<sigh>
If you only knew what you are saying!
History is one of the most difficult disciplines, and not, as unwary people seem to think, one of the easiest. People read it like a story, not knowing, perhaps not caring what an elaborate process of acquiring, sifting and weighing evidence is involved before a theory is accepted by the academic community.
Apart from the process, the biggest difficulty is that the discipline is very subjective. Everything depends on the historian's judgement and evaluation of a situation, because the evidence, not being immediate, is subject to many different interpretations. Subjects like the history of the French Revolution, for instance, have huge amounts written about it. Opinions and interpretations have been put forward, had their day, and been joined by other, sometimes radically different interpretations.
This has led to the development and growth of a highly specialized subject called historiography. This subject deals with the development and evolution of 'views' of history. It is important because to understand an historian's biases, one needs to be familiar with the beliefs and values that he sought to express. Marxist history is one such history,but much modern work in a similar vein is being done by members of the Subaltern School. There are numerous others, many - most - being conservative or liberal in approach, and including some schools of thought that have been legally banned in some countries.
The situation in India is that the Marxists had a dominant position in writing history and teaching it, and this continued for decades after independence. Before independence, there was the inevitable struggle between the original British imperialist schools, reform minded British historians and Indian historians of both a pro-independence and a neutral point of view.
Now for some two decades, there has been a severe reaction against the monopoly of the Marxists, and their stranglehold has been broken. Unfortunately, there is no replacement, none as yet, as no non-Marxist historian of any quality has emerged. I suppose we have to wait for some more time, for some of those teaching abroad to return.
There is no question of commissioning somebody to write histories, as only those already in the subject can take up such work at all. People like Ramachandra Guha, Abraham Eraly and Dalrymple are popularizers, not academic historians, although Eraly taught history very well in Madras for years. This is not journalism or public relations, for people to write over a few weekends and produce a meaningful work which adds value. An exception to this is Jaswant Singh, who has written an admirable book, the best I have read by an amateur.
Agree with everything you say here.
The major issue for me is the highlighted part from your post. I will call the subjectivity and interpretations as
treatment.
We need Indian treatment of objective facts. That is all I am asking.
And yes, I don't have a solution dotted to the last i and crossed to the last t.
I also did't mean that some government minister or babus need to get some people and commission history books. It should be done by a panel of well known and objective historians who care about objectivity and who also care about giving it an Indian treatment.
Let me give you an example from my perspective that would demonstrate what I am want to say here.
For many British, Churchil was the greatest Briton who ever lived as per a recent BBC Poll. Noone can grudge them this.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Churchill voted greatest Briton
For them he was a wartime hero, great orator who led and kept the country motivated during their "best hour", witty, "a statesman" and fully deserving of the honor.
For me as an Indian, his defining image is his contempt for my country, my people and my leaders.
Even more, the deliberate genocide of millions of my countrymen in Bengal when it could have been easily avoided. The ships full of grain from Australia passing India by, only to be stored in godowns in Europe.
The life of Asiatics was after all expendable.
For the Germans, his defining image may be that of Dresden bombing where a hundred thousand were burned alive by firebombing because this bigot wanted to impress a visiting Russian diplomat.
And went ahead with the bombing even though the diplomat failed to turn up. He caused the people to first come out in the open by an initial bombing raid and then the second raid burned them in the open places.
Now, I don't want my history to teach me and fellow Indians that he was a great statesmen. I would have preferred that this genocidal maniac be part of the Nuremberg trials behind the bars. Even if it was fashionable for the whites to look at Asians in a poor light at that time.
I don't want to read "white man's burden" to tell us our identity. I want to see it written like it was, the white man's great robbery.
Here is one example of what I am trying to say again.
The Imperialist History of India
What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land conquered first by the Dravidians, then by the Aryans, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical.
For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devarayas rule was much larger than Akbars, and yet it is the latter who is called the Great. Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India.
In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100% Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80% Hindu.
Just because India did not have a nation state of the present boundaries, exercising control through a unified modern administration, does not mean that there was no India. On the contrary, there was always as India which from north to south, thought of fundamentally as one country.
on the agenda for National Renaissance has to be a new factual account of our history, focusing on the continuous and unbroken endeavours of a people united as a nation. This history of India must deal with the conscious effort of our people to achieve a civilization, to reach better standards of life, and live a happier and nobler life.
» “Defalsify India’s History” by Subramanian Swamy – Excerpts . || Satyameva Jayate ||
What is true for British colonial history is also true for Islamic history that tries to justify its own bigotry.
Last point: it is a sad sight to see you joining in the chorus calling Romila Thapar a Marxist. Why she is accused of this is beyond me. It is a canard spread by those who hate her analysis of Muslim raids into India, but why that hatred translates into that particular accusation is beyond me. Perhaps because only a Marxist could be evil enough to be a Hindu and defend Muslims, or refrain from criticizing Muslims.
I am searching for something that made me form my opinions about her. Marxist label may be wrong, the issue is about her treatment of history from the apologetic perspective and not Indian national perspective.
Obviously I dislike her also for the fact that she made me dread the subject of history for a decade or more by the NCERT history books that were tailor made for this purpose.
. I must say these guys who manufactured these 'theories' must have being Shaivite fanboys... 
.
, I just dispute the scale.
