Union home minister Amit Shah’s prescription for the writing and teaching of history merely echoes an old demand for a certain kind of “nationalist” history, once stated by V.D. Savarkar and others, Bhaskar Chakraborty, former history professor at Calcutta University and one-time director of the university’s Centre for Social Studies and Humanities Research, tells Subhoranjan Dasgupta, professor of human science.

Q: When Amit Shah and his ilk proclaim they are going to write a new history of India, I think the home minister is guilty of a lapse. Hindutva has, in fact, written its own version of history from the beginning of the last century. Am I correct?

Chakraborty: I don’t take such claims seriously. If they wish to write history afresh, it’s important to spell out what this novelty is all about. If this history is written from the perspective of Hindutva, it’s likely to be a reiteration of a variety of discussions on Hindu identity prevailing from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What happened then was a certain preoccupation with India's Hindu heritage.

Savarkar, to cite an important example, gave many of these inchoate ideas a kind of conceptual unity in the 1920s in his texts like Essentials of Hindutva. It’s possible that some of the protagonists of this so-called new history will draw heavily on the concepts and ideas concerning Hindu cultural identity developed early in the 20th century. The content could be well-nigh different but the methodology and tools of analysis will be borrowed from earlier works that I have mentioned.

Savarkar was not alone in this mission. Many others followed the same practice and often indulged in absurdities. For example, there were many “barefoot historians” who did not know how to distinguish between myth and history, between legendary figures and genuine historical personalities.

Take, as a counter-example, Tagore, who was the protagonist of a different perspective on India’s ancient civilisation. His views on Aryan culture and its importance in Indian history were always dovetailed with an equal emphasis on the essential spirit of assimilation in Indian culture. He used the vernacular word “samannoy” (reconciliation) that suggested the emergence of a syncretic civilisation that became the hallmark of Indian culture through many centuries of its evolution.

These, of course, are complex issues that cannot be understood with a closed mind. I have purposely drawn on Tagore because he offers the most vigorous counterpoint to sectarian thinking, regardless of whether this is old or new history.

Q: Savarkar had many followers but the most strident was perhaps M.S. Golwalkar. Was there a fascist strain in him?

Chakraborty: Golwalkar built on Savarkar's works, offering an abridged version, and in my assessment he did not suggest anything entirely novel or original. But with a few other contemporary, high-strung nationalists, men like Golwalkar had the tendency to condone highly oppressive dictatorial regimes that men like Mussolini and Hitler had installed, going at times to the extent of overlooking the politics of mass murder.

For such men, (the ideology of) loyalty to the State or nation frequently led to uncritical endorsement of anti-democratic and even fascist regimes. While reading the history of such forms of oppression, the historian is always faced with a clear political choice between reason and unreason, between civilisation and barbarism.

Q: What has been the common reader’s reaction to the churning out of Hindutva history? And what role does political patronage play in this sphere?

Chakraborty: I’m not so confident about the resistance of the common people to these ideas of Hindutva history. We frequently come across home-grown authors trying to establish views that cannot survive the scrutiny of professional scholarship. The issue of political patronage, however, has a more serious dimension.

Bear in mind that in history writing there will always be a statist point of view, and that - crucially - it is not at all necessary for all historians to adhere to this statist norm. What is lamentable is that the lure of money and position weakens the resolve, and direct political patronage or distribution of goodies turns otherwise responsible historians into exponents of peculiar concepts and ideas.

I believe as a matter of principle that if the political elite is committed to liberal democracy, it has to promote culture without trying to control the exponents and practitioners of culture.

If there is a State version inscribed in textbooks there must be other versions as well. The study of history simply cannot survive without these oppositions and challenges. Accordingly, many voices should be heard in the sphere of history writing and teaching instead of one voice; many truths instead of one single truth.

We should be on our guard against the possibility of people, students in particular, accepting stupid and tendentious statements as history. We can of course laugh at the hilarious statements made by politicians, but these can be dangerous.

Q: Yes, claims about aircraft and plastic surgery in the Puranic age can only evoke laughter.

Chakraborty: Mind you, such errors arise from a closed mind, or from one who deliberately promotes such views for non-academic reasons. Such errors may be subjected to evidential scrutiny and a proper debate in the public domain, with the result that people would become more conscious of the omissions and commissions that may pepper history textbooks. The absence of a proper debate would lead to the imposition of only one point of view, and the textbooks would lack credibility.

Complete State control often leads to unfortunate decisions. We are reminded of a decision a few decades ago to suppress a whole volume of documents edited by the renowned historian, Sumit Sarkar, as a part of the Towards Freedom project. My point is that instead of withdrawing the volume, the ICHR (Indian Council of Historical Research) could have easily launched another project to counter Sumit Sarkar’s findings. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee once observed: “The answer to a book is another book.”

Q: Professor Irfan Habib had a few years ago told me: “Ramesh Chandra Majumdar and I do not subscribe to the same ideology, but I have great respect for him as a historian. He literally clings to facts and his vision is remarkable.”

Chakraborty: I can well appreciate the spirit of Prof. Habib’s statement. Ideological differences do not prevent a scholar from appreciating the work of another colleague. What Prof. Habib was acknowledging at the same time was the massive contribution of men like R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychaudhuri or Nilakanta Sastri to research in ancient Indian history.

The study of ancient Indian history never took a back seat, and facts do not bear out the statements that research on ancient Indian history is woefully inadequate. One can simply consult the volumes of Epigraphia Indica (of the Archaeological Survey of India) to get a sense of the voluminous material generated by the expansion of archaeological research conducted since the early 20th century.

Over time, perspectives have changed, bringing an emphasis on economic and social history as against only empires and kingdoms. Attention has been given to the material foundations of State formation and everyday life.

Indeed, historical research on ancient India has had an unbroken continuity of its own and is as important as the focus on medieval and modern history or the history of nationalism.

It’s quite possible that some research or writings on history would be unpalatable to the political establishment, but that does not make the research incorrect or irrelevant. If we are committed to history as an indispensable aspect of liberal culture, we can see these contending truths more clearly.