ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/ K N Pannikker

'Rightist history is communal history'

Never before in the history of independent India has history been debated so much as it is now.

First, the Ayodhya dispute had sparked a debate among historians as to whether a Ram temple existed at the Babri Masjid site. And now, ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party has come to power, there has been a virtual war between Right wing and Marxist historians.

Marxist historian K N Pannikker who was in Bombay recently, spoke to Syed Firdaus Ashraf about the dangers facing history as the Right wing sets out to 'distort' it.

Ever since the BJP come to power on March 19, 1998, there has been a raging debate on the Leftist and Rightist view of Indian history. How do you define history in the Indian context?

I think history has to be approached as history. When I say as history, it means history has a method of its own. And any history that we think of should conform to the method of historical events. Any method that does not conform to this method is not history.

So before we differentiate between the Right and the Left, the fundamental historical evidence has to be kept in mind. Rightist history is what I will call communal history. It does not follow the method of history and therefore it is more of communal mythology.

At the Indian Council of Historical Research, it seems a war is raging between Rightist and Leftist historians. So how do we as ordinary people judge who is teaching the correct history?

There is a criticism on the manner in which the ICHR has been constituted. Now that criticism is related to what the character of this national body should be.

In India, among historians, there are different schools of thought -- there are liberals, Marxists and conservatives.

According to their own methodology, they use history for writing. Now, the ICHR, when it was first established, its objective was that it would be a platform where different historians will talk to each other and a healthy debate will take place among them. And if you look at the constitution of the ICHR, you will find that different historians with different views were on the board.

But isn't it true that the ICHR has always been dominated by Marxist historians?

It is wrong to say that earlier only Marxist historians were on the ICHR board. It is not true.

In the last Council, I was a member and I think there were only two people who could be called Marxist historians. The others were liberal and conservatives.

In fact, one historian was the supporter of the Ram Janambhoomi. So you see it had historians from all schools of thought. But now under the BJP government, the majority of historians are Hindutva supporters. This is patently wrong because the ICHR must reflect the views of all historians.

How do students of history know what is real history if the historians start quarrelling among themselves and start propagating their own versions of history?

A historian is known by a methodology which he uses. It may be biased because no historian is without a bias. You know a methodology itself is biased in a way. And those historians who do not use certain methods of history are no historians at all. I, for instance, use the Marxist method. I look at the social evolution and the movement of history in terms of Marxist methodology. And, I use the method of Marxism in understanding and analysing history.

As you say, you are biased towards Marxism...

(Immediately) I am not biased towards Marxism. I believe that Marxism is the scientific method to understand history.

You say you use Marxism as a scientific method to understand history. What is wrong if the Rightists use Hindutva to understand history?

I don't think there is anything wrong with people using another methodology to define history. But there is nothing called a Hindutva methodology. There is nothing like a religious methodology in history. If somebody uses empiricism, it's okay, because it is a method.

There are different ways of looking at history. But there is nothing like a Vishwa Hindu Parishad or Hindu way of looking at history. If Hinduism is used to define the characterisation of historical writing it is not a historical method at all.

So does Indian society face a danger from Rightist history?

I think it is extremely dangerous. You know there is an attempt by these Rightists to rewrite the history of each district in India. And it is sponsored by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh.

Now, there is one important damage to history -- a person who does not know history will not know the truth. If a new history is written on Hindu philosophy and propagated, the layman has no way to contest it.

If I contest that history and write books, not more than 1,000 copies will be sold. However, if the Hindutva forces are popularising their books, there is no way to keep a check on it.

It is dangerous because that history denies you your past. These Hindutva forces will deny you your right to knowledge. The VHP and RSS have a set agenda -- they state that their history is the history of Hindus.

'To reduce history to religion is distorting history'

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview