INTERPRETING HISTORY

A WIDE CANVAS

INTERPRETING HISTORY

It is widely recognised that  history can never be objective, or at least fully so. While this belief is applied readily to the writing, we do not think  about the way history is taught or studied . It is held that victors or winners write history from their own perspective.  But if the losers write, will they adopt a view other than their own? It is human nature that people see things and view events from their own angle. Unless we have hard facts, it is difficult to say what is objective. All of us cannot go to the original sources; we have to depend on the writers, who also become the interpreters- in the choice of what they include and ignore, in the words they choose to describe people and events. Even the most objective scholar cannot escape some ingrained prejudices, or the influences of the times. A Christian or Muslim scholar cannot avoid looking at things from his angle, just as a leftist can only interpret it in terms of Marxist analysis. Apparent or subtle, the bias is present. 

We have experienced such bias in teaching too. In the Catholic college where I studied, the lecturer would be uncomfortable dealing with topics such as Reformation, the birth of the Anglican Church, Enlightenment, etc. Personalities like Martin Luther, Calvin, Rousseau etc would not be dealt with at all. Most such topics would be assigned for self-study, and not discussed in the class room. Such treatment would be extended to select topics in other subjects too: they did not somehow like Keynes and his ideas would not be discussed in detail. They would refer you to a book. If there was a Hindu lecturer, he would even become emotional in dealing with Rajput history or that of the Marathas. The Muslim invasion and the accompanying plunder and loot would be described in some detail- eg how they conquered Chittor or how Vijaynagar was conquered by treachery, and how long thereafter the capital burned and how many elephants were used to carry the loot, etc. A Muslim or Christian lecturer would skip the details, mentioning just the main events. I used to think that teachers made history, as much as the writers!

But what about the readers? We too have a role. We identify with some or the other character or hero. Each group or community would like to see one of their own as the hero, having done or contributed something significant. If they don't find any, they would say the history is not objective. As Prof. Thomas Sowell writes:

Any group whose past has not provided them with as many heroes, cultural contributions, or other glories as some other group's past now has a grievance against those who write history. Apparently a past to your liking has become an entitlement.

Thomas Sowell: 'Is Reality Optional' and Other Essays. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1993.

Such groups go to the extent of denying the truth of large parts of history, and if they gain power they would not only exclude them from study, but even revise them.  This is what is taking place in the US right now. There are groups which not only deny the importance of Western Civilisation in the name of Multiculturalism, but would like to condemn it in the name of Feminism, Marxism, Relativism, Modernism, Ethnic rights, etc. They do not want history to be taught as it happened, because some minority would be offended. One cannot say where this will end.

It is true that there are many unpleasant aspects to what we call Western civilisation. Imperialism, Capitalism, Materialism, etc were surely part of it. But it cannot also be denied that Western Civilisation has spread all over the world , has been a modernising influence, and several ideas that we now accept are based on that: Liberalism, Individualism, Freedom and Democracy, Separation of Church and State, modern industrial organisation, mass education, etc. One can easily blame the US for the slavery. But do people know any place in the world other than India where slavery was not prevalent? We should indeed give credit to white Americans for choosing to end slavery voluntarily. (Similarly, it should be remembered that  it is the upper castes in India who fought for the upliftment of the so called backward castes and granted them preferential privileges, guaranteeing them in the Constitution.)

 In fact if the West deserves censure, it is more on account of how they have treated the Jews for 2000 years! In every Christian country they were confined to ghettos, denied access to education and professions and public offices, etc. Even today, anti-Semitism (leave alone anti-Zionism) is deeply ingrained in the White Christian psyche. The very success and prosperity of the Jews, their intellectual contributions seem to evoke further hatred, rather than admiration! But what is the use of blaming them NOW for what happened in the past? As we say in Sanskrit, history is -Itihas: it happened thus. If you don't agree with the systems, change them! The darkness of a thousand years is ended if a candle is lit now! Light the candle, don't harp on the darkness.

Facts and Interpretation

History is not a mirror of our current ideas and theories. It is a record of past events. There are problems in finding out those events, especially in the remote past. But there is a problem of interpretation too, even in respect of recent events for which records exist. The problem arises not because there are no facts, but because there are people who do not want the facts to be brought to light.

Let us take the case of Tipu Sultan, who lived just two centuries ago. It is known that he made donations to Sringeri Mutt and also alowed pujas in the temple at Srirangapatna to continue. It is also known that he had a Hindu minister called Purnayya. It is known that he fought the British. So, some political elements in Karnataka have made him a secular hero, a freedom fighter, declared him 'the tiger of Mysore' etc in accordance with current fashion. But is this interpretation correct? This can be judged not just in the light of these two/three isolated events but in the light of all the known facts, which are available in historical records. What are these facts? consider some major ones:

• He fought the British to retain his kingdom, not for the freedom of India. But he sought help from Napoleon! (He wanted the French to replace the British!)
•  He appealed to the Caliph in 1798 to invade India.
• He invited Zamin Shah of Afghanistan to invade India and launch a Jihad here. They even finalised a plan for an expedition. (1796-7)
• He fought the Kodavas, Marathas and Nairs too to annex their kingdom. He ravaged Calicut and Travancore. The brutalities are recorded by Christian priests. More than 1,00,000 Hindus were forcibly converted. Thousands were deliberately killed.
• He raided Kodagu twice-in 1785 and 1788. The second time, he indulged in wanton killing and destruction of temples and property. Instead of engaging Kodava army, he targeted defenceless civilians and looted their property and temples. He settled some 7000 Muslim families brought from elsewhere in Coorg.
• The  wealth of every Hindu temple in his territory was totally confiscated. He destroyed hundreds of temples wherever he went- including Guruvayoor, along with some particularly ancient temples.
• He replaced Kannada with Farsi as the court language.

In the light of this, it is rather intriguing that he made donations to Sringeri or allowed the temple in Srirangapatna to continue the pujas! The real reason is that he was advised by his astrologers  to make these donations as propitiation, to ensure his success  against the British, after he had lost in the initial rounds!

Does all this make him a freedom fighter or a national or even regional hero? This is how our politicians would like to falsify history, in the face of all the recorded facts!

1857: Sepoy Mutiny or First War of Independence?

Areas covered by the rebellion.

This is again a raging question. Partisans would like to see it in either/or fashion. If we consider the facts, there is justification for both claims, but with qualifications!

It was certainly a mutiny of the sepoys- that is how it started. The British authorities and historians were not wrong in calling it as such.

But the very fact that it soon spread, engulfed more areas and people, brought various native rulers together without a central organising force, and that both Hindus and Muslims had come together shows that it was not a mere mutiny of the sepoys. And the fact that both sides approached the nominal Mughal emperor- but virtually the ruler of Delhi-  and made him their head, in whose name they fought, surely shows that both Hindus and Muslims had thought of themselves as the natives of the soil, had accepted the ruler of Delhi as the ruler of India,and had considered the British as the foreign intruders and wanted to get rid of them! If this is not Nationalism, what is?

Bahadur Shah II was accepted by Indian forces as the Emperor of India and they fought in his name.

He was captured by the British , sent to Mandalay, where he died, denied 'even two yards of land for his burial' in his beloved land , as he himself  wrote.

They might have lacked a theory or philosophy but they had the basic stirrings. This is what makes it a revolution- an armed rising by the people against  a foreign ruler!

Tatya Tope!

Rani of Jhansi, the eternal Queen of patriotic Indian hearts!

American Revolution

How the British historians considered 1857 is not due to any special prejudice or malice. This is how the British had approached such events. What the Americans considered Revolution and War of Independence, the British had simply taken as a "rebellion" of the colonies. And the British attitude is summed up by a historian thus:

Convinced that the Revolution was the work of a full few miscreants who had rallied an armed rabble to their cause, they expected that the revolutionaries would be intimidated... Then the vast majority of Americans, who were loyal but cowed by the terroristic tactics....would rise up, kick out the rebels, and restore loyal government in each colony.

(Jeremy Black:Crisis of Empire: Britain and America in the Eighteenth Century.Continuum Publishing Corporation.2008, p.140)

Surrender of the British at Yorktown,

Crowd mobbing a loyalist. This too was part of the 'revolution'!

But what is sauce for goose, is not  so for the gander! The British considered it rebellion, the Americans called it Revolution, but for the Native Indians? Here is what another historian records as the view of those hapless Indians who were abandoned by the British to the 'mercy' of the Americans, but what the American 'revolutionaries' gave them was anything but mercy:

Burned villages and crops, murdered chiefs, divided councils and civil wars, migration, towns and ports choked with economic disruption, breaking of ancient traditions, losses in battle and to disease and hunger, betrayal to their enemies, all made the American revolution one of the darkest periods  in American Indian history.

(Colin G.Calloway. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities.  Cambridge University Press. 1995,p.290)

We see here there are three sides (at least) to the story- not just two. An engagement like this may affect more than the combatants. Can the people who fought for their own freedom suppress the freedom of others so soon after their own triumph?  Can they be so thoughtless, with so many leaders?

And in this, who is right, or wrong? Well, none of them is totally right, or entirely wrong. Each one is right- with a partial picture. We non-combatants, and non-participants sitting thousands of miles away and separated by more than 2 centuries, do certainly have a better view! That is why, we need time to understand true history, to gain correct perspective. All those who study "current" history are studying bullshit.

Truly, study of history is a humbling, sobering but also ennobling experience. The British failed to judge the mood of the colony and to gauge the situation; they failed to safeguard the interests of the Native Indians.# But the American Declaration of Independence inspired the whole world with the idea of modern constitutional government, more than the French Revolution!

The British learned their lessons well. In 1857, they brutally crushed the Indian Rebellion; but in 1947, they knew enough to leave in time- may be in a hurry?

# This is something the British have consistently done. When they gave freedom to countries, they did not safeguard the interests of ethnic minorities, who were induced to migrate by themselves. eg. Indians in Sri Lanka. And they created Pakistan fully knowing that it consisted of many ethnic groups who could not live together , despite professing a common religion.  Bangladesh separated, but others are still fighting!