– Arshad Shaikh
If we consider the controversy on history textbooks in India as just a political tussle, we will be making a big mistake. If we look at it superficially, it may appear that the right-wing forces want to glorify Hindu rulers in textbooks, downplay the Muslim contribution, and create a narrative that fits their ideology.
Let’s try to answer some fundamental questions to understand the issue. Is history an objective document of the past, where everything is recorded as it happened? Or is it a narrative that the writer creates from his experiences, his beliefs and his politics? And how should we as citizens of a democratic society, and inheritors of the Islamic intellectual tradition understand this history-writing? Should we see it, as just a count of dates and wars, or something bigger – a tool to understand humanity and society.
These questions are not academic debates that are limited to universities. These are connected to our daily lives. They determine what will rule our public life – truth or lies? Compassion or hatred? Democracy or dominance?
If we pause and ponder over these questions, it becomes clear that the selective erasure of the role of the Mughals in NCERT textbooks is not just a matter of “curriculum design”. It is the murder of the very idea of history. It tells us that an attempt is being made to suppress the truth and impose a specific worldview on young impressionable minds.
Theories of History: Between Objectivity and Subjectivity
At first glance, history seems to be just a game of figures. A certain war was fought, a certain king ruled, a law was passed, a temple or a mosque was built. All these are concrete events that can be verified with evidence. But as soon as we raise the question- which fact matters? Which fact will we select and which one will include in history? How will we interpret it? Which thread will we weave the entire story? This is precisely that moment when history goes from being objective to becoming subjective.
The same event can become a tragedy for someone, and a victory story for someone else. It all depends on whose perspective it is being told from. The German thinker Leopold von Ranke, who is considered the father of modern historiography, said that history should be presented “as it really happened”. But Ranke himself knew that historians do not simply list facts. They select, interpret, and then string them together to create a narrative.
The French philosopher Michel Foucault goes even further. He reminds us that knowledge and power are always intertwined. Every history bears the imprint of the political struggles of its era. Then is history just another name for ideology? Can it never be objective?
The real task before history is to carry two things together: First, empirical integrity. We have to be faithful to the evidence. We have to avoid fabricating lies. And most importantly, we have to accept the complexity of events. Second, interpretative honesty. We must accept that all history is written from some point of view. But we must try to keep our vision clear, transparent, and open to criticism. A true historian does not pretend to have no bias. He tries to keep bias in check, with the help of facts, logic, and objectivity.
Islam and the Craft of History
History has always been central to the Islamic intellectual tradition. The Qur’an itself tells the stories of past nations. However, it does not present them as mere dry dates or lists of events. Rather, those stories are lessons and reminders that pride leads man to destruction, justice sustains civilizations, and that God’s plan transcends human pride.
The Qur’an says: “Travel the earth and see what happened to those who denied the truth” (30:42). That is, history is presented here as moral knowledge. Early Muslim scholars developed distinct genres of history writing. In the 9th century, al-Tabari collected a variety of narrations with different chains of transmission. This established a tradition of source investigation and criticism.
In the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun took this work to a new level. He did not consider history to be just a count of events but analysed it from a sociological point of view. He warned against taking chronicles at face value, urged historians to check plausibility against reason, and emphasised the role of social structures, economics, and group solidarity (asabiyyah) in shaping events. His famous book “Muqaddima” is still considered one of the world’s most profound and influential works on historical theory.
These scholars taught us that history is neither mere propaganda nor useless memories of the past. It is a disciplined search. A search for truth. A search that rests on evidence, stands on logic, and finds its way through moral reflection. This was the contribution of Islam to history writing – the confluence of a rigorous methodology and a moral point of view. Recognising that human memory can easily be distorted, these scholars insisted that the real responsibility of the historian is to distinguish fact from myth.
The Correct Way to Write History
So, what is the correct way to write history? Three principles come to mind.
First, comprehensiveness. History should show the full spectrum – achievements and failures, grandeur and barbarism. It is misleading to highlight only one aspect and hide the other.
Second, contextualisation. Every event must be placed in the context of its time. Violence, for example, was part of every pre-modern regime. To single out one dynasty as particularly brutal is not just intellectual dishonesty but also historical injustice.
Third, plurality of voices. History should include not just the stories of kings and conquerors, but also the voices of women, minorities, marginalised classes and thinkers.
Ignoring names like Razia Sultan or Abul Fazl makes the story of India hollow. Writing history with an agenda of glorification of some and vilification of the rest is doing a positive disservice to the cause of the preservation of the past.
History as a disciplined domain of social science cannot afford to ignore the many complexities of every era and age. This is the right way of writing history. Neither propaganda, nor blind faith, but a confluence of truth, context and impartiality.
