courtesy: http://economictimes.com/
V Krishna Ananth
In
a series of lectures that he gave sometimes in the 1960s, EH Carr argued that
interpreting the past, which indeed is what history writing is all about, is not the same
as inventing a past. Interpretation is about making sense of the past from the
concerns of the present. In other words, Carr's precept was that there is
nothing called the history of an event or of a certain time. However, as
important as it is to re-interpret the past and hence rewrite history, it is
equally important to ensure that such attempts are based on facts. Carr holds
that the historian's task is to cook the palate out of the fish available on
the slab. His lectures that were published subsequently (titled What is
History?) are till day among the necessary texts for students of history.
It was only fair then for professional historians who assembled at the 75th
session of the Indian History Congress (IHC) at the Jawaharlal Nehru University
campus (December 28-30, 2014) to have expressed concerns over voices, from men
who matter, to mix up myth with history. Any attempt to reduce mythology into history is not merely a matter of
concern to historians, it is, more so, an affront to the world of mythology
itself. For, such attempts will only glean off the effervescence from the myths
and reduce them to prosaic notes. Imagine Homer's Iliad and Odyssey being seen
as history and a historian dissecting such aspects as the composition of the
coat that Achilles had worn from the time he was a child and how is it that
such a coat expanded as the child grew into a young man!
Fact
Vs Myth
It is possible to invoke such characters and episodes from our own epics. But
in the event if someone begins to treat them as history and expose those to the
rigours of historical research and search for facts then it is certain that
reading through the texts will be shorn of all the joy and the delightful
experience that it is. That will be unfortunate upon the generations to come.
Our own sons and daughters deserve the joy of reading Mahabharata and Ramayana
and experience the poetry in the prose. Forcing them to see these as history
will ensure that the fun is lost.
This is not to argue, and no historian for that matter will hold that mythology
and history are mutually exclusive. Mythology, in fact, is as much a source for
a historian as are folklore, proverbs, art, architecture and literature. AK
Ramanujan's work, on the many versions of the Ramayana, is indeed an
illustration of this. This indeed is what the professional historians were
concerned with at the IHC. The platform, now 75 years old, had nurtured the
task of rewriting history and the IHC's resolution (which mentions 'resisiting
interested distortions of our past', amongst other things) in that sense is not
against rewriting history. Those in the know of the history of the IHC will
also be familiar with the many interpretations of an event, as for instance,
the revolt of 1857; and most of those by Marxist historians.
It is not as if the Marxists alone have reinterpreted history; nor is it that
all the Marxist historians have agreed with each other in their interpretation
of an event. The Subaltern School, for instance, is a critique of Marxist
historiography from another interpretation of Marx and likewise the plethora of
studies on ancient society in India, including the Mauryan and the Gupta
empires, by such Marxist historians as Romila Thapar or RS Sharma have shed
light on the role of caste in the society, particularly in perpetuating an
exploitative order.
Reinterpreting
History
Or take the case of such historians as DD Kosambi and Irfan Habib who
identified serious gaps and infirmities in Karl Marx's description of the pre-British
Indian society (Asiatic Mode of Production) and did that by applying the
methods of Marxism. This indeed is what sections in the political dispensation
today want to undo; and it is not for their love for the myths. The aura
surrounding the mythical characters and the demonic representation of some
others are indeed important in any effort to perpetuate social deprivation and
economic inequality. The story about Eklavya for instance, read in the context
of the Mahabharata and the ethics of the times cannot be read in the same
manner in today's context.
To put things bluntly: how does one describe Drona and his decision to not take
in Eklavya into his school? Such exclusion is practised even today but is not
justified. This, in the hands of a historian, will be dealt with to suggest
that society, at some point, did consider exclusion its dharma. And yet, it is
possible to insist upon according to the Mahabharata its status of a myth and
continue to celebrate its effervescence. And nothing more will be needed to
expose it to be torn into pieces than reduce the myth into history. The Indian
History Congress ought to have shown this concern not only in defence of
history but to ensure that the rich tradition of mythology is preserved for
posterity.
The writer
is a member of IHC who was present at its general body meeting
It was only fair then for professional historians who assembled at the 75th session of the Indian History Congress (IHC) at the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus (December 28-30, 2014) to have expressed concerns over voices, from men who matter, to mix up myth with history. Any attempt to reduce mythology into history is not merely a matter of concern to historians, it is, more so, an affront to the world of mythology itself. For, such attempts will only glean off the effervescence from the myths and reduce them to prosaic notes. Imagine Homer's Iliad and Odyssey being seen as history and a historian dissecting such aspects as the composition of the coat that Achilles had worn from the time he was a child and how is it that such a coat expanded as the child grew into a young man!
Fact Vs Myth
It is possible to invoke such characters and episodes from our own epics. But in the event if someone begins to treat them as history and expose those to the rigours of historical research and search for facts then it is certain that reading through the texts will be shorn of all the joy and the delightful experience that it is. That will be unfortunate upon the generations to come. Our own sons and daughters deserve the joy of reading Mahabharata and Ramayana and experience the poetry in the prose. Forcing them to see these as history will ensure that the fun is lost.
This is not to argue, and no historian for that matter will hold that mythology and history are mutually exclusive. Mythology, in fact, is as much a source for a historian as are folklore, proverbs, art, architecture and literature. AK Ramanujan's work, on the many versions of the Ramayana, is indeed an illustration of this. This indeed is what the professional historians were concerned with at the IHC. The platform, now 75 years old, had nurtured the task of rewriting history and the IHC's resolution (which mentions 'resisiting interested distortions of our past', amongst other things) in that sense is not against rewriting history. Those in the know of the history of the IHC will also be familiar with the many interpretations of an event, as for instance, the revolt of 1857; and most of those by Marxist historians.
It is not as if the Marxists alone have reinterpreted history; nor is it that all the Marxist historians have agreed with each other in their interpretation of an event. The Subaltern School, for instance, is a critique of Marxist historiography from another interpretation of Marx and likewise the plethora of studies on ancient society in India, including the Mauryan and the Gupta empires, by such Marxist historians as Romila Thapar or RS Sharma have shed light on the role of caste in the society, particularly in perpetuating an exploitative order.
Reinterpreting History
Or take the case of such historians as DD Kosambi and Irfan Habib who identified serious gaps and infirmities in Karl Marx's description of the pre-British Indian society (Asiatic Mode of Production) and did that by applying the methods of Marxism. This indeed is what sections in the political dispensation today want to undo; and it is not for their love for the myths. The aura surrounding the mythical characters and the demonic representation of some others are indeed important in any effort to perpetuate social deprivation and economic inequality. The story about Eklavya for instance, read in the context of the Mahabharata and the ethics of the times cannot be read in the same manner in today's context.
To put things bluntly: how does one describe Drona and his decision to not take in Eklavya into his school? Such exclusion is practised even today but is not justified. This, in the hands of a historian, will be dealt with to suggest that society, at some point, did consider exclusion its dharma. And yet, it is possible to insist upon according to the Mahabharata its status of a myth and continue to celebrate its effervescence. And nothing more will be needed to expose it to be torn into pieces than reduce the myth into history. The Indian History Congress ought to have shown this concern not only in defence of history but to ensure that the rich tradition of mythology is preserved for posterity.
The writer is a member of IHC who was present at its general body meeting
Fact vs myth: Mixing up mythology and history will ensure that fun of reading texts is lost