How History Is Written, and Gets Distorted, A Conversation with India’s Past
It is a profound and troubling paradox that Indians are, in many ways, obsessed with history and historical questions, and yet remain largely oblivious to how that history is actually written. There is a widespread lack of awareness about something called the historical method—the rigorous procedures of enquiry that distinguish professionally researched history from accounts based on hearsay, prejudice, sheer willpower, and political motives. In an age where the past is increasingly weaponized to serve the identity politics of the present, this ignorance has dangerous consequences. It allows fictional and motivated narratives to masquerade as fact, and it blinds us to the ways in which our understanding of the past shapes our lives in the present.
This crucial concern is at the very centre of a new book, Speaking of History: Conversations About India’s Past and Present, by one of India’s most distinguished historians, Romila Thapar, and Naimi Arora, a former technocrat who has dedicated the last three decades to becoming an accomplished scholar of Indian history. Through a series of thoughtful dialogues, the book illuminates not only the rich tapestry of India’s past but also the methods by which we can distinguish valid history from its fake and distorted versions.
Over the last six decades, Romila Thapar has played a leading role in liberating Indian history from the Euro-centric blinkers imposed by colonial scholarship. She has facilitated an understanding of Indian history on its own terms, without, of course, regressing into any form of exceptionalism. Her work has consistently emphasized the contemporary relevance of the pre-modern period, demonstrating that history is not a dusty relic but a living force deeply connected to our present. The many layers of our past live with us in multiple ways, and how we understand that past inevitably shapes how we live in the present. Societies that look at their past with shame, guilt, anger, or excessive jingoistic pride only end up damaging their present. A correct and valid understanding of history is therefore not an academic luxury; it is a civic necessity.
The book draws a sharp distinction between two kinds of history. The first is the history written by professional historians, based on the rigorous analysis and interpretation of reliable sources. This history does not treat its conclusions as fixed and final, but as tentative and provisional, always open to revision based on the discovery of new sources or the development of new perspectives and approaches. The second is the fictional accounts of the past, based on prejudices and political motives, that have of late been aggressively challenging professional history. This latter type of history is not an enquiry into the past; it is a legitimizing device, a tool to support the identity politics and political claims of the present.
This misuse of history, the book argues, is not a new phenomenon. Its roots go back to the ways in which the British colonial rulers understood and wrote about Indian society. The British looked at religion as the primary unit of division, portraying Indian society as fundamentally and irreconcilably divided between Hindus and Muslims. They classified the phases of Indian history on the basis of the religion of the rulers, projecting the ancient period as a “Hindu” period and the medieval period as a “Muslim” period. They actively promoted the idea that Hindus and Muslims were two different and mutually antagonistic nations. In doing so, they completely overlooked the vast and rich fields of cultural and literary history, where countless examples of dialogue, mutual borrowing, and syncretism could be found.
The first generation of Indian historians responded by fiercely criticizing this colonial approach. They argued that reducing an entire historical period to the religion of its rulers was a profound distortion. They produced histories that looked not just at conquests, but at the complex social, cultural, and literary developments that unfolded during these periods. They documented the multiple dialogues and social relationships among people that transcended religious boundaries. In short, Indian historians did much to rescue Indian history from the blinkers imposed by their colonial masters.
The book’s most pointed and urgent argument is that this discredited, blinkered, and motivated colonial history is now being revived by the proponents of political Hinduism, who are in control of important academic institutions in the country. Strangely, the interests of British colonial rulers and the stakeholders of today’s identity politics have converged. Both have a vested interest in portraying Muslims and Hindus as antagonistic communities, permanently at loggerheads since medieval times. As a result, the obsolete and discredited projection of Indian history, which had been relegated to the dustbins by professional historians, is now being resurrected and presented as fact.
This convergence is most visible in the systematic effort to erase or minimize the medieval period of Indian history, particularly from school textbooks. The logic is clear: if a period is erased from textbooks, it will gradually be erased from the social memory of the past. Against this, Romila Thapar emphatically argues that both the ancient and medieval periods must be understood in their full complexity. They must be studied for the migrations of peoples, the patterns of trade and manufacturing, the state of agricultural production, the growth of towns, the flourishing of art and architecture, the development of languages and literature, and the powerful currents of the Bhakti and Sufi movements with their ideologies of egalitarianism and harmony. There is, she insists, so much more to the history of any period than the religion of its rulers and the imaginary, ahistorical narrative of perpetual conflict between Hindus and Muslims.
The conversations in Speaking of History thus have a double focus. First, they serve as a powerful warning against the widespread tendency to distort history to create a largely false narrative about India’s past. They lay bare the methods of this distortion and expose its political motivations. More importantly, they spell out the great harm such distortions will do to India’s present and future. A society that bases its identity on a false, divisive, and antagonistic view of its past is building its house on sand. It will inevitably face conflict and instability.
Second, the conversations identify a rich thematic matrix for a proper, holistic understanding of Indian history. They point us towards cultural dialogues, gender relations, religious practices, knowledge systems, economic networks, and the lived experiences of ordinary people. The purpose of history writing, the book reminds us, should be to enlighten us about the past in a holistic manner, not to place it at the service of negative, divisive, and majoritarian politics. In an era of fake news and weaponized narratives, Speaking of History is an essential guide to thinking clearly about the past, and through it, to understanding the present. It is a conversation every Indian should listen to.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What is the central paradox about Indians and history that the book highlights?
A1: The paradox is that Indians are “obsessed with history and historical questions” yet remain largely unaware of the “historical method”—the rigorous procedures that distinguish professionally researched history from accounts based on hearsay, prejudice, or political motives. This lack of awareness makes them vulnerable to fake and distorted versions of the past.
Q2: According to the book, what are the two contrasting types of history-writing?
A2: The book distinguishes between:
-
Professional history: Based on reliable sources, analysed with a rigorous method. Its conclusions are treated as tentative and open to revision based on new evidence.
-
Fictional/motivated history: Based on prejudices and political motives. It is used as a “legitimising device” to support present-day identity politics, not as a genuine enquiry into the past.
Q3: How does the book trace the roots of the current distortion of Indian history to the colonial period?
A3: The book argues that British colonial rulers first projected Indian society as fundamentally divided between Hindus and Muslims, and classified historical periods by the religion of rulers (Hindu ancient, Muslim medieval). They ignored centuries of cultural dialogue and syncretism. The book claims this discredited colonial framework is now being revived by proponents of political Hinduism.
Q4: What is the significance of the effort to erase or minimize the medieval period from school textbooks?
A4: The book argues that erasing the medieval period from textbooks is a deliberate strategy. Once a period is erased from formal education, it gradually gets erased from the “social memory of the past.” This allows a distorted, conflict-centric narrative to replace a more complex and accurate understanding of history.
Q5: What does Romila Thapar argue should be the proper focus of studying both the ancient and medieval periods?
A5: Thapar argues that the focus should be on a wide range of factors, including: migrations of people, trade and manufacturing, agricultural production, growth of towns, art and architecture, languages and literature, and ideologies of egalitarianism like the Bhakti and Sufi movements. There is far more to history than the religion of rulers and imagined communal conflicts.
