Unravelling the Past: A Beginner's Perspective - इतिहास समजून घेताना

I am sharing a few words based on my personal experience regarding how one should generally approach the study of history. Let me state at the very outset that I am by no means an authority or an expert on this subject. Just as a student shares their study methods with friends, this is, in a way, a narration of my own experience. I too have only recently begun putting deliberate effort into this study. I honestly struggle with many of the things mentioned below myself, but I have given them some thought, and that is what I am presenting here.

The world-renowned American researcher and deeply revered, eminent historian Will Durant and his wife—who later became his co-author—Ariel Durant, spent at least 30 years of their lives solely studying different cultures, collecting various literatures, articles, copper plates, artifacts, manuscripts, ancient texts, and folklore, before painstakingly writing monumental volumes on civilizations worldwide. Will Durant's The Story of Civilization alone spans 11 volumes, which he wrote and published over a period of 40 years between 1935 and 1975. He has 20 other books to his credit, 5 of which were published a staggering two decades after his death. The point I am trying to make is that people dedicate their entire lives to research because the study of history is like an ocean. When the ocean itself is boundless, how much water can the tiny beak of a lapwing bird hold to drain it? One should approach this subject with exactly this humility. We must remain constantly aware that no matter how much we read, what remains untouched is a thousand times greater.

History can be deceptive. The preface to Will Durant’s The Lessons of History is nothing short of a Gita, Bible, or Quran for readers of history. In it, he asks: "Why do we do all this? What is going to come to our hands? The tragic deaths of powerful kings? What unique insight do you gain from history about human nature that an ordinary vagrant on the street wouldn't already know without reading a single page?" ...... "History is nonsense" ...... "To begin with, do we really know what the past was? What actually happened? Or is history 'a fable' not quite 'agreed upon'? Our knowledge of any past event is always incomplete, probably inaccurate, beclouded by ambivalent evidence & biased historians, & perhaps distorted by our own patriotic or religious partisanship. Most history is guessing, & the rest is prejudice." Will Durant has written all of this in a very fluent, engaging style. If possible, do get a copy and read it.

In our region, the great historian Itihasacharya Rajwade has also written very meticulously about how history should be studied. "Even a scrap of an authentic, original document can completely strike down the opinions of all chronicles (Bakhars) and other sources!" In such crystal-clear words, he explained the importance of primary sources. Therefore, one should try to gather as many authentic sources as possible. Even among these, there are classifications like primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. History can be presented more accurately by focusing as much as possible on contemporary sources. The further away you move from that era, the more confusion increases; existing information gets lost, and fabricated information gets injected—these things happen very commonly. Even in contemporary sources, court scribes and bards are often found singing praises of their respective dynasties. Therefore, one must possess the readiness to understand what both insiders and outsiders say about the same event, and sift the right from the wrong. Many times, we come across unpalatable references, and often, shocking information comes to hand. One must be prepared to accept it... at least until new evidence comes to light. If new, credible evidence emerges, it should be accepted, and one should not feel diminished in changing their prior opinion. While reading history, sometimes rosewater is sprinkled on you, and at other times, mud is flung. History can startle you. A person can turn from a hero into a villain, or vice versa, right before your eyes. Even so, one should resist the temptation to paint any individual entirely in a single color as much as possible. In almost every person and event, both good and bad sides inevitably coexist. If you note and accept the strengths and weaknesses of individuals or empires and move forward, it saves you a lot of mental anguish while studying. Comparisons between two individuals should generally be avoided, especially if there is a gap of one or more generations between them. This is because the mental, physical, intellectual, financial, and social circumstances of two individuals are rarely identical. Even a single differing aspect can drastically alter a person's personality or the dimension and outcome of an event.

Another point I feel compelled to note, especially regarding the Indian mindset: do not confuse personal character (Charitrya) with a life biography (Charitra). Prejudices like "this person had vices, was colorful, or romantic, so they must be inherently bad" do a massive disservice to the study of history. The moment we label someone, the chapter is closed. While these notes are undoubtedly important when studying personal lives—and admittedly, history is sometimes shaped by these very factors—one should not start the study with blinders on. If possible, study an historical figure's personal life and public/social life separately.

The study of history is not merely about rivers of blood and battles. It wasn't for nothing that Tolstoy said, "The life of ordinary people is the true subject of history." The entire world is contained within history. It encompasses countless subjects. It can range from the biography of a single individual to a global event as massive as a World War. For instance, even if you take a specific human group for study, you have to analyze the influence of the contemporary geography, climate, lifestyle, and social, economic, military, and religious beliefs upon them. It is by testing them against these parameters that we can understand how advanced that society truly was. While studying history, we must not impose our current era and modern thoughts onto past events. Doing so invariably creates a mismatch. Even within just 2-3 decades, general societal acceptance can change drastically. If you note down what the societal norms of that specific time were, history becomes much easier to untangle. Do not waste time fighting it by constantly denying it. How things actually happened can be a "conclusion," whereas how they should or should not have happened can be our "opinion"—not a stubborn insistence. Moreover, that conclusion or opinion should not be treated as a permanent line etched in stone.

Within the study of history, hundreds of subjects can be explored, such as geography, astronomy, climate, food, religious and caste customs, traditions, law and order, economic, social, and military structures, letters, ancient manuscripts, legends, songs, technology, architecture, contemporary education systems, modes of transport, language, scripts, currency, agriculture, taxation systems, weaponry, and contemporary science. Saying things like "our ancestors possessed this and that" can be a matter of pride and it makes us feel good, but what is its proven validity on the anvil of evidence and its visible, final form? This is a major question. This requires deep thought. When an historical source is placed before you, think about how many subjects you can extract from it. For example, even if you take a simple letter, see if you can extract the relationship between those two individuals, their social or economic status, the age gap, the social conditions, and religious beliefs with a discerning eye. If you put in the effort to master technical aspects like the dating system of the letter, signatures, seals, language, salutations, and scripts, handling these sources becomes much easier. While studying history, nothing from astrology to science should be discarded or looked down upon; incorporate it all. It is simply another facet of looking at history. It might sound amusing, but the French have studied Napoleon so deeply that there is reportedly an entire book dedicated solely to the ailments he suffered from childhood until his death. People dig that deep into history. This is worth reflecting upon.

A request to my friends who trek through valleys and gorges: during these wanderings, pick up at least one hobby. Make it a habit to document photography, flora, fauna, insects, geographical structures, the architecture of forts, ancient water storage systems and methods, old art forms, local legends from villages, poems, songs, folklore, traditions, or the regional food, and if possible, start writing about them on blogs or social media sites. Trust me, it is through this that history is preserved, understood, and unraveled. Who knows, some elderly villager might pull out a two or three-hundred-year-old sword or spear blade, an ancient document, an old artifact, or a coin tucked away in a corner, and give you a pleasant surprise. Or, your documentation/photograph of a tree, leaf, flower, animal, or insect might unlock the history of nature. Not just for you, but for researchers of these subjects, a single record or photograph of yours could bring the joy of finding buried treasure.

In short, history is beautiful. One just needs to be able to love it without any prejudice, that's all!

What more is there to write to the wise.