Liberalism/Dogmatism and the Writing of History

Raziuddin Aquil

Much of what was said about medieval India in the late-19th and early-20th centuries have turned out to be inaccurate, incomplete and even downright false and misleading propositions. We know British colonial administrators especially made a lot of untenable assertions about "pre-colonial" India being barbarous, dark age, etc. Similarly, it is also possible that much of the contestations about medieval India in the late-20th and early-21st centuries are bogus fabrications, relevant only to the politics of the present. Fifty years from now, with the context changing, historians may laugh at the irrationalities of our time.

Tolerant and free speech demands that contrary opinions are respected, for it is possible at the current stage of our knowledge that we may not know enough and, therefore, a contrary opinion may be more accurate. At least, let us consider the possibility that there may be a variety of perspectives and approaches through which we may have some approximation of truth relating to the past, rather than attempting to establish an absolute truth. On the other hand, adherents of different contemporary political ideologies and political propagandists with commitment to political interests of various ethnic groups might contest each other's understanding of the past and press for only one of them as epitomising the truth. They might try to establish their understanding of the truth through a variety of strategies, ranging from outright academic dishonesty and academic stupidity to straightforward and obvious forms of academic suppression, as philosopher Akeel Bilgrami has recently delineated in his exposition on liberalism and the academia. What happens to the question of truth then? An attempt is being made here to grapple with the problem.

There are two kinds of limitations in the writing of history. One pertains to the interconnection between ideology and history. Religious and political ideologies deeply affect the writing of history. Various approaches are shaped by competing ideologies such as imperialism and nationalism in the colonial period and Marxism/secularism/communalism in more recent times. The respective "schools" of historiography denigrate and thwart each other, through false assumptions, violent assertions and use of political power. The politically neutral kind of empirical approach with no commitment to any of the competing ideologies is also suppressed, though truth remains discounted in political neutrality or "balanced" approach as well. The second problem relates to the abuse of history in the politics of identity. History is a major site, a battleground, or at least a weapon in the political struggles of identities based on religion, caste, region, and languages. In these contestations, a lot of crude political propaganda is peddled not only as historical memory, but also as authentic history.

Some of the themes in medieval Indian history, which are marred by struggles on ideological grounds and politics of identity, include extractive or inclusive nature of political and economic institutions, allegations of political violence and desecration of temples, Sufis' role in conversion and Islamicisation, even as their presence was crucial in the making of a pluralistic society, forms of pre-colonial identities (syncertic or shared customary practices versus separate religious identities of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, etc.), and the larger question of medieval legacies. The most ingenious characterisation of medieval India as a dark age is like this: medieval India was a dark age, because there was no electricity in medieval India; there was no electricity, because Muslims were in power and they followed Islam, which is against science.

Thus, the study of history is not so much about what possibly might have happened in the past, but it is about struggles over competing claims on what the interested parties like to believe what must or should have happened; it is also a struggle between reason and faith, truth versus falsehood. Political pressures and political appointments will also continue.

After all, conquerors have always written histories on the body of those they have decimated. Compared to that, NDA/UPA determining and sponsoring divergent kinds of politically-motivated histories, not only at the level of school textbooks but also controlling platforms like the ICHR, is not such a big deal, even though the autonomy of the discipline of history is seriously compromised.

More crucial and disappointing is politics within academia, often of a very petty kind — struggles over topics of PhD thesis, research grants and fellowships, controlling academic journals and publishing houses, nepotism, corruption and group-politics in appointments, syllabus revision and reading list, arbitrary course allotment, unjust hurdles in promotions, etc. For those at the receiving end of the power relation, it can be simply a long period of frustration; once senior dons retire and go, the next generation takes over and plays the same dirty game.

Earlier published in the Sunday Guardian: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/competing-pclaims-often-destroy-study-of-history