New Delhi: The Sir Jadunath Sarkar Fellowship for Indian History is Chandrachur Ghose’s first. His research proposal was earlier rejected by the Nehru Memorial Library. He’s a prolific writer, though not a trained historian—charged with uncovering “deliberately suppressed” truths about Subhas Chandra Bose, who, decades after his death, is more alive than ever.
And now, under the newly set up Foundation of Indian Historical and Cultural Research and armed with a Rs 15 lakh grant, he’s working on a history of Bengal—from Ram Mohan Roy to Mamata Banerjee. The foundation is the brainchild of the Bengaluru-based historian and Savarkar biographer Vikram Sampath.
“There’s an entitled, insular group who once controlled how we thought of history. Those gates need to be opened,” Sampath told ThePrint. The title of the fellowship is itself important signalling—named after historian Jadunath Sarkar, who was marginalised by India’s mainstream academia in the post-Independence years. The foundation seeks to reflect the prevalent Indic emphasis in Indian scholarship and undo the Eurocentric gaze that has dominated knowledge production.
Chandrachur Ghose is a trained environmentalist—who worked in the field for nearly two decades before switching to writing full-time.
“No prominent publisher would touch my first book,” said Ghose, referring to Conundrum: Subhas Bose’s Life After Death, which was finally published by the relatively obscure Vitastha, whose other books include Narendra Modi: A Game Changer and Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi: An Inside Job?
It sold widely. His next three books were published by Penguin Random House— Bose (2022), 1947-1957, India: the Birth of a Republic (2023) and The Bose Deception (2024), co-authored with Anuj Dhar.
“The goal is to bring out the whole picture. I’ve seen histories of Bengal that are focused only on certain periods and certain personalities,” he said. “Bengal is not a homogeneous identity. There are subcultures. What changes have taken place? How have all these threads interacted?”
This—the multiplicity of historical narratives, the fluidity of interpretation—is the driving force behind the new research hub, Foundation of Indian Historical and Cultural Research (FIHCR). There are currently eight fellows participating in the year-long programme. There’s also YUVA—an initiative to propel history out of the classroom and into the imaginations of young people. Sealing them together is an ambitious project on Buddhist Studies, in collaboration with Nalanda University, which utilises Pali and Prakritik scholars.
Historiography is dynamic. And Sampath is on a mission to let the air in.
“A famous historian said that every work of history is an interim report. There’s a constant dialogue between historians and sources,” said Sampath.
While the researchers don’t have supervisors, they receive feedback from a panel of “experts”, and are expected to fulfil certain milestones. In September 2025, which is when the year-long fellowship ends, they’ll be the proud owners of unpublished manuscripts. They’ll also receive mentorship on how to get their books published—be it by trade publishers or by academic publishers.
FIHCR received 200 applications, conducted 50 interviews, and zeroed in on eight fellows. In terms of themes, there are no limits. Sampath’s only condition, in this age of frenzied history wars, is that the work produced has contemporary relevance.
“They’re breaking the glass ceiling. There’s an appraisal of what they’re doing. These are manuscripts worthy of being published,” said Sampath.
The trouble with translation
One of the problems with history writing, according to Sampath, is that our analyses stem from translations—not the original source. It’s a wrong he’s seeking to correct.
“We rely on decoding our past through translations which may be faulty or malicious,” he said.
And so, he’s going right to the source. He’s inducted two Sanskrit pandits and two Buddhist monks—who are proficient in Pali and Prakrit—to piece together seminal Buddhist texts, including the Divyavadana. In all probability, this will culminate in a four-book series on Buddhism in India.
Buddha is far from immune to contemporary debates. Most recently, confusion over his birthplace sparked a political battle in Nepal.
The subject of trained historian Shaan Kashyap’s research, another fellowship recipient, carries even more fodder. Kashyap, a PhD scholar at Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, is working on history textbook controversies, from the 1870s to the present times.
“Indians and many others around the globe, find themselves at war over their history. The detractors condemn historians for distortion and misinterpretation of evidence. The historians defend their histories as “secular” and “scientific”,” said Kashyap, who completed his MA and MPhil from JNU. “Between these two extremes, history has become everyone’s fool.”
The foundation of Kashyap’s work lies in his MPhil dissertation. According to him, modern scholarship on textbook debates began only in 1977—when the work of eminent historians Romila Thapar and RS Sharma was censored. In May 1977, the personal secretary of then freshly elected Prime Minister Morarji Desai sent a letter to the Education Minister, referring to “controversial and biased” material in four history textbooks, that would lead “to a prejudiced view of Indian history.” The fracas was over five books — and medieval Indian history became a bone of contention. Thapar textbook, aimed at middle school students, was criticised for “its lack of anti-muslim and pro-Hind enthusiasm.
Both Ghose and Kashyap write frequently for outlets such as Swarajya and the RSS mouthpiece Organiser. Kashyap’s most recent piece for Organiser was on Bibek Debroy. It referred to him as “An Invincible Indologist.”
“It’s good to write certain things, to take your work to the people at large. To give historical insights on contemporary controversies,” said Kashyap.
Also read: Irish who served British in India were rejected at home. An exhibition looks at their history
Championing local history
Sampath’s modus operandi is to wrest history from so-called echo chambers and release it to the masses. It’s no wonder then, that one of FIHCR’s projects is imbuing history classrooms with some good old-fashioned popular appeal.
A survey conducted by FIHCR, which interviewed teachers and students from 50-60 schools across India, found that there was too much focus on the mundane, “on boring details”.
“They said they’d like to read local history — from their villages or their towns. They don’t relate to things like the Delhi Sultanate,” said Sampath. “We’re following a bottom-down approach. History’s too deeply important to be relegated to the whims of officials and politicians.”
This includes changing the form of consumption. More videos, more animations, more Instagram lives. Archaeologists are going to record themselves doing fieldwork, digging up artefacts in places like Hampi and Nalanda. While Sampath can’t change school curriculums, he can definitely provide auxiliary material.
FICHR has received backing from the Ola Foundation, helmed by Bhavish Aggarwal, a vocal proponent of Indic history, culture, and lifestyle.
“The idea found resonance with several people, including Aggarwal. He’s passionate about everything India and Indian,” he said. The funds also allowed him to hire a small team of eight people, including a communications head.
FIHCR is thinking ahead—and despite Aggarwal’s LLM, Krutrim, being at a nascent stage—they’re working out ways to integrate AI into their research work. Abroad, said Sampath, these initiatives already exist. If part of a manuscript is lost, they use LLMs to generate the missing text.
After all, according to Kashyap, and a slew of popular historians who are growing in influence and momentum—“history writing cannot be left to trained historians alone.”
And as for rigour, that apparently goes without saying.
“My book on Tipu Sultan is 950 pages. 150-175 pages contain footnotes and citations,” said Sampath. “The proof is in the pudding. India has changed.”
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Excellent news!
Sir Jadunath Sarkar and R.C. Majumdar are my favourite historians. The breadth and depth of their scholarship is unmatched and the presentation is lucid and engaging.
The likes of Romila Thapar and RS Sharma cannot hold a candle to them. The primary reason being their commitment to their political ideology. Their history is an ideologically coloured history – it reflects their politics more than actual history.
But Prof. Sarkar and Majumdar were historians first and last. They never dabbled in politics and never had any ideological commitment.