The Historian and His Facts

“History is written by the winners”

All history is documented. In my opinion, it ends up being biased, even if the historian doesn’t intend it to be. History is supposed to be a construct of ‘ascertained facts’, but the historian’s representation of these facts makes a huge difference. History ends up (deliberately or indeliberately) taking form as a narrative or story, as the historian puts together the facts/events. The reader’s interpretation depends on the construction of this narrative. But history essentially helps the reader to understand the present, as the past events have led up to the present.

Also, the historian chooses what to include and what to leave out. This creates major gaps, as what might be unimportant in the time a particular history was written, might just be important a few years or decades later.

Historians have to keep in mind the kind of society they are writing the history in. A historian belongs to the present. Some facts might be left out or presented differently as they might be taboo or unacceptable to the society the historian belongs to. Some events/occurrences might be exaggerated to stay in the ruling class or government’s favour. But at the same time, a historian must have an understanding of the people he writes about, which helps him perceive their actions or decisions. But this doesn’t mean they justify or berate the same.

Language and connotations also change with time. So do ideologies. Use of archaic or ancient words doesn’t help, as the historian writes for the present reader. Texts that were written in the middle ages, were written mainly by people who were devout, hence it tends to portray everyone being religious and god-fearing. The Neanderthals have been stereotyped as savages. In Indian textbook history for schools, Jinnah has been ostracized, and shown as a major cause for the partition, whereas Nehru and Gandhi have been glorified. Vice-versa in Pakistan. But as time has passed, and texts are being allowed to be more liberal, known histories are being written again. Even still, some authors end up being condemned. A very recent example being that of Jaswant Singh being crucified for criticizing Nehru and supporting Jinnah, in his book.

Objectivity seems almost impossible, as a historian basically writes a story, in the process, makes history. Hayden White in his book, Metahistory, writes about the types of narrative forms historians employ. He deconstructs histories into prose structures. Like a storyteller, a historian picks facts from the available data. He decides what is important and what is not. He includes or leaves out events that he thinks necessary or relevant and puts it all in an order he decides best. Like all writers, he intends the piece to interest the reader, and form an opinion, or interpret it favourably.

A completely objective history would be too comprehensive, and quite bland and uninteresting too. As referred by E.H Carr from a passage by Sir George Clark, “There is no ‘Objective’ historical truth.”

Hari