Politics and history are at loggerheads once again. At the center of it all, is the naming of a museum. People with different affiliations are campaigning to get the museum named after 'their' champion. Claims and counter-claims are laced with convenient versions of history. In this political/ ideological slugfest, the casualty is history. Therefore, in this age of social media where everyone has his or her own fantasied impression of historical characters and events, it is important that we set some ground-rules for pursuing history. Just as we try to promote scientific temper, we should endeavour to cultivate the right attitude towards history. I am not a historian who has scholarly insights to preach on this subject. However, I am a keen student who wishes to put forth a set of perspectives for a fair and reasoned pursuit of history.

The middle path

There could be no better introduction to this piece but this little story, narrated by my father, when I started taking interest in 'history' as a subject. The story was about how a controversial character in history was perceived differently by two prominent universities of the country. While one university deemed the actions of this character to be replete with reasons, the other felt that bigotry was the sole motive of all his deeds. The difference in opinion was attributed to the contradictory (and rigid) conclusions of research work done on this character by two celebrated stalwarts teaching in these universities.

Occasionally, answer-sheets of students enrolled in the history department of one of these differing universities would end up with the other for evaluation and marking. The results were catastrophic. The students would barely manage passing marks. My father, through this story, was trying to instill in me that history is anything but a uni-dimensional, black and white narrative. It is a study full of contradictory perceptions and interpretations. The truth, probably, is somewhere in between.

Not a tool to facelift identities

Once, during a visit to my hometown, I noticed several banners with an image of a rather unfamiliar historical personality, donning prominent places. Identity politics had dug out a new hero. A caste had chosen this personality as the mascot of their social group. Though there is nothing wrong in celebrating the life of a prominent historical figure, attaching reverence and associating one's identity to this historical figure does no good to the cause of history. Often darker, reprehensible aspects of such characters remain unexplored out of fear of a backlash from zealots. Chauvinists make things worse. In their attempt to glorify their heroes, they invent stories of courage and magnanimity disregarding historical evidence. Such a hero is beyond censure. He walks out of the realm of history wearing a crown larger than his head and a halo brighter than his accomplishments.

In the introduction to Govind Pansare's famous book, 'Shivaji Kon Hota?', Aniruddha Deshpande writes, "In the haste to identify with the heroes of our history and alienate the villains from this process of identification we forget that love and hatred both can be, and often are, irrational. Alexander becomes a champion of Hellenic and Western civilization whereas Changez Khan is portrayed as a blood thirsty marauder in the dominant narratives of history which condition our minds from a tender age."

Agenda hunting is prohibited

Many people read history in reverse. They don't read history to arrive at conclusions. Rather, they arrive at conclusions and pick up selective references from history to strengthen their arguments. These are people with vested interests. They use history as a crutch to further their political/ ideological agenda. They don't care about the history or the accuracy of facts. These narratives, through various modes of dissemination, creep into popular discourse and distort our belief systems. It is difficult to appreciate historical evidence contrary to commonly held beliefs. This is the reason why, in today's day and age, when accurate historical accounts are just a few clicks away, some utterly fictitious stories enjoy the stature of gospel truths.

In 2008, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that blamed the Stalinist regime of Russia for the hardships of the people during an artificially created famine in Ukraine (in 1930s) called Holodomor. In response to the resolution, the Russian embassy shot a long letter explaining why the resolution was wrong. Clearly, there were two agendas at work. Some Ukrainians, trying to create a new national identity post the break-up of the Soviet Union, wanted to show Stalin as an 'oppressor'. The Russians, on the other hand, desired to project Stalin as the man who saved the country and kept it together. Politics of different countries interpreted the famine as per their political convenience. The Russian president Medvedev, in November 2008, refused to attend an event commemorating the Holodomor in Kiev creating a further rift in the diplomatic relations of the two countries. (Source: Politics of the Past; edited by Hannes Swoboda and Jan Marinus Wiersma.)

Evolution cannot be discounted

Human beliefs and ways of life have evolved continuously since the time we have come into existence. Therefore, evaluating the acts of people several centuries back with the sensibilities of a more evolved, liberal, and democratic twenty-first-century outlook is egregiously wrong. The excessive use of power, multiple marital relationships to force loyalties and gory public punishments were the ways of the monarchs to cling on to power even a few decades back. Also, in a less mobile world, fear was often used as a tool for exercising control.

In 2017, a columnist of The Guardian, Afua Hirsch, argued that the statue of Admiral Horatio Nelson, Britain's greatest seafaring hero, at Trafalgar Square be toppled since he opposed the abolition of slavery. In his response, British historian Andrew Roberts said, "If in our smug, virtue-signaling world we topple Nelson, what do we do about the pyramids, the Parthenon and Rome’s Forum, all of which were built at least in part by slave labour?... Should Winston Churchill be knocked off his plinth in Parliament Square because he was a racist, at a time when almost everybody else – on the left as well as the right – also was? I believe not – and I couldn’t care less what my descendants might one day make of it".

He, however, added that we should not stop judging the morality of historical characters at all since we risk letting off the likes of Hitler in the "welter of moral relativism".

Factor-in human psychology

History is also a study in human behaviour and humans, are complex beings. Our mind, adept at reading stories with lucid characterisation, fails to appreciate complicated (human) temperament. It is difficult to accept kind acts of a cruel despot or sparks of wisdom of a proclaimed buffoon. History is like a voluminous saga where humans behave like humans - flawed and temperamental. The monarchs in history were more powerful than any person we would have seen in our lifetimes. They had absolute, unbridled power without any checks and balances. There was often little incentive for restraint. I am not attempting to legitimise the evils acts but am appealing for a more pragmatic analysis of historical characters.

William Dalrymple, in an article dealing with Tipu Sultan, in Open Magazine, had written that "The reality is that the pre-modern rulers of India tend to be more layered and complex figures than the one-dimensional gallery of angels or devils we sometimes reduce them to. Moreover, they usually tend to behave in a far less straightforwardly sectarian manner than we might imagine."

Not a friend-in-need

How often have we leafed through history books trying to validate our biases or to prove someone wrong? How often have we ended up being proved wrong ourselves? History is just and unjust at the same time. it often proves you wrong to give you a broader perspective. History is like a lover. You have to accept it for what it is and not what you want it to be. It is too vast a study to conform to a narrow bias. In the words of Albert Einstein, "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be". It is alright to read conflicting accounts and not conclude. Conclusion can be limiting

A puzzle with important pieces missing

History, in most parts, is a set of interpretations and inferences. It attempts to fill-in information voids with reasoned assumptions. The saying, history is written by victors, aptly describes this incomplete and often one-sided, chronicling. Biographies indulge in dishonesty and fabrication when dealing with frailties of the monarch. History also draws in from religious scriptures, accounts of foreign travelers, and popular literature. The king was the chief patron of religious activities and hence religious texts were usually 'charitable' in their description of the ruling class. Foreign travelers, in their accounts, ignored political commentary for fear of their safety. Plays and other forms of literature were heavily censored so as not to attract the wrath of the aristocracy. Seasoned historians look out for veiled clues and subtle hints to read the negative. History gives you a broad, and not a precise, idea of things.

Evan Andrews, in an article published on History.com, writes the following about the great Greek thinker Pythagoras,"...there are no significant contemporary accounts of his life. All references to the great thinker—and perhaps also his famed ideas and formulas—came from his followers, who called themselves Pythagoreans. What stories we do have of Pythagoras are deeply intertwined with myth and the supernatural. One tale describes him as possessing a golden thigh; another declares he was the son of the god Apollo. For some, these lies and contradictions hint that Pythagoras was simply an exaggerated or even fictional leader concocted by the members of a religious sect. Even if Pythagoras did exist, he probably wasn’t the first to discover his famous theorem—evidence shows the Egyptians may have devised the formula much earlier."

Be detached and read the unwritten

It is not a bad idea to withdraw oneself from the plot and read every word with skepticism; like a judge presiding over a case. Read the plot behind every word penned and the tacitness underlying each expression. Clarion calls given for great religious strifes were often attempts at uniting warring sects. Wars fought over honour were usually triggered by empty treasuries. Acts of betrayal were portrayed as deeds of justice. Treason was camouflaged as an expression of the will of the people. Ambitions were draped in nobility. Kings proclaimed divinity to legitimise power. The ways of the royalty inspired awe, awe fanned rumours and rumours, over generations, became the truth. Being detached helps you get a perspective.

Propoganda, myth and truth

Despite no historical veracity, carefully crafted propaganda, is, at times, accepted as the truth. Till today, many believe that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Trains were key to travel and commerce of pre-World War II Italy. Any reformative action taken in this regard would have enhanced Musolini's image as a statesman (and not that of a dictator). Mussolini, himself a former journalist, understood mass media and propaganda. Loads of fascist propaganda was used to establish Mussolini as a charismatic strongman. As a result, despite the myth being debunked several times (and with evidence) over the years, it still persists. Neo-fascists, from time to time, use it as an example of fascist efficiency.

The story of a six year old George Washington, confessing honestly to his father about cutting a cherry tree, is yet another example of fabricated historical truth. It has been established that George Washington's biographer, Mason Locke Weems, invented this story to highlight the virtues of his subject. Yet, till date, many celebrate this concoction.

Look beyond the kings

Political history has clouded our understanding of history. History is as much about the society, commerce, lifestyle, architecture, and administration of an era as much it is about the kings and the numerous battles they fought. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how a common man dressed or what he ate or how he spoke, a few centuries back? Would you not want to know why a particular religion or a social practice gained prominence? Wouldn't it tickle you with excitement to know the opinion of foreign travelers about our culture or the reason why Europeans sponsored costly expeditions in search of pepper?

In conclusion, studying history is not a cinematic experience. We shouldn't try to fit history into a storyline. It's not about heroes clashing with villains. It does not have a definite beginning or a predictable climax. It's more like a painting, where you start with the outlines and keep filling in with various shades of colours. It comes to life with every brush stroke.