Ancient, Modern historiography & Fiction - 2

Original Source: https://www.jeyamohan.in/197250/

Date: 23-Mar-2024

The short-stories collection "Padaiyal" is a historical fiction like that of "Aayiram Ootrukkal".  They are stories from the period of Nayaks - Marathas. I am writing this article to explain about why such historical fictions are written, how to approach them and the relationship between these fictions and history.

All of us have this hallucination that history is an absolute entity like a thing that exists and that it comprises of truths that have been entirely established. Because, we read history as such in our institutions. History is a discussion forum. But it is provided as a collection of information. Only when we realize that historiography is an ideological space where myriad histories are written, can we proceed with further discussion.

Ancient communities like India are deeply rooted in ancient historiography. Modern historiography is two centuries old here. Modern historiography is taught in educational institution. Governmental organizations like Archaeological department work on modern historical research techniques. Contemporary governance and administration are based on modern history. Still, it is the ancient historiography that is prevalent in people's minds.

Modern historiography doesn't find audience in people's minds nor in the political discussion evolving from people's preferences. In fact, modern historiography in India is a domain existing merely within the confines of educational institutions and scholars. All of the history present among the populace and being advocated by politicians here is just ancient historiography.

Yet, nobody here has the knowledge about modern historiography. Therefore, politicians and proponents of religion, caste and race are all advocating ancient historiography believing it to be modern historiography. They utilize the vocabulary of modern historiography. They employ the data and lecturing techniques developed by the modern historical research.

How to identify that a history is based on ancient historiography and not on modern one? Maybe, we can lay down some rules for that.

a. Ancient historiography will always have some emotional attachments, because it is a history told by a community of itself. If there is an emotion like 'it is my history; this is our history' - then it isn't a modern historiography. Pride about history, hatred based on history - presence of either one prevents a history from becoming a modern one. Modern historiography doesn't have emotions; it is akin to a scientific research.

b. If an historical outline aims to bring together a race, a community or even a place, it isn't a modern historiography. Similarly, if it advocates an idea of 'others', it isn't a modern historiography. Modern historiography do not have such intentions.

c. The extent to which a history fits itself into the world's modern historical expanse, is the extent of its fitment into modern historiography. If someone writes a history for themselves and proclaims to be unique set of people, it isn't a modern historiography, rather a one based on beliefs.

d. Only when a history presents its facts logically before the public offering to be falsified, does it become modern historiography. Those who oppose it are its real ideological partners. Only when they accept, does it become a historical truth. On the other hand, the mindset which portrays the opposition as enemies is the quality of belief-based historiography, namely ancient historiography.

Why is it that the Indian historical mindset is mostly based on ancient historiography? Today, in north India, people portray as history, a set of fierce beliefs based on an Hindu culture. When I remarked in an international literature forum that Mahabharatha belongs to Iron Age, a professor opposed it saying that it was 'several lakhs' year ancient. Epics are generally construed as direct history even today. In TamilNadu, such ferocity and foolishness exist based on Tamil's antiquity.

I would categorize the reasons for them as:

a. Deep-rooted ancient historiography exists in India. It exists as archetypes and beliefs. As religion based stories and literature, it is firmly seated in our culture. Our thinking stems from that.

b. Modern historiography was provided to us by colonial masters. It was written from their perspectives. It comprised of supremacist intentions as well. Therefore, naturally, we had our suspicions and those suspicions linger on.

c. Modern education is not intensive enough to see through our own perspectives of lives. It merely exists as a practice for 'preparation for occupation'. We memorize to write exams and then forget. We don't learn anything beyond our lessons. Therefore, though education suffused within society, scientific mindset or even science based reasoning didn't evolve among us. In our educational institutions, the way scientific research is undertaken is not being taught. We are unaware of how scientific research is conducted based on logic, data and is established on a discussion forum. What we learn of history are mere information. Therefore, we are devoid of any mental ability to conduct historical research. And thus, we aren't able to comprehend historical research.

d. Ancient historiography is the mindset among our populace. So, political parties that try to gather people and attain authority kindle the ancient historiographical mindset and exploit them. When the dominance of such parties pervades education, modern historiography fades away.

Due to these reasons, in India, there is almost no trace of modern historiography. What we get to see are histories portraying Hindu pride, Dravidian pride, Tamil pride, Casteist pride. One is being projected as an alternative to another. Opponents of Hindu pride would advocate Dravidian pride, whose detractors would advocate Tamil pride. But in reality, the alternate to all these is the modern historiography. Its proponents are becoming fewer. They are being attacked by everyone. Politicians oppress them in educational institutions. They are denied promotions and in their domain and in their place proponents of racist, linguistic and religion based history are being pushed to the top.

I have previously written about the three periods of Indian historiography. (Why didn't we write history?). The first period was colonial historiography. What we wrote to counter the supremacist attitude in that was the nationalistic historiography. Post that, a further categorization of sub-national historiography was written. Nationalistic historiography was all about the history of ancient empires and kings. Marxist historiography was written countering that, based on people's history in socio-economic purview.

Transcending these 3 historiographies, micro history is being written today. It may be the history of a specific place (eg: history of the district of Kanyakumari), history of a specific tribe (eg:  history of Mandigar), history of a specific economic entity (eg: history of vadasery market), history of cultural entities (eg: history of the ballads - Thekkan Pattukal). There are books written by A.K.Perumal in each of these categories.

If colonial historiography had supremacist intentions, authors of nationalistic historiography integrated the aspects of nationalistic pride in their history. Therefore, they percolated ancient historiography in the national history. They created huge super heroes in Indian history - Ashoka to Akbar, Karikala Chozhan to Veerapandiya Kattabomman are some such personalities who attained an image beyond historical reasoning.

Truth is, the foundations for the creation of the  political mindset that is against the modern historiography were laid down by our history authors. They identified the aspects in the Indian history that is capable of providing pride and started advocating them. Gradually, it went to a stage where history was written purely for the sake of pride or was artificially created merely for the sake of pride. Today, the history professed by Hindutvas, Dravidians and Tamil nationalists comprise the absurdities that aren't short of the bardic history the tribals claim as their own.

Historical fiction must be understood considering these various periods of historiography. It is not always the same, nor does it have a constant intention.

(To be continued)

References:

https://www.jeyamohan.in/183636/  -  Why didn't we write history?

https://tamil.wiki/wiki/A.K._Perumal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadasery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakumari_district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Kerala