UGC draft history syllabus: Why do historical interpretations matter?
It’s a fact that there was a ruler in medieval India named Akbar and that’s why this is likely to be a subject of a general knowledge book rather than a history classroom. Rather than mere facts, a history classroom is more concerned about what emerges from those facts — what was the society like during Akbar’s reign or what were his policies?
Historians seek facts but the greater calling lies in seeking answers to questions that emerge from those facts. In history classes, we used to have a phrase “historical reconstruction” that referred to restructuring or reimagining a period in history on the basis of evidence (or facts) available to us.
Writings from that period, official records, art and sculpture, inscriptions, popular culture and folklore amongst others are common pieces of evidence. There are of course caveats with using almost every piece of evidence. Just like a journalist needs to examine whether their source is credible, a historian needs to examine what piece of evidence is credible. For example, all royal biographies or inscriptions are bound to present the point of view of the ruler because they commissioned those pieces of work, so you cannot expect them to be perfectly honest — those biographies or inscriptions commissioned by the ruler contain what they want to be conveyed and not necessarily the actual picture.
History is therefore not just about documenting evidence but also about selecting evidence and interpreting it. In this exercise, one needs to keep in mind that little in history is “certain”. There are theories, beliefs, points of view, but little is certain. For example, it’s a common belief that the British robbed India off its wealth in the 18th century but there is a vibrant debate among historians on the subject and there are compelling arguments against the notion. After all, data, as they say, is all about interpretation.
While interpretations of the colonial loot may not matter much since it is widely accepted today, even if contested by a section of historians, that the colonialists looted large portions of the world, interpretations do matter on extremely sensitive subjects that might be used to mobilise people, indoctrinate them, or to raise them with a mischievous understanding of their past.
For example, historian Audrey Truschke in her magnum opus on Aurangzeb wrote that destroying a dozen or so Hindu temples, even if those destroyed included those in holy cities of Kashi and Mathura, was not enough to give Aurangzeb a label of a bad person. She went on to suggest that Aurangzeb merely followed a tradition of earlier Hindu rulers destroying Hindu temples. For this, she cited historian Richard Davis’s Lives of Indian Images (please note she did not do any primary research) who mentioned in his book an incident from the early 10th century. His exact words:
“Although the dominant pattern here was one of looting royal temples and carrying off images of state-deities, we also hear of Hindu kings engaging in the destruction of the royal temples of their political adversaries. In the early tenth century, the Rashtrakuta monarch Indra III not only destroyed the temple of Kalapriya (at Kalpa near the Yamuna River), patronised by the Rashtrakutas’ deadly enemies, the Pratiharas, but also took special delight in recording the fact.”
Please note how no source is provided in narrating this incident.
Truschke cited another historian, Michael Willis, who narrated the same incident in his book Temple of Gopaksetra:
“After the courtyard of the temple of Kalapriya was knocked askew by the strokes of his rutting tuskers, his steeds crossed the bottomless Yamuna, which rivals the sea.”
Please note that this passage does not mention an attack or willful destruction but a mere damage to a temple from an elephant.
Writing for Scroll, Girish Shahane highlighted this. He wrote, “Is this a description of a temple being razed, or merely of a temple courtyard being damaged by elephants who might have been stabled there while the army rested?”
Shahane further cited historian Dineschandra Sircar who stated in his book Geography of Ancient and Medieval India that Indra III camped near the same temple as did his successor Krishna III.
“[Krishna III] developed a fondness for installing gods under the name Kalapriya in different parts of his empire”, wrote Shahane quoting Sircar.
Shahane concluded, “It certainly seems as if the temple of Kalapriya survived Indra III’s rutting tuskers.”
Truschke’s book is widely popular on Left of the socio-political spectrum and has been read widely — to the extent that it’s not odd to find it in an Instagram story every now and then.
As this episode suggests, courtesy to Girish Shahane’s article, a misinterpretation of an episode in history has been used to justify destruction of temples by Aurangzeb. Not just that, this misinterpretation has been used to construct a false and fictional notion that it was a norm for Hindu kings to destroy temples and it was from there that later Islamic rulers took inspiration to destroy temples. This is an extremely mischievous way to serve as an apologist of Aurangzeb and all those historical figures who destroyed Hindu temples and other indigenous structures across India and the world.
Despite Shahane’s rebuttal to Truschke, the widespread popularity of her book means hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people across the world genuinely believe in the false notion she has generated. This is why, as highlighted in the beginning of this article, it’s not the fact or evidence but its interpretation that’s a subject of greater interest to a student or scholar of history.
The fact or evidence is simple — a temple was damaged by elephants. It’s the interpretation that’s of greater consequence in shaping the belief of millions of readers and consumers of the narrative — whether the temple was damaged from an accident or whether it was a willful complete destruction of the temple like Aurangzeb carried out.
It is for these reasons why history is such a contentious issue and why teaching of history is so crucial. The historical narrative is being taken over by extremists who either paint it in their colour through blanket rhetoric like the Hindu Right or carefully and systematically craft narratives like the intellectual Left — such as by Truschke and her disciples across campuses.
The Hindu Right has their own share of historical manipulations, ranging from the introduction of new syllabi and official history rewriting commissions, which I have previously written on. This is why I am getting back to studying and highlighting the new University Grants Commission’s syllabus for undergraduate students of history because what we are taught as history goes far beyond our classrooms. It shapes our world view, thought-process, and, more importantly, it shapes popular perception and serves as a tool for popular mobilisation if it acquires enough traction.
Historical manipulation is after all a central element of Islamist movements and jihadist group, who include historical developments such as Battle of Badr in their rhetoric and use it to attract and fuel recruits. Taking the world back to their puritan interpretation of Islam is central to the approach of ISIS and to some extent of Taliban that wants to establish an Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan based on their rigid version of Islam in which music, television, and women’s public life is prohibited.
It is because of this reason any revision of history syllabus becomes crucial. This article serves as a prelude to later articles on the revised syllabus and is intended to give an idea why it’s important to check the dangerous games being played with history.
For games with Indian history and false narratives, please read this article from 2019 in which I highlighted how a class of historians, led by some of the most well known names in the academia, lied about Ayodhya for years peddled falsehoods in the name of history. They lied, misled the public, and, worse, they got away with it.
Madhur Sharma is a graduate in history from Delhi University and a postgraduate in journalism from Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi. He tweets at @madhur_mrt. This is his personal blogpost.
