The Historian and His Facts (response paper)

“The history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgements.” – Professor Barraclough.

Naively reading that reference, that might sound blasphemous. Everything I’ve ever learned in history lessons is a factual account of what has happened in the past. In reality, every bit of history has been filtered down and interpreted by a human being. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the historian decides which facts can be considered worth preserving. Coming into play here, unquestionably are the historian’s prejudices, limitations and his vulnerability to outside influences. This element of interpretation is what makes it impossible for history to exist objectively and true to the events that did actually happen in the past. In fact, this subjectivity exists in anything that involves humans – right from a piece of gossip to a witness account of a crime or to even identifying a colour.

And if history is as objective as it should be, and as objective as some 19^th century historians believe it to be, then why are historians repeatedly editing and revising history books? Less controversial reasons are a huge reserve of sources available and newer evidences being found. Nanki already discussed BJP’s process of saffronising text books as being a major reason to edit history books. Changing authorities and decision makers, newer and more relevant scholars call for a revision of priorities of the ‘facts’ in text books.

By accepting the role the historian plays in the passing down of history, one could label the historian – at the cost of sounding trivial, and possibly illogical – a history designer, and hence creating ‘brands’ of history.

E.H. Carr wrote in the article: One of the fascinations of ancient and mediaeval history is that it gives us the illusion of having all our facts at our disposal – illusion being the key word here. History tends to romanticize facts. One of the reasons why people even still remain interested in studying history (as discussed in class) is because of the colourful narratives and the grass always seems to be greener in the past, that you believe to be the truth.

A history book is similar to a newspaper. Both document past events, though at different time frames, by sensationalizing the story. For sake of an example: a history book reads - ‘Shah Jehan was deposed and imprisoned. Aurangzeb's treatment of his father betrays a deep-rooted complex.’ You read that and believe it to be true. You believe that Aurangzeb was a heartless man. A recent newspaper article, read something like this – ‘Bajaj rebuffed his father’s emotional outburst...etc.’ This however you might take awhile to believe – because it has happened in your lifetime, so you might be familiar with its context, also you know newspapers usually sensationalize stories, and ‘rebuffed’ and ‘emotional outburst’ might sound too strong in context. If for instance, this article was published to be a part of history 100 years from now, those reading it would think it to be wholly true, mostly acceptance and because they don’t know any better. An account being in a history book automatically lends it some sort of validation. Carr says that it never occurred even to him to enquire how certain facts had survived to become historical facts. Often enough, people don’t question the content of what they’re reading. That is the problem.