I view myself as standing in the middle of a maelstrom that has recently arisen, triggered by some remarks by a friend, the immensely popular William Dalrymple, on the subject of history writing; more precisely on the conflict between academic writing and popular writing. I have some experience in academia, having spent some years doing research in university departments, but I have written for a non-specialist readership, and so have some insight into the popular side of things. I can see that in this conflict it is history that loses.
This is not the place to go into the larger question of what the role of the academic historian is, but it might be useful to put down a few things that historians do or do not do, contrary to popular impressions. For one, the aim of the historian (or even of the collective body of historians) is not to collect every possible piece of information about the past. While focussing their individual research on particular places, times and events, historians seek to understand the processes through which change has taken place in human societies. Which periods or places they choose to focus on, and which questions they seek to answer, are matters that are influenced by each historian’s own time and place, personal inclinations, and particularly current trends and movements in history writing.
It is through such research—in which conversations between historians also play an important part—that our general understanding of the past advances. Historians understand that they cannot provide every answer, they can only hope to keep asking newer questions. Among the general public, however, there is a tendency to project every apparent gap in information as either a sign of incompetence, or worse, a conspiracy of silence. And when historians have very natural differences of opinion, this is seen as evidence of a deplorable and rampant subjectivity.
Also read: Romila Thapar takes on camps of history, heroin addicts and storytellers
Rise of WhatsApp historians
The other common point on which academic historians are attacked is that they write in an inaccessible style. Sometimes this is seen as an extension of the previous argument, i.e. a desire to deliberately obscure the truth. This complaint is not entirely fair, for a few reasons. For one, academic writing, such as in peer-reviewed journals, is meant primarily for an academic audience. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to historians. Academics in other disciplines too have conversations with each other in this way, where their main aim is to make themselves understood to their peers. Their primary goal is not to address the general public. Having said that, there are several historians who do undertake the task of addressing a general audience. In particular, we have historians who write popular textbooks and other books for a non-academic readership; then they usually write in a style that may educate and also entertain.
Why then has it become fashionable to generally deride and malign the historian? The answer according to me lies largely outside academia. It lies in the increasing use of history to serve ends other than a general advancement of our knowledge about the past. History is now supposed to make us feel good about our sectarian/regional/linguistic and other identities, and invariably that also comes with putting down others. These are aims that are often in conflict with actual history writing, since a dispassionate examination of the past usually presents a much more complex picture. And this explains the rise of pseudo-history, of which the WhatsApp brand is the most visible.
This form of history, written to serve very particular ends that may not be justified by actual historical research, then has to project itself as a truth which has been deliberately hidden by historians. It is no coincidence that many such social media posts are prefaced with—“historians will never tell you this”. I argue that the inaccessible, ideologically motivated historian is a straw man, a largely artificial construct used to discredit history writing itself.
Also read: Was there a Mughal bias in Indian history textbooks? Yes, but not a Muslim one
Need for mutual respect
This brings me to the very important question of popular history writing. The best form this writing takes is the book on a historical subject, based on academic historical research, but written for a non-specialist readership. This does not always have to be written by a historian. A non-specialist writer may access the subject by reading the research of historians, and occasionally consulting primary sources. What such an author primarily brings to the table is the ability to tell an engaging story that is at the same time based on solid research.
What we today need is greater mutual respect. The academic historian needs to engage more with the writer of popular history. One can begin by acknowledging that newer explorations can come from any quarter. At any rate, a critical evaluation of arguments and narratives, which often enjoy considerable popular currency through such writings, is definitely called for. Academic historians reviewing popular history writing is a good way towards such a dialogue.
Conversely, writers of popular histories need to acknowledge the value of historical research within academia, even if not always written in an engaging style. The desire to present one’s own work as a corrective to ‘boring academic writing’ or as a field ignored by academic historians is understandable. At the same time, one should resist the temptation to play the blame game and resort to bad-faith arguments, which undermine rigorous history writing by endorsing the popular WhatsApp trope—“historians will never tell you this”.
Swapna Liddle is a historian and author based out of New Delhi. Views are personal.
This article is part of ThePrint opinion series on Indian history in the Whatsapp age. Read all articles here.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Ruchika Sharma, a historian regularly criticized Hindus on her podcast. She then criticised hijab and was trolled and given Sar Tan se juda slogans. No liberal came to her aid, criticising her atheism instead. They said she should be gentle with Muslims in the ‘context’ of the country. She finally declared she will only criticise Hindus.
If in this entire episode, people dont balk at the overall hypocrisy of the historian and the liberals and everyone else, I dont think Swapna will understand why people deride historians. This is not fashion.
While the author pretends to be neutral, she overlooks the Leftist and Liberal agendas to whitewash history.
It is strange to see her arguing for historical selectivity of facts. Bu perhaps not strange, as EH Carr, the progenitor of this view was a famous British Marxist himself.
Swapna Liddle is distorting the facts as befits most of her ilk.
The marxist historians , who have whitewashed the islamic invasion of bharta, are derided because of their despicable work. and rightly so. This author is no exception. No apology , no sorry and no mea culpa for writing politically correct stories as histroy..but the sense of entitlement for pointing out their errors. Yoiu will be called out for idiocy just like others. Cope with it
The ideologically motivated historian is not a straw man. The historians get paid through cushy positions in academia and through fellowships, honors or prizes. These are only given to those who go with the program. You cannot succeed without being a leftist here. As a student of history in University of Mumbai I can attest to this. There is zero scope for anything outside the left wing condemnation of Hindus. Promote Islam, communism, division, anything but a good past.
Ms. Swapna Liddle, why did you not back up Prof. Ruchika Sharma in her battle against the regressive practice of hijab? She has been getting “sar tan se juda” threats for speaking out against the imposition of hijab in X. Yet, none of the “liberal” academic activists have come out and defended her.
Your hypocrisy speaks for itself.
A very balanced article that calls for understanding the importance of rigor and maintaining ojectivity. Good message to build bridges between academic research and popular history is a step forward in countering the curse of so much fake history floating about on Whatapp and social media. Much work needs to be done in this direction.
I would like to see historians discuss stories of how Marxists suppressed development, made everyone poor and either crashed aka Russia or ran to capitalism aka China and did Taqiyya about it. They wont write about that. They wont write about how arrogant knowledgeless lawyers claiming to know the good of people better than them, destroyed Indian economy and instead of apologising used it to tease and bully Indians calling it Hindu rate of growth. As if Hinduism was to blame for their bad decisions. It should be called Marxist rate of growth in suppressed colonies. Hindu rate of growth gets you medieval India. A rich place looted by invaders and then called poor and nasty by these dregs.
How do you not talk about Marxists and their stranglehold on India’s history writing? how can you skip that? People love stories, whether of movie kind or from our collective pasts. What we all absolutely hate is propaganda. And such historians should find no respect as historians. Irrespective of which side they come from.
It’s interesting that the writer completely bypasses the issue of Marxist based historians and their convenient interpretation of history to suit their ideology. Marxists and the colonial “historians” are 2 sides of the same coin! Both manipulated history all across the world to suit their ideologies. I am not sure whether the writer here is a Marxist but the fact that she ignored this aspect makes me believe she is one
Its not fashionable. Its simple. Historians work with really small quantities of raw data in India. Unlike China written traditions are not rife. So it is up to the historians to interpolate to bridge gaps. They do so as interpreting the data and always with their own biases. Historians also tend to discount arbritrarily the credibility of sources. The British did this to suppress the colonized. The communists to make past appear all bad to show Marxism as the required savior. Its either native past bad per British or dont feel good about your past per communists. Current academic historians inherit both these traditions and add elitism to the mix. No wonder they need to beg to be believed. Romila Thapar deigned to interpret and evaluate Indian texts without knowing Sanskrit. Academic hypocrisy and entitled elitist behavior is endless. It is only rivalled by political dynasts in this country who expect power, their sponsors. If any independent research is done not blessed by the fossils, it is Whatsapp. Ancient India had evolved plastic surgery per Charaka. Noses were replaced here more than elsewhere. Connect that to Ganesha call it whatsapp discount reality. Historians need to find a living outside their current globalist master’s sponsorship. Stop depending on prizes that beholden you. If you have guts write true stories. They will be believed and sold to give you an income.