Whose History Is It Anyway? The Debate Over Truth And Interpretation
Since historiography is shaped by subjective interpretations of historical facts, there is little reason to believe that history, as written, is devoid of bias or distortion
The recent revision of the NCERT History textbook has ignited a debate amongst historians and others, with some expressing satisfaction while others voice their dissent. The disagreements among historians, who dedicate themselves to elucidating the 'historical facts', are both perplexing and thought-provoking.
Why do historians disagree on essentially the same historical facts, the given truths? The root of these disagreements may lie in their differing interpretations of historical facts, which leads to a multiplicity of truths, an endeavour best suited to the wise.
As the saying goes, 'Truth is one; the wise express it in various ways' (Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti).
History And Interpretation
Since historical facts do not speak for themselves, it becomes essential for historians to engage in their interpretation. By using various sources—archaeological, literary, oral, and artistic—as well as diverse methodologies and techniques, historians strive to make sense of historical facts. Consequently, interpretation becomes pivotal in the writing of history. Eminent historian E.H. Carr (1961) emphasised the significance of interpretation by stating that 'History means interpretation'. Similarly, Behan McCullagh (1971) remarked that interpretation lies at the heart of historical writing.
The interpretation-driven approach to history, being inherently subjective, becomes susceptible to disputes and poses challenges for historiography. Thus, Carr further described history as a collection of 'hard facts' enveloped in a 'pulp of disputable interpretation'.
Objectivity remains a fundamental principle in any research, and is more easily achieved in experimental studies; however, the opportunities for experimentation in the social sciences are limited. Only a few disciplines, such as psychology and economics, employ experimental methods like Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) to some extent. Social sciences, unlike physical sciences, consequently face a significant challenge. Social scientists therefore turn to the field, engaging directly with society to explain its dynamics.
While they enjoy the benefits of observing, interacting with, and analysing lived experiences and current societal realities, History as a discipline is constrained by its focus on past events. It relies on direct literary sources such as the Indica, Baburnama, Akbarnama, and others, alongside indirect sources of interpreted literature, as well as the interpretation of archaeological, oral, and artistic evidence to build its historiographical framework.
Interpretation And Its Limitations
There are two additional challenges associated with social science research. Firstly, it grapples with the issue of 'social baggage', which, however, is addressed through what social scientists call 'reflexivity'. The second challenge confronting the social sciences involves the ideological motivations and prejudices that can infiltrate research. Such biases often go unresolved and unchecked, and can even be reinforced within academic spaces. This ideological infiltration tends to render social science research less objective and more subjective.
History, as a branch of the social sciences, is certainly not immune to these issues. There exists a tangible risk that biases may influence the interpretation of historical facts, potentially undermining an objective approach to historiography.
Carr (Helen Carr, 2019) notably argued that objectivity does not exist. He challenged the notion of objective history and suggested that all history, to some degree, creates space for subjective interpretation of historical facts and the historian's role in shaping the narrative.
When the interpretation of historical facts is presented by nationalist historians, the resulting historiography often adopts a sympathetic approach towards native culture, society, and rulers. Conversely, when viewed through the lens of Marxist historians, the same historical facts tend to adopt a more critical stance towards native elements. Such interpretations are often more inclined to favour non-native traditions, societies, and rulers—viewed as invaders.
This divergence perhaps arises from two interconnected reasons. First, there exists an ideological conflict between the Marxist and non-Marxist (nationalist) schools of historiography, which are fundamentally opposed. Second, the Marxist framework, being inherently revolutionary, tends to assess prevailing society and traditions more critically. Consequently, opposition to the non-Marxist schools often results in support for those traditions and rulers that were previously non-existent.
In the context of writing history in India, Marxist historians are often seen to minimise or downplay acts of violence committed by non-native rulers, while simultaneously making efforts to present these actions as less harmful, cruel, or damaging. They sufficiently discount and soften the negative impact of such actions. Conversely, even minor positive initiatives by the same rulers are magnified and portrayed as noble and benevolent. These rulers, external to the land, are often celebrated and enjoy the benefit of being glorified as great kings, bestowed with admirable qualities and stripped of negative traits.
On the contrary, this privilege is not extended to native rulers. For similar acts of violence, Marxist historians tend to amplify their actions and make concerted efforts to demean and demonise them. Native rulers are often criticised, with their negative aspects disproportionately highlighted, while their noble initiatives are belittled or ignored. They do not enjoy the benefit of glorification; instead, they often face denigration, condemnation, and vilification, with labels such as 'petty king' or 'feudal lord' commonly applied. In this context, Carr aptly advised readers to 'study the historian before you begin to study the facts" (Helen Carr, 2019).
Conclusions
Since historiography is inherently shaped by subjective interpretations of historical facts—often influenced by ideological motivations, particularly those stemming from the Marxist approach—there is little reason to believe that history written since independence is the absolute truth, devoid of biases and distortions.
However, such distortion is often subtle and expertly crafted, leading to the portrayal of certain kings as secular, noble, and great, even in the face of killings, massacres, enslavements, conversions of millions of natives, and the destruction of countless temples.
History, therefore, should prioritise facts over interpretations. While interpretations may arise from various motivations and provoke disputes, efforts should be made to minimise them. This approach could lead to a less distorted and more meaningful representation of history.
Let the events and evidence speak for themselves, rather than be swayed by ideologically motivated interpretations. Let there be objectivity, rather than the necessity for subjective history, as suggested by Leopold von Ranke. Ranke claimed that the trained historian should forget their personal predispositions and loyalties, and write history objectively (Elkindsen, 2008).
top videos
View all
Given the subjective interpretation of history and the disputes that surround it, one can only wish the hard facts could speak for themselves, wish the stones of those destroyed temples could speak the truth, wish the voices of the killed and massacred could emerge and speak the truth.
Ramya Ranjan Patel is Associate Professor, JNU. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google.
tags :
historians history NCERT books
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
August 21, 2025, 15:05 IST
News opinion Opinion | Whose History Is It Anyway? The Debate Over Truth And Interpretation
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
15 hours ago
- News18
Whose History Is It Anyway? The Debate Over Truth And Interpretation
Last Updated: Since historiography is shaped by subjective interpretations of historical facts, there is little reason to believe that history, as written, is devoid of bias or distortion The recent revision of the NCERT History textbook has ignited a debate amongst historians and others, with some expressing satisfaction while others voice their dissent. The disagreements among historians, who dedicate themselves to elucidating the 'historical facts', are both perplexing and thought-provoking. Why do historians disagree on essentially the same historical facts, the given truths? The root of these disagreements may lie in their differing interpretations of historical facts, which leads to a multiplicity of truths, an endeavour best suited to the wise. As the saying goes, 'Truth is one; the wise express it in various ways' (Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti). History And Interpretation Since historical facts do not speak for themselves, it becomes essential for historians to engage in their interpretation. By using various sources—archaeological, literary, oral, and artistic—as well as diverse methodologies and techniques, historians strive to make sense of historical facts. Consequently, interpretation becomes pivotal in the writing of history. Eminent historian E.H. Carr (1961) emphasised the significance of interpretation by stating that 'History means interpretation'. Similarly, Behan McCullagh (1971) remarked that interpretation lies at the heart of historical writing. The interpretation-driven approach to history, being inherently subjective, becomes susceptible to disputes and poses challenges for historiography. Thus, Carr further described history as a collection of 'hard facts' enveloped in a 'pulp of disputable interpretation'. Objectivity remains a fundamental principle in any research, and is more easily achieved in experimental studies; however, the opportunities for experimentation in the social sciences are limited. Only a few disciplines, such as psychology and economics, employ experimental methods like Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) to some extent. Social sciences, unlike physical sciences, consequently face a significant challenge. Social scientists therefore turn to the field, engaging directly with society to explain its dynamics. While they enjoy the benefits of observing, interacting with, and analysing lived experiences and current societal realities, History as a discipline is constrained by its focus on past events. It relies on direct literary sources such as the Indica, Baburnama, Akbarnama, and others, alongside indirect sources of interpreted literature, as well as the interpretation of archaeological, oral, and artistic evidence to build its historiographical framework. Interpretation And Its Limitations There are two additional challenges associated with social science research. Firstly, it grapples with the issue of 'social baggage', which, however, is addressed through what social scientists call 'reflexivity'. The second challenge confronting the social sciences involves the ideological motivations and prejudices that can infiltrate research. Such biases often go unresolved and unchecked, and can even be reinforced within academic spaces. This ideological infiltration tends to render social science research less objective and more subjective. History, as a branch of the social sciences, is certainly not immune to these issues. There exists a tangible risk that biases may influence the interpretation of historical facts, potentially undermining an objective approach to historiography. Carr (Helen Carr, 2019) notably argued that objectivity does not exist. He challenged the notion of objective history and suggested that all history, to some degree, creates space for subjective interpretation of historical facts and the historian's role in shaping the narrative. When the interpretation of historical facts is presented by nationalist historians, the resulting historiography often adopts a sympathetic approach towards native culture, society, and rulers. Conversely, when viewed through the lens of Marxist historians, the same historical facts tend to adopt a more critical stance towards native elements. Such interpretations are often more inclined to favour non-native traditions, societies, and rulers—viewed as invaders. This divergence perhaps arises from two interconnected reasons. First, there exists an ideological conflict between the Marxist and non-Marxist (nationalist) schools of historiography, which are fundamentally opposed. Second, the Marxist framework, being inherently revolutionary, tends to assess prevailing society and traditions more critically. Consequently, opposition to the non-Marxist schools often results in support for those traditions and rulers that were previously non-existent. In the context of writing history in India, Marxist historians are often seen to minimise or downplay acts of violence committed by non-native rulers, while simultaneously making efforts to present these actions as less harmful, cruel, or damaging. They sufficiently discount and soften the negative impact of such actions. Conversely, even minor positive initiatives by the same rulers are magnified and portrayed as noble and benevolent. These rulers, external to the land, are often celebrated and enjoy the benefit of being glorified as great kings, bestowed with admirable qualities and stripped of negative traits. On the contrary, this privilege is not extended to native rulers. For similar acts of violence, Marxist historians tend to amplify their actions and make concerted efforts to demean and demonise them. Native rulers are often criticised, with their negative aspects disproportionately highlighted, while their noble initiatives are belittled or ignored. They do not enjoy the benefit of glorification; instead, they often face denigration, condemnation, and vilification, with labels such as 'petty king' or 'feudal lord' commonly applied. In this context, Carr aptly advised readers to 'study the historian before you begin to study the facts" (Helen Carr, 2019). Conclusions Since historiography is inherently shaped by subjective interpretations of historical facts—often influenced by ideological motivations, particularly those stemming from the Marxist approach—there is little reason to believe that history written since independence is the absolute truth, devoid of biases and distortions. However, such distortion is often subtle and expertly crafted, leading to the portrayal of certain kings as secular, noble, and great, even in the face of killings, massacres, enslavements, conversions of millions of natives, and the destruction of countless temples. History, therefore, should prioritise facts over interpretations. While interpretations may arise from various motivations and provoke disputes, efforts should be made to minimise them. This approach could lead to a less distorted and more meaningful representation of history. Let the events and evidence speak for themselves, rather than be swayed by ideologically motivated interpretations. Let there be objectivity, rather than the necessity for subjective history, as suggested by Leopold von Ranke. Ranke claimed that the trained historian should forget their personal predispositions and loyalties, and write history objectively (Elkindsen, 2008). top videos View all Given the subjective interpretation of history and the disputes that surround it, one can only wish the hard facts could speak for themselves, wish the stones of those destroyed temples could speak the truth, wish the voices of the killed and massacred could emerge and speak the truth. Ramya Ranjan Patel is Associate Professor, JNU. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. tags : historians history NCERT books view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 21, 2025, 15:05 IST News opinion Opinion | Whose History Is It Anyway? The Debate Over Truth And Interpretation Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
The Print
4 days ago
- The Print
History teaching requires revision more than textbooks
After all, how often do Indian households encourage history as a job? A base-level problem here is: how do you support the study of history when it isn't even clear what a historian does? Yet, despite this range of work, one question almost always follows when we explain what we do: 'Okay, but what is your real job?' The question says as much about our profession as it does about how history itself is perceived in India. What does it mean to be a historian in India? Both of us have formally studied the subject. In the years we've spent working as public historians, we've told myriad stories of India's chequered pasts through heritage walks, museum trails, cultural events, podcasts, an annual journal, book reviews, articles, and social media posts. We've pored over archives and conducted on-ground research. We've also translated scholarship into language and experiences that anyone, from an academic to a casual listener, can connect with. In childhood, history may occasionally bask in the dreamy, cinematic glow of Indiana Jones and Night at the Museum. Or Bharat Ek Khoj, Akbar-Birbal adaptations, the delightfully gory Horrible Histories, and Amar Chitra Katha. In adulthood, though, it either fades into collective amnesia, gets wrapped in nostalgia, or turns into a battlefield of contested claims. Where is the middle ground where we carry forward that childlike curiosity, tempered with adult discernment, to engage with the past with the depth and nuance it deserves? A polarising debate has recently been sparked after yet another round of revisions in NCERT history textbooks. But more than textbooks, history teaching requires revision. Also Read: Indus Valley to Mughal Empire—How illustrated history books guide us in polarising times Updating isn't the problem What do you remember from your history classes? For most, the answers fall into familiar buckets: rote learning of names, dates, dynasties, and wars. There was little room to explore the texture of lived experience, or to ask: how can this subject help me become a better thinker, a more reflective human? The discipline was frozen in time, and with it, many of us felt we too were trapped — learning about the past in a way that felt wholly disconnected from the present, let alone the future. This is part of the reason historical studies aren't seen as foundations for sustainable careers. But paradoxically, history seems to dominate our headlines. It's everywhere: in TV debates, political speeches, social media threads. Everyone, it seems, has something to say about the past. That's why the current debate on revisions matters. The problem isn't with 'updating' history. Our understanding of the past evolves as our present changes. Every historian is shaped by their time, drawing not only on the materials and theoretical bases available, but also on their own perspectives and questions. So revisions themselves aren't the issue. The real concern is how history textbooks are revised. If these changes were aimed at helping students approach the past critically, and provided them with the historian's toolkit — by introducing them to a range of sources, perspectives, and debates — then they would be fruitful. More revisions, less reasoning Our NCERT textbooks have been subject to regular revisions, with new theories and ideas inserted alongside scholars' evolving approaches to history. This exercise is necessary, so long as the emphasis remains on updations that accurately convey the latest reflections on continuities and changes over time. Increasingly, however, sporadic revisions have become the norm. Since 2018, textbooks have been altered to remove sections on communalism in the 1940s, Mughal manuscripts, caste struggles, and popular movements. When textbooks were revised during the Covid-19 pandemic, deletions were made on grounds of 'rationalisation'. It is perplexing that post-pandemic, too, the NCERT has failed to offer academic explanations for revising humanities textbooks. 'Rationalised' textbooks remain prescribed, with intermittent 'revisions' still trickling in. In its latest revision of history textbooks for eighth grade students, the NCERT introduces Mughal emperors as 'brutal' and 'ruthless', Delhi Sultans' policies as 'public humiliation' for non-Muslims, and Maratha leadership as 'visionary'. Earlier textbooks covered the most notable features of each of these polities, minus the adjectives. A reading of Our Pasts – II, the medieval history text prescribed to seventh grade students from 2007 to 2021, allows useful comparison. The text discussed administrative successes and failures, economic policy, and societal changes, and tested students' critical thinking skills based on their understanding of objective details. The most telling aspect of the history textbook revision is the NCERT's inclusion of a 'Note on Some Darker Periods in History'. Here, a disclaimer reads that 'no one should be held responsible today for events of the past', which appears to be an admission of the provocative nature of the updated content. Students as young as the eighth grade — studying history as part of a wide curriculum spanning science, mathematics, and languages — ought to be introduced to history in a manner that shapes them into informed citizens, and perhaps, optimistically, stimulates deeper engagement with the discipline later in their lives. The goal should be to teach students that history, and the humanities more broadly, are about thinking more, asking better questions, and becoming sharper citizens. What students need is not less complexity, but more clarity on how complexity functions. But the kinds of revisions we're seeing strip that away. They remove the very skills that make historical thinking meaningful, and the result is a citizen who either dismisses history entirely or defends it without support, often overwhelmed by louder, ahistorical voices that dominate discourse. Also Read: India's new search for Hindu warrior kings to celebrate. Vikramaditya, Suheldev to Agrasen Teaching history for the future Perhaps the most important revision we need is in how we frame history — it should be less a closed book of facts and more a lens to view the world. In 2025, it's worth asking, how can we teach history as a subject that helps carve a path forward? How do we make sure students don't feel like history is either just for nostalgic glorification or adversarial defence? How do we make its dissemination promising enough for students to be able to say they wish to become academics, curators, conservators, archaeologists, museologists, or historians? Through our public history platform Itihāsology, we repeatedly highlight the foremost issue with history as a school subject — that it is 'boring', unappealing to young learners. A lack of interest in history during the formative years of schooling manifests in detachment from scholarly debates, and an unfortunate turn toward distorted, coloured versions of the past in adult life. This becomes relevant because history frequently comes up in popular discourse and debates, with socially and politically active adults justifying current stances by drawing on the past. Since the problem of subscribing to ahistorical renderings of the past is rooted in studenthood, the solution lies in devising more effective ways to communicate history to young learners so they grow up knowing there is indeed a future with a past — one that they need to protect from falling into the pit of homogeneity. Eric Chopra and Kudrat B. Singh run Itihāsology, an educational platform dedicated to making Indian history and art inclusive and accessible. Views are personal. (Edited by Asavari Singh)
New Indian Express
7 days ago
- New Indian Express
Patriotism push: Sam Manekshaw, Brig Usman now in NCERT textbooks
NEW DELHI: The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has released revised Urdu and English textbooks, celebrating the sacrifices of India's defence personnel and the courage of India's queens. The objective is to inspire students and motivate them to contribute to nation-building. The updated textbooks are aligned with the National Education Policy 2020. The Ministry of Defence, in a statement on the Urdu Class VII book and the Class VIII English and Urdu textbooks, said, 'The newly added chapters provide students with inspiring stories of courage and duty. Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, India's first Field Marshal, is remembered for his exceptional leadership and strategic skills. Brigadier Mohammad Usman and Major Somnath Sharma, recipients of the Mahavir Chakra and Param Vir Chakra (posthumously), gave their lives in service of the nation and remain symbols of supreme sacrifice.' To promote the National War Memorial (NWM) as a key national landmark, the Ministry of Defence has partnered with the Ministry of Education and NCERT to include NWM and related references in school curricula. 'Students will not only learn about India's military history but also absorb important lessons on resilience, empathy, emotional intelligence, and the significance of nation-building,' the Ministry added.
