John
This is a response to your post titled “What makes a good historian?”
Apropos, first, I am adamant to come to this section of the Forum while responding to your post even when we have exchanged PM on the issue that where your write up should be located. I may sound adamant but I am interested in discussing something else than mere JFK. I understand the core of your activity but you have simultaneously trudged on a path which, I have reason to believe, that every person with a scientific bent of mind when delves into to huge mounts of historic sources always faces a dilemma, that is, if he has to remain scientific and continue with the faith and believe that history is also a mental exercise worthy of any human endevaour and a course worthy of human life then how a historic bent of mind should work.
Well, it is right that historian is like a detective. He is a detective who never believes his own findings as final and keeps on evaluating what actually he has found. May be it is so, because, in case of a historian, his subject matter is a human being as that human being has lived over time and place. The scientists of physical sciences still believe like Greek philosophers that if the fact is not fixed and universal than you can not have scientific study of such a fact. You may have only opinions but not the actual fact. You may not like to read the works of Carr, (I myself have not read that small book by E. H. Carr, What is History with spiral on its title as the first pages begun where in he discussed that how he went about writing of history. Such a beginning never attracts me. My understanding of philosophy of history is built around the book by B. Sheik Ali, an Indian writer and Idea of History by Collingwood and a third book by some American writer whose name I have forgotten. The book of Carr is lying somewhere in the stacks of books which I do not look at for a long time and it continues to remain there untouched because a big layer of dust has settled on it and I am allergic to dust.) but I borrow his observation that there is always a need to establish a dialogue between present and past. But how that dialogue can be undertaken? How to lay the bait? How to learn about the site where you can have the right kind of fish? Is not the Ideology that right kind of angler and the bait both combined in one? Whenever I think on such questions, I always stop at passing a judgement that if there is no ideology, then there can be never be any study in history.
“Ideology”, Yes this is the word to which I was exposed to, in a very dramatic manner. How Ideology plays its role, became more clear to me after that, by some incidences when the issue of contents of the history in the textbooks of history at Secondary level Schools in India was taken up. It started during the reign of the BJP rule at the Center in India. They started with the demand for the need of re-writing the history of India. I was very happy. There was need to re-write the history of India because, to borrow Romila Thapar verdict, the Indian historians have never studied the history of their country scientifically and they have only reacted to what others have said about India. I remember that I had felt a peculiar agitation in me when I read that once Lord Curzon spoke during a convocation in Calcutta University that “My dear friends, believe me, that India as a nation…” Then, there came the demand that there should by Saraswati Vandana at Schools. What was that? I did not know. Then an accusation followed that the Marxist scholars dominated the Indian history scenario and some changes were made at University level, in NCERT and CBSE.
It was soon followed by the demand of re-framing the chapters of Indian History. The ruling party at that argued that the Indian history had never been presented as per the Indian view point and independent India was still following what J. S. Mills had decided for them. Very Right and I admired their judgement. Then came the thud, a thud quite loud at that but devoid of any stuff. They said that there was no Harappa Culture to begin with. May the Archeologist be damned! Then what should be the first chapter of Indian history? It should be Saraswati Civilization? Hay, What was that? They explained that the Aryans lived here since the beginning and it was from here that they had gone out to other countries. (Imagine How Bismarck and Hitler would have reacted to that version.) Very fine, What is the proof? They came up with a very scientific proof! They had exploded the next nuclear bomb at Pokran (Pokhran II). They were undertaking a search that how far the nuclear radiation had polluted the ground water. While exploring the ground water, they had dug out the earth from below and the sediments resembled those which had been discovered near Pehowa and along the course of River Saraswati. (There is not geographical proofs of River Saraswati. It is a mythological River till this day.) It was what they claimed. That showed that the Aryan civilization was flourishing in that region. Well, Does such arguments make sense? I do not know what was the reaction of Shereen Ratnagar, an archeologist of Protohistory of India and ancient Mesopotamia.
Then it was followed by other controversies. The government of the time tried to place the portrait of V. D. Savarkar in the Parliament House. How far did I know about Savarkar? I knew that they were revolutionaries. Savarkar brothers had organised associations of Indian youth. Savarkar Senior had written a book in 1902 titled The First War of Independence – 1857 (something like that). They had undertaken some activities in Indian House in London. They were also associated with K S Verma who had promoted such revolutionary Indian youths in London. For me, he was a revolutionary. But I never knew that at any time, he had sought pardon from the British government. I never knew that he died an unknown death in an independent India. It surprised me that other parties, Congress as well Marxists, were totally against projecting Savarkar as a freedom fighter. May be, as a student of history, I have grown to a level, where I do not now belong to any nation. Or I do not have any fixed ideology.
Apart from that, the next controversy was that Nathuram Godse was not an ideologue. He was a simple man and a pure nationalist. I stop here and do not dilate further. I know that you have written a book on Gandhi and American press had declared that Indian Nationalists still eulogize the assassin who killed the father of the nation when such attempts were being made. I also remember that Americans were moving nearer to Atal Bihari government before 9/11.
Now I come to my first exposure to the Ideology controversy.
I was attending a refresher course at Punjab University Chandigarh. Those were the days, when I had studied Guru Nanak in History by J. S. Garewal and was highly satisfied with the addition to my knowledge at that time. I was also satisfied because, the reading of that book had assured me about my own thought about the syllabus of History of Punjab which was being taught at undergraduate level. I have never enjoyed teaching that course. It is to me mainly biographies of Sikh Gurus and in no way can be termed as History of Punjab. I do not know how History of Punjab is taught in Pakistan. What would be the course structure and contents of History of Punjab in Pakistan?
Once I met J. S. Garewal. He is an established historian. He had written for Oxford University Press. He has also written for Encyclopedia Britannica. I asked him a question about the structure of subject matter of New Cambridge History. I asked him that I have read Kenith Jones and John F. Richards. They claim to be writing history of South Asia but all the titles are about India. Why do they not call it the history of India and insist on calling it as a history of South Asia. He gave an answer. I persisted with some more queries. He does not give much time but with a smiling face he gave an answer which I hold back for now.
I had listen about the strong disliking among the University professors against each other. I had never witnessed that. I also did not know about the groupism of Punjab University. We had a lecture on Punjab history by G. S. Dhillon. I have read his name and also read some of his articles. For me, any person from University and who has written some article or research paper, is worthy of admiration. In that group there were some scholars from Punjabi University Patiala who had better knowledge. they also knew about some conflict among different scholars writing on Punjab history especially on Sikh Gurus.
The episode started when one gentleman scholar from Punjabi University raised the question that Garewal version of Sikhs gurus are more balanced than that of other scholars. I never knew that it was some kind of a trigger. There went off that explosion. Outburst of Dr. Dhillon was such that no narration of incidence could make that day alive again. But, the scholar had a class. He ended his session on one note that without ideology there can never be any history. If a historian does not have ideology, he could never analyze the source material.
I was not able to understand what he had said. But, on last lines as mentioned above remained with me. I started troubling my mind again and again. It has raised so many issues in my mind.
Before continuing with it, I will like that I should to also come up with my understanding of history.
I understand that there are no laws in History. The day, the history would start enunciating laws, then it will transformed into a new subject and may not remain what it is today. Secondly, Be clear, that you should not have any value judgement about your subject of reading. Remain Impartial. Do not put your topic in the category of right and wrong. Just see that how the change and continuity had taken place and what was the response of human beings.
Now, for nearly four to five years, whenever I read history, or try to ask any question about history, I read history with a theme which can be put in following words.
The three main Engines or gears are Power, Wealth and Knowledge. If these three words are put in different manner, then It can be also be said that this trinity is Power, Money and Technology. These three measures have increased value of reading of history for me. Now whenever I read, I question, how power, money and knowledge had played its role at a given time on a given place.
But, the issues which have come up is, that what should be analytical tools of a historian. How can he identify a fact? Should he use statistical methods more? What is that faculty which identifies that some thing is fact of history? How far the value and cultural background can possibly be kept out of history bent of mind? What is history trying to give to the society? Is it not mere a slave to political bosses?
There are so many questions and the answer is not coming out. Every time, the assessment moves to the conclusion that “Ideology” is required to make a study of history meaningful for TODAY.
The turmoil has not reached any conclusion. I have just laid out bare what goes on in my mind. I have not written any research paper. But I claim that I am sincere reader. I am convinced that history is a subject with a stuff. I have grown up to a level where I now just say that History is a philosophy taught be examples. I believe that Chinese has recorded history as their religious activity because that have learnt that this is the only scientific manner to learn about the real goal of human beings.
I just stop here abruptly because I just wanted to share it. I have no one around me with whom I can undertake such talks. I have found forum a place where I can undertake such talks on the issue of philosophy of history. That is other thing, your list of definitions of History under topic Philosophy of history Quotations had just left me more confused and amused. But here I am before you, with a sincere and serious discussion and wait for your comment and views.