Narrow nationalisms

During colonial times, India was portrayed as serving a role in history that was subservient to the European agenda, or as just a passive entity activated primarily by the incursions of invading groups. Foreign historians had displayed prejudices and attitudes towards India that were for the most part tendentious or critical, and Indian scholars were minded to write in response to those interpretations, influenced also by the national movement from the early 20th century onwards.

As a reaction to the criticism of European scholars, these writers were prone to glorify the Indian past and assert the superiority of Indian ?spiritual? culture over ?materialist? Western civilization. They laid stress on a hypothetical political unity of the country and an all-India consciousness from the earliest times, and in order to demonstrate that we had no less genius than our imperial masters, these historians even went on to praise our ancient local self-government practices and our maritime spheres of influence.

Despite the inherent contradictions, they acclaimed both the virtues of periods of non-violence and tolerance on the one hand, and military power and prowess and India?s cultural empire beyond its borders on the other. Efforts were made to assert the indigenous origin of all things Indian and the existence of a ?Greater India? that influenced the cultural, economic and political dynamic of south-east Asia in a quasi-imperialist past.

These scholars, therefore, consciously sought to restore India to its ancient glory by re-writing an Indo-centric history on the grounds that the Western interpretation of Indian history had been guilty of distortions and misinterpretations. The premise of Indian superiority in mind and spirit was propagated to counter the thesis of European cultural superiority ? a reversal of the basis of cultural Orientalism. With this historical chauvinism came both new prescriptions and new restrictions because the revisionist historians claimed that only Indians had the capacity to write about India.

The heavy hand of ?public opinion? and political necessity then imposed itself on Indian and foreign historians alike. How, it was asserted, could the belief of thousands of millions of Indians be wrong in matters such as the Mahabharata, or any action unjustified if it followed a Quranic injunction?

Such non-academic propositions created new barriers to history, some self-imposed, some pseudo-academic. In all this, the Indian Council of Historical Research, the presumed guardian of Indian historical epistemology, was either a dumb observer or mutely complicit.

The eating of beef by Vedic Aryans is offensive to Hindus, as are doubts of the historicity of Lord Ram; an English-source reference that Guru Tegh Bahadur indulged in plunder is offensive to the Sikhs; not dating Lord Mahavir to ancient antiquity upsets the Jains, and speculation about Shivaji?s paternity ? especially by a foreigner ? provoked the then prime minister to ?warn? the author, caused an oriental research institute in Pune to be looted, the book to be banned, and the Maharashtra government to ask for the author?s arrest through Interpol. The same government, apparently on a legal complaint by a Shivaji descendant, banned yet another book by the same author this year.

The ownership of the Taj Mahal is disputed in law courts between the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board and the Archaeological Survey of India, and the depiction of Mangal Pandey in a Bollywood film caused his descendants to go to the Delhi high court.

History must remain contestable, but not in the law courts. Nor should it be determined or even influenced by state violence, mob assault or government bans. Closing down proper historical discussion is the same as closing down the mind. Why do law courts agree to hear such cases? In what way do they consider themselves competent to adjudicate on historical or academic issues?

Before the emergence of modern Indian academic historians in the early part of the last century, the bulk of Indi- an historiography was concentrated in local and social history and was characteristically deeply ideological and fiercely partisan in support of particularist causes. That tradition was ousted from the mainstream of academic work by the more scholarly work which came later, but was never completely subsumed or eliminated. In some respects, it is making a comeback, encouraged at times by obscurantist political forces.

In India, the line between history and mythology is drawn too fine. The past is used to legitimize aspects of the present and to strengthen the forces of cultural nationalism. History is used to promote ideology and the more the ideology is in the service of myth-making, the less relevant is a scientific approach. All totalitarian instincts need to harness history in their support, and to rewrite it to serve their purposes. Non-historians, politicians and editorial writers have intervened rashly in a field that should be purely academic, not understanding that there is no such thing as ?correct history?. There are only opinions based on evidence, logic and analysis.

History cannot be written in the context of narrow nationalism. History is not intended to teach patriotism, loyalty, morality or mythology. It is intended only to teach history. If history is to be a rational study, its role in India must break free from hagiography and the malign influence of political interference.

A salutary trend, however, has been the constructive desire on the part of some Indian historians to lay down new terms of historical engagement. Subaltern Studies were launched by a collective of Indian scholars in the Eighties which searched for an anti-elitist and a ?history from below? approach.

This was a legitimate endeavour and added weight to the academic discourse. But Indian historians are still so preoccupied with re-writing their own history that far too few of them are writing about the history of other countries. As a result, there is hardly an Indian historian who has achieved a significant international status as a scholar in the historiography of any other country. In a globalized world, where Indian musicians, academics, artists, novelists and painters have made a name for themselves across the planet, the absence of Indian historians on the world stage is to be regretted.