Dec 31, 2024 07:15 IST
First published on: Dec 31, 2024 at 07:15 IST
-
Share
If a non-Earth being had landed in New Delhi in January 2024, stayed the year and returned to their planet, and been asked what humans thought of history, she’d probably have a lot to say. She might start with the opening of the Ram Mandir, depicted by many as a redressal of historical injustice. She might point to the harassment of many historians deemed “left” or “left-liberal” for any number of sins — from joking about religious idols to their research topics to the accusation of lacking sympathy toward Hindutva history. They would certainly mention the controversies around inclusions and exclusions in undergraduate and school history syllabi. They would not have failed to notice the fever pitch to which debates on structures allegedly underlying Mughal-era mosques have reached. The year has ended with tumultuous scenes in Parliament over the Constitution’s historical context and relevance.
In all this, it’s likely that this non-Earth being would be unclear as to what history as an academic discipline is actually about and what professional historians are meant to do. Is history about definitive truths? Is there a “correct” history — are there wrongs to be righted? Is it meant to have a single conclusion or many conclusions? What is to be its relationship to uncertainty or the lack of evidence? Are historians meant to clear up questions of what lies beneath Mughal-era mosques? What counts as historical evidence? Who are historians’ audiences? Fellow academics? The public? Politicians? The many publics that make up the public? What should they teach in the classroom?
The non-Earth being would also be confused as to whether anyone needs to be a historian even to talk about history. The most popular YouTubers on Indian history barely have a history degree between them. Historians (the ones with a full CV of history degrees) have no say in most of the popular discussions on history, be they on mandirs, masjids, or the Constitution. While some of these YouTubers post considered POV-s, even providing links to sources, others tomtom their recognition by the state and its leaders.
This has been the year of a deep existential crisis for the discipline in a society where “living history” makes life dangerous for many. This argument that India’s glory lay in ancient discoveries, forms of polity, society and language is a seductive one. However, the same argument can become a dangerous pretext for ongoing conservatism of various kinds — caste, gender, class and more. “Living history” suggests that history is unbroken and unchanging. This is akin to the kind of dogma that the colonials upheld. It is at odds with the idea of modernity which posits a historical dynamism based on reason. Equally troubling is the fact that this argument justifies a thirst for “revenge” and “destructive retaliation” for perceived historical wrongs as though there is an unbroken line between Hindus of history and Hindus of today, Muslims (and other minorities) of history and those of today.
Though history as a discipline is a product of European Enlightenment, it became an important subject in emerging colonial-era universities around India. Indian historians took up the challenge of their European forebears while also responding to the nationalist movement. As the nation came into its own, historians were faced with demands of greater democratic inclusion and social justice. They responded with greater focus on the subaltern, attention to multiple language sources and archives in order to deepen our knowledge of different historical actors and communities. It has also resulted in transgressive histories of faith, identity, ideas and region.
Academia is only one of three sites of historical discourse in India — the other two being the school textbook and the popular sphere (social media, politics, community and identity assertion). It’s in the interplay of these three that we arrive at our sense of history. But, in this age of violence and authoritarianism, it is important for academic historians to keep doing their work. The projects of inclusion, social justice and progressive values — in sum, the future — depends on this. It is important to teach students how to think like historians: How to sift evidence, build an argument based on evidence, read critically, and live with counter-arguments — with uncertainty and with complexity — and to retain a sense of joy, play and humour about it all. Our job is not to tell the nation what to think about a particular issue (though we occasionally try), but how to begin to think about it. The rest is just noise.
Surendran teaches history at Jindal Global Law School and is the author of Democracy’s Dhamma
Why should you buy our Subscription?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be misled and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package
