History as dialogue

We need a Reconciliation Commission in order to build up a shared national identity by interpreting the past independently of state ideologies

Agastha Christie, in one of her witty books, Moving Finger, introduces a girl fresh from school, who is perplexed: “Such a lot of things seems to me such rot. History, for instance. Why, it’s quite different out of different books!” To this her sensible elderly confidant replies: “That is its real interest”.

This seems like a perfect entry point for commenting on ‘The uses and abuses of history’, a central theme discussed during the 19th International Congress of Historical Sciences at the University of Oslo this year. In the preface to his first book, published in 1924, Ranke did not presume, as did most historians, to sit in judgement on the past; he only wanted to show “what had really happened.” Needless to say that it has been hard for historians to establish historical truths, or, to defend the cult of objective historical inquiry.

What the historian can strive to achieve is to live up to the ideals of intellectual honesty and not allow oneself to be controlled or manipulated by various agencies. At a time when knowledge is so highly politicised, one can only hope that the past is not distorted for political purposes.

We study history, R.G. Collingwood maintained, in order to attain self-knowledge. By way of illustrating his thesis, he tried to show how our knowledge that human activity is free has been attained only through our discovery of history. The point is well taken. At the same time, the knowledge of history has been misused to legitimise chauvinistic national identities, authoritarian regimes, and military dictatorships. This was so in 19th century Germany. As George G. Iggers pointed out at the Oslo seminar, the task of research was to help construction of a national identity. The Prussian school of historians went into the archives not so much to be guided by the sources as to find support for their arguments that preceded their research.

Likewise, in the First World War, virtually all historians rallied to the flag. In Israel, memories of the past, namely the holocaust of 1941-45 and the Arab-Israel war in 1948-49, coalesced with invented myths, or official truth, to determine the collective identity of the Jewish people. Several Israeli historians, having subjected their reconstruction of the past to the interest of the state, party and nation, hammered home the Zionistic myths.

But at least on the 1948 war, the ‘new’ historians introduced a discordant note: the desire for territorial expansion, they argued, was just as prominent as the desire for peace among many Israeli leaders. They pointed out that most Palestinians fled as a result of acts of war, in some cases Palestinians were deported by Israeli forces and there were also massacres. “It was,” commented the historian Lars Hoff, “far from being David’s battle against Goliath: the Israeli forces were in the majority throughout the war and, with the exception of the first few weeks, they also had superior weapons.” When historians presented their findings in the 1990s, they were fiercely attacked, as it was feared that the Zionist identity would unravel.

British historians writing on India invoked certain aspects of ‘Muslim rule’ to underline that the British did more for the substantial benefit of the people than the despotic medieval Sultans. Henry Elliot, one of the leading historians of that camp, referred to “the few glimpses we have, even among this single volume, of Hindus slain for disputing with Muhammadans, of general prohibitions against processions, worship and ablution, of other intolerant measures, of idols mutilated, of temples razed, of forcible conversions and marriages.” Yet he candidly conceded that his purpose was to make “our native subjects more sensitive of the immense advantages” of British ruler.

Historian Romila Thapar pointed out that a major contradiction in our understanding of the entire Indian past is that this understanding derives largely from the interpretation of Indian history made in the last two hundred years. Today, various plans are afoot to rewrite our history.

Nobody can take exception to this exercise: historiography is, as George Iggers mentioned in his paper, an ongoing dialogue which does not necessarily arrive at consensus but may enhance understanding of the past by illuminating it from a variety of perspectives. Yet one should be wary of myth making, of romanticising the past, and selectively invoking certain incidents to lend legitimacy to a contemporary ideology. History can be misused to settle scores or used in different ways in association with nation building. ‘Useful’ use of history for a nation can, for example, be conciliation, or the opposite, to increase hate or antagonisms.

I believe it is possible to seek the truth and achieve reconciliation. This is precisely what is taking place in South Africa under the aegis of the Reconciliation Commission. The aims of the Commission are to help the country achieve reconciliation and to engage in a corporate nationwide process of healing through contrition, confession and forgiveness. That is why the truth is so central to the exercise.

I believe we too need a Reconciliation Commission in order to build up a shared national identity by interpreting the past independently of state-sponsored ideologies. Liberal and secular-minded professional historians must dictate the ground rules for public debates and not ministers and bureaucrats who raise themselves to the position of irrefutable prophets. Regardless of the recent outcry and the ICHR’s decision to withhold the publication of two ‘Towards Freedom’ volumes edited by Sumit Sarkar and K.N. Panikkar, the track record of such historians has been impeccable. Their commitment and integrity inspires hope and pride: despite the vulnerability of the historical profession, there is a stubborn resistance to state-sponsored historical writings and to the rewriting of history for short-term political gains.

Our major responsibility is to defend the freedom of information and statement. This is central to our profession. As Antooon De Baets from the Netherlands stated, “the reason for this priority is clear: without these freedoms, historians cannot discharge their first professional obligation, the pursuit of historical truth, nor their other social responsibilities towards past, present and future society.”

Earlier Columns