A History Lesson for Chetan Bhagat and The BJP

We’re all trying to conclusively prove historical ‘fact,’ when in truth, there is no such one version of events.

Dear Chetan Bhagat and BJP, you need a history lesson. (Photo: iStockphoto)

A few weeks ago, Chetan Bhagat took to social media to ask a vastly profound question – what do historians do? Naturally, Twitter gleefully took upon itself the responsibility of trolling him for his gormless attempt at witticism. Even more recently, the BJP has been magnanimous enough to leave in the capable hands of an ‘expert panel’ the authority to decide whether Tipu Sultan was a tyrant or a hero. Somewhere along the way, Aurangzeb Road was rechristened, frustrating the masses who use the road and will, by sheer force of habit, continue to refer to it by its old name. All things considered, history is in the news.

The discourse of debate on intolerance is a familiar one. Amidst pompous grandstanding and appeals to the authority of ‘elders’ and ‘betters’ is the real showstopper – turning to one’s history and cultural heritage. That effectively shuts everyone up; who’s to argue against established fact?

Except, history is NOT established fact. In light of this possibly provocative statement, let us try and answer Chetan Bhagat’s question. Chetan Bhagat, our heartfelt apologies. Your incredibly lousy attempt at humour backfired, and you’ve ended up asking a question that is actually relevant to our times.

That’s a tall claim to make, Chetan Bhagat! Is India ‘awesome’ yet? (Photo Courtesy: Chetanbhagat.com)

Dear Chetan Bhagat, a historian is a social scientist. A historian constructs a PERSPECTIVE of the past, based on archival resources. He or she recreates an idea of the past, based on sources he or she has had access to. These may be scholarly works, documents, old books, monuments and other physical relics from the period of interest to the scholar. At the risk of being slightly reductive, Mr Bhagat, a historian writes a narrative subject to his or her inferences from the sources they have chosen to study. History, Mr Bhagat, is subjective. They do not say with your arrogant dismissiveness that ‘this happened and then this.’ To establish ‘this’ with any degree of conclusiveness requires research and dare I say, humility.

Let us now direct our attention to the BJP’s quandary. You want history to determine whether a man was a tyrant or a hero? I’m no historian, but I’m positive I can answer this one. Depending on who wrote your history books, he was almost certainly both. Think of history as sponsored content. If Tipu Sultan or one of his courtiers commissioned the writing of an account of his rule, he would most certainly be depicted as a hero. Remember, this writing was incentivised. In addition to the ones that were paid off, there would be historians who honestly believed that Tipu was a capable ruler. On the other hand, the man was a monarch and it follows that he was responsible for the subjugation of those under him. He was, therefore, also a tyrant.

If you will indulge me, BJP, I have one last admonishment. You want an expert panel to judge whether a man was good or evil. It isn’t so simple; people and the yardsticks for judgement have never been either black or white. In fact, as EL James will have you know, there may be as many as 50 shades of grey. Also, surely it is folly to use a 21st century notion of ethics to morally judge a man who lived three centuries ago under circumstances entirely different from our own? That’s almost as ridiculous as judging Tipu for not knowing how to use a computer.

Pictured here: Tipu without the computer he never learned to use. (Photo Courtesy: The News Minute)

At the end of the day, one chooses to endorse a particular version of history. What one chooses to believe is both a personal and political choice. When the party in power does it, it becomes the ruling ideology. It is however, NOT the only existing narrative of an event in the past and that is what we must take cognizance of, lest we start any more debates with an alarming lack of insight.