Let us Discuss What is History

[ravinderjeet]

The bold above is whats controversial for me in the study of history. The historian or the analyst's own prejudices and biases do come into play when analyzing historical sources, do they not?

And I understand that after some time truth does come out due to new found evidences, sources etc. But untill then, especially for historical events before the advent of mass publication there would always be divergent views.

Yes ,it is so.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Yes ,it is so.

and

The bold above is whats controversial for me in the study of history. The historian or the analyst's own prejudices and biases do come into play when analyzing historical sources, do they not?

And I understand that after some time truth does come out due to new found evidences, sources etc. But untill then, especially for historical events before the advent of mass publication there would always be divergent views.

Ravinderjeet ji and Swaichji,

It is not so. The fact of the matter is as follows.
The biased history never makes room in the academic fraternity. The yard stick applied is 'objectivity' in historical narration that is detachment of the author/scholar i.e., he/she has not to take sides and present the facts as such based on the references quoted. Thus prejudiced writing is continuously replaced in view of the newer found facts.
So long as there exists scarcity of solid reliable evidence, one, two or as many as reference based views are put for open debate and this is the methodology not demerit that there appear divergence of views on any specific issue. Therefore we must not be afraid of this phenomenon.

Even today, in the age of explosion of information technology, many gaps and dark places remain to be plugged and illuminated as there continues to be lack of historical sources/data even today. I mean to convey that none can claim to have written final word in history because there is always scope of coming to light newer data/sources/references. History writing requires rigorous practice and that comes with experience and expertise.

Thanks.

 

[virj]

History is written by the winners. They manipulate the facts, destroy evidences to suit their purpose. Also there are diff view points to narrate history. For Bristishers and few indians Bhagat singh was a terrortist but for us he was one of the greatest soul of 20th centuary. Even Osama is a hero for many. I was once told by a Greek that in their school books Alexandra conquered India but our books said different things. Many claims Prithvi Raj Chauhan died somewhere close to UP but we were told he didnt die in India.

What Swaich is saying is somewhat true

 

[fateh]

History is written by the winners. They manipulate the facts, destroy evidences to suit their purpose. Also there are diff view points to narrate history. For Bristishers and few indians Bhagat singh was a terrortist but for us he was one of the greatest soul of 20th centuary. Even Osama is a hero for many. I was once told by a Greek that in their school books Alexandra conquered India but our books said different things. Many claims Prithvi Raj Chauhan died somewhere close to UP but we were told he didnt die in India.

What Swaich is saying is somewhat true

Brother I agree with you

 

[drrajpalsingh]

History is written by the winners. They manipulate the facts, destroy evidences to suit their purpose. Also there are diff view points to narrate history. ... I was once told by a Greek that in their school books Alexandra conquered India but our books said different things.

What Swaich is saying is somewhat true

Friend,

History is neither written by winners nor looser.

History takes the care of both the sides.

Regarding Alexandra's campaign, what Indian's think or Greeks perceive is not history. For a proper grasp of the topic please read standard books available in very large number in various libraries throughout the world. Reality has been dug out by the laborious efforts of historians and it is established that he had faced such a fierce opposition i n India that his soldiers threatened to go back to their country if he tried to cross over Beas River. So terrified the Greeks were that they had to retreat and even then they were made to escape avoiding Indian attackers. This is accepted by historians of all the nations including India that leave alone conquering India, he could not win whole of the Punjab. And within three years, Chandergupta Maurya, the Jat emperor, removed all the signs of Hellenic invasion from the face of India by beating them back from here. This is History.

Regarding your partial acceptance of Saiwach;s statement, kindly share with us how much do you agree and how much you do not agree!!!

But do not doubt the reliability of History so long as you have no strong valid reference material. Please provide foundation of source material for your belief or perception. Come out with facts after rigorous reading and then try to supplement the existing knowledge.

Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Brother I agree with you

Dear Friend,

It would be good of you, if you could share with us about Alexandra's invasion of India as you are from Indian Army and, perhaps, would have studied something about him.

Is there any reference that he conquered India as one of our friends has surmised in his post.

Regards

 

[vijay]

History is not written but it happened. It may take some time to bring forward the actual events with accurate date but its not all about what winners want to write. The winners may manipulate the circumstances for the time being but sooner or later truth comes out like a new day. Historian may have their own biases but then facts don't have any preferences.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

History is not written but it happened. It may take some time to bring forward the actual events with accurate date but its not all about what winners want to write. The winners may manipulate the circumstances for the time being but sooner or later truth comes out like a new day. Historian may have their own biases but then facts don't have any preferences.

The word 'History' is used for:

'the event as it happened in the past', or/and also 'the record of the same as presented in the book form.'

 

[fateh]

Dear Friend,

It would be good of you, if you could share with us about Alexandra's invasion of India as you are from Indian Army and, perhaps, would have studied something about him.

Is there any reference that he conquered India as one of our friends has surmised in his post.

Regards

Dear, in Army we do discuss various good battles fought, tactics/weapons/leadership traits displayed, however, Alexander had less importance in todays warfare, Also neither I am in teaching profession nor have some library/time to put few lines from books and you will agree that in this old age and without in touch to such material, it is difficult to write some thing and specially when people ask proof for every thing whether to understand or to collect material for future self use.However, For Army, his move with lightning speed and surprised his enemies, was an important contribution of his, At the age of 22, he started his project of expansion, with in ten years he conquered Asia minor, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran. H e reached India in 327BC, HE WAS WELCOMED BY AMBHI, KING OF TAXILA, WITH THE HELP OF AMBHI HIS ARMY MARCHED FORWARD TO CROSS hYDASPES9 JHELUM, to his surprise he found the mighty Army of PORUS, A FIERCE BATTLE FOLLOWED, PORUS ARMY FOUGHT WELL BUT unfortunately Porus got wounded and got captured, Here Alexander behaved like a good soldier and porus was let free with his kingdom, From here he had to return back due to to reasons, a) he and his people realized the strength and fighting spirit of Indians and also realized that it would be very difficult to move against Nandas. b) his soldiers were tired, were away from their families for last 10 years, so very reluctantly he returned back, Further you can analyses and let us know your expert views

 

[fateh]

History is not written but it happened. It may take some time to bring forward the actual events with accurate date but its not all about what winners want to write. The winners may manipulate the circumstances for the time being but sooner or later truth comes out like a new day. Historian may have their own biases but then facts don't have any preferences.

Brother, you are absolutely right, but here we were discussing history/account/details of the happenings which is made available to coming generations is mostly effected by the ruling power and human weaknesses of the so called historians and further poor/ misinterpretation or biased projection and conveyed to students by our so called expert teachers, regards

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dear, in Army we do discuss various good battles fought, tactics/weapons/leadership traits displayed, however, Alexander had less importance in todays warfare, Also neither I am in teaching profession nor have some library/time to put few lines from books and you will agree that in this old age and without in touch to such material, it is difficult to write some thing and specially when people ask proof for every thing whether to understand or to collect material for future self use.However, For Army, his move with lightning speed and surprised his enemies, was an important contribution of his, At the age of 22, he started his project of expansion, with in ten years he conquered Asia minor, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Iran. H e reached India in 327BC, HE WAS WELCOMED BY AMBHI, KING OF TAXILA, WITH THE HELP OF AMBHI HIS ARMY MARCHED FORWARD TO CROSS hYDASPES9 JHELUM, to his surprise he found the mighty Army of PORUS, A FIERCE BATTLE FOLLOWED, PORUS ARMY FOUGHT WELL BUT unfortunately Porus got wounded and got captured, Here Alexander behaved like a good soldier and porus was let free with his kingdom, From here he had to return back due to to reasons, a) he and his people realized the strength and fighting spirit of Indians and also realized that it would be very difficult to move against Nandas. b) his soldiers were tired, were away from their families for last 10 years, so very reluctantly he returned back, Further you can analyses and let us know your expert views

Thanks for your valuable input. I will try to put further illuminate the incident/event relating to Porus and Alexandra in some other post after verifying some of the references yet to be cross checked by me in due course.
Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Brother, you are absolutely right, but here we were discussing history/account/details of the happenings which is made available to coming generations is mostly effected by the ruling power and human weaknesses of the so called historians and further poor/ misinterpretation or biased projection and conveyed to students by our so called expert teachers, regards

Friend,
Kindly guide us whom to approach to believe to know about HISTORY! As per your post 'so called historians' and 'so called expert teachers,' are producing narrations that are 'biased,poor/misinterpretation.'

Please suggest an alternate source so that the subject of history could gain reliability in the eyes of the readers.

Regards

 

[virj]

To Dr Rajpal:

1. History is written by the winners: I said this in reference to Swaich post. History is witness that history has been used as a propaganda. There are many accounts where we can see this. This is what I was refering to. In that example the Greeks have their version and we have our same way for Chauhan we have our version and others have different version. Now if you ask Indians 70-80% (conservative approach) would agree with our version. So for majority this is history. Not everyone has time and skills to dig in the facts and do analysis so majority believe the propaganda. Lacks of facts in some situation increase the chances of propaganda. In the past it was much easier and winners were the only survivors (often) and had the chances to manipulate facts, write whatever they wanted. If history is only what happened then all history books should be same. The winner/ruler are in greater position to hide and manipulate the facts. Just an example in China govt is in greater control and i am sure would have been hiding lot of facts from the public and rest of the world. In future what will get reported is what they leave as evidence and that will become history which someone like you would be analysing. Ruler also control who will write the history. Lakan army tried to control the history of Tamil Tigers and Indira tried to control operation Blue Star history by only allowing M. Tully.

2. The other aspect is the different viewpoints. As Swaich said different people have different view points of some historical facts. I think i already said on this.

By this I am not trying to demean the profession of history.

 

[fateh]

Friend,
Kindly guide us whom to approach to believe to know about HISTORY! As per your post 'so called historians' and 'so called expert teachers,' are producing narrations that are 'biased,poor/misinterpretation.'

Please suggest an alternate source so that the subject of history could gain reliability in the eyes of the readers.

Regards

Dr Sahab, I hope you will agree to the fact that very few incidents have been written by some eye witness and even eye witnesses covered some happening you may find different views by most of them due to their different understanding, different perception, difference in knowledge/ experience/ intelligence level/expression capability/language/pre-concieved ideas//preferences/biases/etc, It is also fact that ruling power/winner always try to influence the record, It is also fact that even one version of some incident is made available to few people, most of them will have different understanding/perception/belief. Thus my dear one has to live with the truth, ofcourse, in most cases, certain facts remain same and when we read more number of views on the subject, we can reach closure to the truth but again depends upon the person who interpret it, so enjoy, continue working and believe what your soul say to you, The history was/is/will not a science. Simple example- you have written a book on Ch Devi lal, some more people must have also written on him, certain facts may be same but views on his personality traits/his contribution/ his nature/his work etc, will always be different, So dear relax, enjoy life, be always happy, live in present, do not compare with any body, have less expectations from all, control desire/eggo/anger/greed/attachment/proud etc and finally be satisfied

Approach yourself

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Respected Sir,
Thanks for your philosophic words showing concern about me, I am so obliged to you and try to follow them to my utmost capacity.

But I take the opportunity to reciprocate the sentiments and sermons in full measure to you for application in your own life too:

"So dear relax, enjoy life, be always happy, live in present, do not compare with any body, have less expectations from all, control desire/eggo/anger/greed/attachment/proud etc and finally be satisfied. Approach yourself."

​Thanks

 

[fateh]

Respected Sir,
Thanks for your philosophic words showing concern about me, I am so obliged to you and try to follow them to my utmost capacity.

But I take the opportunity to reciprocate the sentiments and sermons in full measure to you for application in your own life too:

"So dear relax, enjoy life, be always happy, live in present, do not compare with any body, have less expectations from all, control desire/eggo/anger/greed/attachment/proud etc and finally be satisfied. Approach yourself."

​Thanks

Brother, I always believed that best method of teaching is - by self example, Though, it is not possible to achieve goal in one day, but I can assure you that I am trying my best for all above, not for showing to people but for my happiness, most have entered room of my habit but I am still unable to control few of them, please do not mind it was to share with you my thinking and being an elder I do have concern, thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

To Dr Rajpal:

1. History is written by the winners: I said this in reference to Swaich post. History is witness that history has been used as a propaganda. There are many accounts where we can see this. This is what I was refering to. In that example the Greeks have their version and we have our same way for Chauhan we have our version and others have different version. Now if you ask Indians 70-80% (conservative approach) would agree with our version. So for majority this is history. Not everyone has time and skills to dig in the facts and do analysis so majority believe the propaganda. Lacks of facts in some situation increase the chances of propaganda. In the past it was much easier and winners were the only survivors (often) and had the chances to manipulate facts, write whatever they wanted. If history is only what happened then all history books should be same. The winner/ruler are in greater position to hide and manipulate the facts. Just an example in China govt is in greater control and i am sure would have been hiding lot of facts from the public and rest of the world. In future what will get reported is what they leave as evidence and that will become history which someone like you would be analysing. Ruler also control who will write the history. Lakan army tried to control the history of Tamil Tigers and Indira tried to control operation Blue Star history by only allowing M. Tully.

2. The other aspect is the different viewpoints. As Swaich said different people have different view points of some historical facts. I think i already said on this.

By this I am not trying to demean the profession of history.

Friend,

I fully agree with you that history and propaganda have separate identities and serve separate purposes. It is also true that the ruling elites try to resort to propaganda by using discriminate information which seems to them to serve their purpose to influence the public opinion in their favour. But with the passage of time, new facts/sources of information start to emerge, the propaganda documents began to give way to critical analysis and thus ground for writing history is prepared. In due course of time, authentic historical narration emerges.

That is why contemporary history is not considered by many as 'History' because full rigorous of historical methodology, which is perquisite of history, are/cannot applied to write it. This aspect of contemporary history and history needs to be recognised and kept into mind when we talk of History.

Of course different viewpoints are there on different historical events. But this should not be construed weakness in any manner. Rather existence of different points of view suggest that there is further scope of research and reinterpretation and whatever has been written on such a specific point more work has yet to be done to arrive at an universally acceptable point of view.

Thanks for your enlightening views on the topic.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

History is not written but it happened. It may take some time to bring forward the actual events with accurate date but its not all about what winners want to write. The winners may manipulate the circumstances for the time being but sooner or later truth comes out like a new day. Historian may have their own biases but then facts don't have any preferences.

You are right Friend that History is all about actual events that happened in the past. Objective {dispassionate] historians use all accessible and available facts to advance their point of view and give no preferential treatment to one source or the other. They treat sources of information as tools of history writing and use them in their work.

Thanks.

 

[anilsangwan]

Can feel a bit harsh to History teachers or lovers.... but seems the way it is written in text books and it is taught, makes it very boring subject. I know exceptions are always there.

मेरे जिसे हिस्ट्री में बोदे आदमी तें बूझोगे या फेर किसे छटी सात्मी आठ्मी के बालक ने बूझोगे तो न्यू कह गा..."हिस्ट्री के पेपर में कितना इ लिख ल्यो.... नंबर 50-60 तें उपर कोणी आवें... मास्टर बिलांत तें नाप नाप के नंबर दिया करें...|| तारिख आर सन की घोल्मथोल माचे बिना ना रह... जितना पढो उतनी इ खिचड़ी...


Never ever thought that someone would even distort History as no one can benefit out of it. एब जा के बेरi पाटे स आक हिस्ट्री लिखण में भी राजनीति चाली सें...... एर गलत हिस्ट्री लिखण का मोटा नुक्सान स जाती और वर्ग विशेष के उपर .........

 

[ravinderjeet]

जा इतिहासकार इतने-ए सही अर गलत के बारे में इतनी ड़ून्घी जांच पड़ताल करें सें अर इमानदार सें ते फेर भारत अर पाकिस्तान की हिस्ट्री एक होणी चाहिए , आजादी तें पहलम की | पाकिस्तान के इतिहासकार ते न्यू कहवें सें अक इस्लाम अर पाकिस्तान धरती पे कदीमी स |