History in Left-Right Crosshairs
History is a much-abused fabric that unites political factions on either side of the Centre. It brings together garishly altered societal, cultural and individual narratives, completely dependent on the author / sponsor.
From an Indian context, a battle for academic dominance has obscured the truth beneath layers of nationalist and Marxist interpretations, the latter taking defined shape under DD Kosambi, Irfan Habib and others, post 1939. The struggle between these factions has not only distorted historical narratives but has also limited our understanding of India’s rich past. The quest for ideological superiority has led to heavily blurred (sometimes conflicting) lines between reality and fantasy.
Certain interpretations of Indian history have often sought to construct a divided identity — Hindu India, Muslim India, Vedic India, Dravidian India, Aryan India, etc.. This approach has led to the unjustified glorification of certain historical events and figures (Mughals and Arabs/Turks in North and West India), while downplaying or dismissing others that do not fit the desired narrative (example, the wealth of trade, art and architecture that flourished in southern kingdoms around the same time).
Another example. The Vedic period is often portrayed as a golden age of Indian civilization, emphasizing its contributions to science, philosophy, and literature. However, this perspective tends to overlook the existence of alternative societal structures and cultures, several of which pre-date the Vedic age, or were their contemporaries in different parts of the Indian subcontinent. Incidentally, it is often agreed that the Aryan/Vedic construct was a colonial artifact to suit an Euro-centric ideal of civilization.
Similarly, a determined nationalistic focus on highlighting the achievements of ancient Indian civilization solely in northern and western India often relegates indigenous groups (Adivasis) and others to a dusty attic. By championing the dominant narrative, nationalist historians inadvertently perpetuate a skewed representation of history that undermines the struggles and contributions of these communities.
Marxist historians, on the other hand, have sought to uncover the underlying class dynamics and socio-economic forces that have shaped India’s history. This approach has shed light on the exploitation of the masses by feudal and capitalist structures, exposing the inequities embedded in historical events. However, this Marxist lens has also led to an oversimplification of history, reducing complex events to mere manifestations of class struggle.
For instance, the interpretation of India’s struggle for independence as primarily a result of class conflict overlooks the role of cultural and ideological factors in galvanizing the masses. The focus on economic determinism can lead to neglecting the agency of individuals and the significance of their choices in shaping historical outcomes.
The battle between nationalist and Marxist factions has not only hindered a holistic understanding of history but has also stifled open academic discourse. Scholars who deviate from the established narratives risk being labeled as proponents of a particular ideology, which can limit their opportunities for research and publication. This stifling of dissent hampers the growth of historical scholarship and perpetuates an environment of conformity.
One glaring example of history lost amidst these struggles is the marginalized voices of women throughout India’s past. Both nationalist and Marxist narratives have often relegated women to the background, overshadowed by the overarching themes of identity or class struggle. The stories of pioneering women who defied societal norms or contributed significantly to various fields have been neglected, perpetuating a historical amnesia regarding their achievements.
Another poignant instance is the interpretation of the Indian caste system. Nationalist perspectives tend to romanticize or downplay the caste system’s oppressive nature, while Marxist analyses primarily emphasize its role in perpetuating class inequality. The multifaceted historical evolution of the caste system, encompassing both social and economic dimensions, gets lost in this ideological tug-of-war.
In the realm of historical scholarship in India, the struggle between nationalist and Marxist factions has led to the erosion of true history. The Marxist historians, commonly perceived as far left-of-centre, had a free run with Indian historiography post 1947. Their versions/interpretations of ancient, medieval and modern India are still accepted, ipso facto, though their huge body of work has been challenged by several passionate historians such as Vikram Sampath and Sai Deepak. The tide has changed under the moderate right-of-centre Modi government, seeking to bring sweeping changes to Indian history taught and circulated.
To truly understand India’s history, it is imperative to move beyond these limiting frameworks and embrace a more inclusive and multidimensional approach. Only by transcending the confines of ideological struggles can we hope to restore the true essence of India’s history and reclaim the stories that have been lost in the battle for academic/political dominance.
