Most of the data listed below is taken from Wikipedia.

This singular event in the History has many versions and incidentally none of them are primary sources as they were written long after the event. In all probability, they were adapted from verbal versions of the incident. The drawback is that they have been written as ‘History’, something that the forthcoming generations would read hence they tend to glorify their rulers or pay masters. In this event especially the Second Battle of Tarain, the Muslim chroniclers have exaggerated the size of Prithviraj’s army to show the valour of their paymaster. Similarly, Tajul — Ma’asir does not even mention the First Battle of Tarain where Prithviraj won. Unfortunately, the most popular of these versions in India is Prithviraj Raso which has historical inaccuracies however portrays Prithiviraj as a brave hero, a version which the Mewar Kings promoted.

As more material started being written, the best sources of history were those not written as ‘History’. These are letters both official and personal, official orders and correspondences, diaries, and travelogues etc. These were authored or created by ordinary people with no intention for longevity of their writing or telling a story. These sources were therefore without any slant. However, they had one major drawback, the document’s creator may not be in full picture of the facts and thus they portray his opinion. At times foreigner writing a diary or a travelogue may not understand the actual concept or complexity of the event and at many times he portrays things with his inbuilt bias. He may even miss certain things altogether, so if Megasthenes did not see a particular incident or ritual or a custom while visiting Patliputra during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya, does not mean it did not happen/exist.

Here is an example of a version of the wedding of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh’s grandsons Henry Edward Fane the ADC to Commander in Chief to India in the book ‘Five Years in India’ which is a reproduction of his diary. The writing definitely displays a bias against the Indians and may have been exaggerated, but this bias is natural given the origin of the author, his age, and his general views of Indians.

The crowd assembled surpassed belief; I should say it included from five to six hundred thousand persons, all shoving and fighting to get in one direction-near the Rajah’s elephant. Several lives must have been lost from the crowd, and I myself saw one man knocked down by a mahout with the iron spike with which he drives the elephant, and the great brute trod upon him when down. With a line of seventy elephants, and five or six hundred sewars (irregular horse), all of whom beat about them with huge sticks and the butt-ends of their carbines to clear the road, I do not think that we went at the rate of more than half a mile an hour. The bridegroom was now introduced for the first time, having his face covered with a veil made of strings of large pearls hung on gold thread. He is a thin, unhealthy-looking boy, dreadfully marked with the smallpox, but seemed intelligent and well mannered. The brides (three in number) we do not see, of course. The religious parts of the ceremony were carried on in private, and finished at nine o’clock, which the Brahmins declare to be the propitious hour.[iv]

So, we have three versions of an event in History, the Protagonist Version, The Antagonist Version and finally the Outsider/ Bystander Version. If asked to pick which of these versions will be accurate, the answer will be None. However, if we read all three versions we get a somewhat realistic picture, not an accurate, but a realistic one. Thus, there is no guarantee that a person who claims a part of History to be wrong, has an accurate version of History himself. There is no such thing as Correct History.

Should we read History?

The question that emerges how should we read History, but the more pertinent question is why do we need to read History at the first place apart for academic reasons? How does a man on the street benefit from reading History or knowing about it? Does he have time to go through all the versions and make conclusive deductions?

While we all know the advantages of learning history that it teaches about the past and explains the future and explains our existence and our culture and society. As someone said, ‘History defines who I am’. But then History is a double-edged weapon which if not handled correctly can cause more harm than good.

Let us examine the disadvantages of wrongly handled History.

- Firstly, History has many versions, it is not complete and has gaps.

- Popular History and Good History are not the same, the general public can be interested in the past but unlike historians, their knowledge is not often based on research and evidence. Popular History is simplified, ‘cherry-picked’ and distorted to the point of corruption. There are several reasons for this. Many people tend to value story over analysis. When thinking about the past, they like clear accounts and simple explanations. They like to assign responsibility, liability or ‘blame’. They also like to think their own nations, community, religion, and societies to be more advanced, civilised, braver or culturally superior to others.[v]

- Generalisation. Society tends to generalise the traits in a community or religion based on historical events which, may not be accurate.

- Popular histories are riddled with myths and mythology which may have historical inaccuracies. Cases in point is the Prithviraj Raso, Salim — Anarkali Romance.

- Nationalism. Nationalism can distort a nation’s understanding of its own past by colouring or dominating historical narratives. Nationalist histories often exalt or glorify the achievements and progress of a nation — but can also overlook, dilute, or explain away its violence or mistreatment of others.[vi] The relationship between a myth-constructed past and nationalism is characterized by interdependence, since myth survives thanks to the spreading of national ideology, while, simultaneously, nationalism partly survives thanks to the spreading of myth.[vii]

How should one read History?

First decide you want to read a Story or read History because while the first can be a leisure activity the later requires time, effort, and passion. And be warned if you want to read History especially Indian History which is so diverse and vast, you can read and learn only a part of History so choose the part that excites you the most.

Step One, read all three versions of the History from different sources. While reading make a note of the author, his bias if any, and his intention to write that source. If you know the author has a bias, accept it, read his version knowing he is biased. While his views may be biased, the facts can’t be changed much. The intention to write also matters, all court biographers/ chroniclers will tend to exaggerate, their facts should be cross checked from other sources.

Step Two, Scale down the exaggerations from the Protagonist and Antagonist Versions and remove the uncertainty of the outsider/ bystander versions.

Step Three, Check the references used by the authors, as far as possible they should have chosen the Primary Sources. Rule out any part where the author has referred to an opinion or conjuncture in his source material without substantial evidence. Make an effort to rule out your own biases, which will be more difficult than you think.

Finally, after having read all of that, figure out the facts that emerge and a plausible logical story that ties all the versions together and accept the outcome with an open mind.

So, you have to decide, whether you want to be the Pathaan in the anecdote mentioned earlier not wanting to accept any version but yours or you are open to a well researched History. Then and only then do you have the authority to comment about History in any forum especially on social media else you are just commenting on a story and adding to the hullabaloo.

History has always been twisted to create biases and differences, but a society with a biased approach towards History cannot have an unbiased future.



(My Other Stories
Religion in an Infantry Battalion
https://medium.com/@ashishrikhye_90458/religion-in-an-infantry-battalion-7d9786b79337

Roving Weekends
https://medium.com/@ashishrikhye_90458/the-roving-weekend-5c5f7ab9f57a

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#cite_note-Marwick-13

[2] ibid

[iii] ibid

[iv] Five years in India, Volume 1, by Henry Edward Fane published by Henry Colburn, London

[v] https://alphahistory.com/problems-of-history/

[vi] Ibid

[vii] Nationalism in the Troubled Triangle, 2010, Chapter History, Myth and Nationalism: The Retrospective Force of National Roles within a Myth-Constructed Past