We all know at least one person who is scared
of mathematics. The numbers are their worst enemies and even calculators do not
turn out to be of much help. But recently there is emerging a section of people
who are scared of history. Especially if they are told that what they believed
to be true, is not really true. They will get angry. Accuse the others of
distortion. Find reasons to trash the counter view. And above all demonise the
ones who come up with alternate history.
Most of the anger and disregard for the alternate
history is not based on facts. In most of the cases, if not all, the anger
stems only because the “new facts” go against what we were taught at school. Or
what is widely accepted as truth. Combine it with the personal hatred to a
certain ideology and the entire effort of uncovering new facts is branded as politically
motivated.
 |
| I am Tipu from TV. For the authentic version please read books Picture courtesy: Google search |
A recent instance where people got very upset
with history was the decision to celebrate “Tipu
Jayanti” by the Karnataka government. While the Congress government
projected Tipu as a “freedom fighter” and hence justified the celebrations. The
BJP, on the other hand, said Tipu was actually a tyrant and a religious fanatic
hence he should not be celebrated.
If one really wants to get into the details of
what really Tipu did during his days, one has to read, a lot. This is obviously
a tedious task. So people take to the easy way. They just see who is saying
what, with complete disregard to fact, and take sides. If one hates Modi then
Tipu was a hero. If one hates Congress then Tipu was a tyrant. It is that
simple. Facts have no meaning.
But how did this come about? Well it is not
surprising that it has. For a very long time we were fed with history, which
was liberally coated with ideology. Starting from our ancient history to years
leading up to independence, we have read what a handful of people thought was
right for us. For a really nuanced reading on how our history has been adapted,
manipulated and changed, one can read “Eminent
Historians: Their Technology, Their line, Their fraud” by Arun Shourie.
For long we have been fed a filtered out
version of history, which suited the establishment. From vehemently supporting
the Aryan Invasion Theory to painting a false picture of “Mahatma” Gandhi, it
was all done to align the establishment thought with the popular narrative.
Though the Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discarded and was replaced with “Aryan
Migration Theory” (which also remains controversial), the Mahatma is still the
father of the nation. There are many uncomfortable
instances from his days in South Africa and later in India. If one really gets
to read about them, Gandhi would become a fit case to be tried for domestic
violence and abetting man slaughter. But that is a different story.
Back to history. There was a particular interest
in canonizing the Mughals by historians. The Indian historians have done it and
so have foreign historians. It is because of these efforts that today we fondly
remember the Mughal rule as the “golden age” of India. The moment an alternate
fact comes to light, we flare up and denounce the messenger as, a “Sanghi”, “fascist”,
“nationalist”, “ultra nationalist”, etc. again without any regard to the facts
presented. How can we forget the noise created when the name of Aurangzeb Road
was changed.
But why are people so upset at someone coming
up with a set of historical facts that challenge the status quo? Isn’t that
what scholarship is all about? New discoveries, findings and updating our understanding
of the past? A simple explanation can be traced to how people read such new
facts.
The alternate history of Tipu or that of
Aurangzeb, are being seen as anti-Muslim. The narrative being built is that,
criticising the Mughals or any of the Muslim rulers from history is an excuse
to criticize the entire Muslim community. You can read such instances here
and here.
Naturally, such reports make people think.
What we do not understand is that what someone
did in the middle ages has nothing to do with what is happening today. We as
individuals understand that we cannot and should not punish the family, for a
criminal act committed by a family member.
Here we are talking about things done hundreds
of years ago. How can the Muslims today be held responsible for what Aurangzeb
or Tipu did all those years ago? Should be hold responsible the entire Austrian
population for the birth of Adolf Hitler? Or for ever be in debt to the
Americans for giving us Lincoln?
History needs a dispassionate mind and a holistic
approach for us to understand it. We should not see the acts of medieval and
ancient personalities with the lenses of 21st century values. Every single
historical figure, from Buddha to the Mahatma, is bound to fail such a test. History
should be read and studied as it was. Not as we want it to be.
