The year is coming to an end, but as a history student, I am aware of some hardships and protests that are still ongoing. History is not a subject that you can change based on your preferences; if you like a topic, include that chapter; if you don’t like it, skip that chapter and move on; history is a fact that you cannot change. However, some self-proclaimed historians, ideologues, filmmakers, and governments have chosen to change history and write a new history based on their faith, which is incorrect. It may be a story, but it is not history.
For starters, some self-proclaimed historians wish to abandon factual history in favor of rewriting new history through new excavations and discoveries. This new excavation has added a new chapter to Indian history, but his prospects are not promising. As a result, they want to dismiss the significance of the Indus River and only support the Saraswati River. Second, they claim that Aryans are of Indian origin and have not come from outside; they are not entirely incorrect, but they should be aware that we are all mixed species, and no single civilization is a pure race. Then they try to justify some epic like Mahabharata through their excavations, but this is a difficult task because Mahabharata was not an epic in the past. The journey from Jai Kavya to Jay Samhita and then to Mahabharat is extremely long. As a result, the text whose chapter they want to prove through their excavation is debatable. Finally, if there are epics or Vedas literature, can we fully consider them? Because many words in this literature are used as Upama or metaphors, and their literal meaning differs from their actual meaning.
The second issue is that many filmmakers attempt to rewrite history through their films. However, they are not explicitly stating that this is history, but that is their intention. These films point to an ideology and that ideology is also militant. This ideology is reflected in films such as Padmavat, Panipat, Bajirao Mastani, Manikarnika, Prithviraj, and Theonoji. These films do not present true history, but rather fragmented histories based on a regional book or non-existent history. And these films have been made directly in support of Hindutva ideology and Islamophobic thought, which appears to be an agenda rather than films.
The third issue is that many historians and people are currently afflicted with Hindutva and Islamophobic ideologies. As a result, he completely rejected Medieval India, i.e. the Sultanate period and the Mughal era, because Medieval India was primarily ruled by Muslims. You can look back on that time, but you can’t deny the Sultanate’s or Mughals’ achievements, contributions, or administration. During the Mughal period, India’s economy was very good, as was the administration system under Sher Shah Shuri. You or anyone else cannot write history from a religious standpoint. Mughals or Muslim rulers, for example, destroyed the temple because they are Muslims, whereas Hindu kings built the temple because they are Hindus. However, this is a lowly mindset. However, many Mughal kings, including Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultanate, rebuilt many temples such as Kashi Vishwanath, Kamakhya Temple, and Minakshi Temple.
Many Hindu kings, including Shivaji Maharaj, probably destroyed and looted the Sungeri Sarada temple, and many Maratha rulers looted the different temples in Puri several times. It is also true that many Muslim rulers destroyed the temple, but this cannot be seen from a religious standpoint. Then comparing Maharana Pratap to Akbar or Shivaji to Aurangzeb is completely incorrect because all are great rulers and history knows who is great and who is so powerful; you cannot make someone big or small by lying. You cannot write history while being influenced by an ideology because history is not written based on ideology or faith.
Only facts and authenticity are used to write history. But nowadays, anyone can become a historian, write a book, and give a speech about history, which is completely incorrect history. Nowadays, Facebook, news channels, YouTube, WhatsApp, podcasts, blogs, and various competitive preparation channels are all promoting the wrong history, and they all know it is all wrong, but they all suffer from the same ideology, and we all accept that false evidence. The new trend in recent years has been to rename cities and roads, creating a confusing history in the process. Then it became common practice to incite communal conflict by exposing the issues of religious sites in the face of false history. Changing the history book or examination syllabus to a specific ideology, such as abandoning Nehru or Maulana in modern history or rejecting Akbar or Khilji in medieval times, then abusing Gandhiji or any other freedom fighters, or within the people, is common these days.
My final annoyance is that even history students have forgotten the concepts of historiography and Methodology. Historiography is an important part of history, with many streams including nationalist, Marxist, imperialist, Subaltern, Annals’, Postmodernism, structuralism, Positivism, Counterfactual, and so on. Every stream is distinct from the others; there are ideological differences among historians from each stream; however, we must understand and read each stream; only one stream is the final path. Yes, but as we can see in imperialist and nationalist historiography, some sections of it have flaws.
Historical evidence is another important factor that has become contaminated in the modern era, and without that knowledge, people write books or conduct research. Historical evidence can take many forms. Primary sources are among the most important types of historical evidence. Primary sources are original documents, artifacts, or other pieces of information created during the time period under study. So, if we’re researching the Freedom Movement, primary sources would include everything from letters written by soldiers to girlfriends and wives back home to government documents, photographs, and physical uniforms and equipment. Primary sources can cover a wide range of topics. Battlefield film footage is a primary source because it was shot on the spot, at that precise moment in history. Primary sources are typically valued higher than secondary sources. Secondary sources contain useful information, but they are usually based on an examination of the primary source material. Secondary sources are commonly found in books and magazines. Oral tradition is another important type of historical evidence. The oral tradition consists of stories that are passed down verbally rather than written down, usually from an eyewitness to succeeding generations. Oral tradition, also known as oral history, is sometimes considered a primary source, though its theoretical place as a source is debatable. In many ways, it is in a league of its own. Oral history is especially important for historians studying various ethnic groups whose histories are not always well documented in writing.
If you want to study history, you must be willing to be open-minded. History and conservatism cannot coexist in the same framework. History is a science with no single stream, no single darkness, and no single answer. It has a lot of darkness in it as well as a lot of answers. So history has always been polluted by government institutions and political ideologies, but as researchers, we must raise our voices and avoid polluting history.