Upholding scientific principles of historical writing: Interview with K.N. Pannikar

Hindu February 25, 2008

C. Gouridasan Nair

“NCERT textbooks are used only in 3 per cent of schools in the country. The remaining 97 per cent of schools use textbooks that are much more communal.”

Professor K.N. Panikkar, the eminent historian who was recently elected General President of the Indian History Congress (IHC), talks about the tasks before historians today, and related issues. He says the Sethusamudram controversy underscores the need for historians to continue to invoke and reaffirm scientific principles of historical writing and interpretation. Excerpts:

Q: As the general president of the Indian History Congress (IHC), how do you think its academic work and organisational practice could be further advanced?

The IHC has a well-established tradition of organising its work through annual conferences. Its strength lies in the large number of historians who come together on its platform. Paradoxically, that is also its weakness.

Given such large participation, it is unable to find enough time for what it is primarily meant for: reporting and discussing the ongoing research by its members. An unfortunate consequence of this paucity of time is that research pursued outside the main centres fails to get adequate attention.

One possible solution is to give freedom to scholars to organise panels on the areas of their interest — as is done in the International History Congress. Such an opening up may be particularly attractive to young historians who are grappling with new thematic and methodological issues.

Q: Generally, what would you consider to be the main tasks before historians in India today?

The main task is to preserve, pursue and promote the basic tenets of history as a discipline, which has been facing methodological and interpretative challenges in recent times. Some of these challenges go against the grain of objective historical investigation and interpretation.

Among them, the threat to secular historiography from the communal camp has been the most serious one. However, it did not succeed in its mission because of resistance from within the discipline, of which the IHC has been at the forefront. Yet, the influence of communal interpretation has persisted.Therefore it is necessary to continue to invoke and affirm the scientific principles of historical writing.

The second task is related to the production of historical knowledge which is contingent upon the unearthing of ‘primary’ information about historical processes. The interpretative history is possible only when basic knowledge about historical events is available. Therefore the collection, documentation and systematisation of sources deserve particular attention. Thirdly, history should be brought closer to the social sciences through interdisciplinary research and analysis.

These three appear to be the most pressing tasks, among many other engagements, both theoretical and thematic, which demand the attention of historians.

Q: History is being invoked by certain political forces to secure legitimacy for their unscientific positions. In the process they discard the rigour of historical inquiries, in favour of emotional appeal. How do historians meet this challenge? The Sethusamudram issue may be an example.

Historians should face such situations by scrupulously separating myth from history. In the popular imagination they are often seen as interchangeable. While myth may help to unravel some riddles of history, myth is not history. There is also the question of evidence without which history cannot be constructed. In the Sethusamudram issue what is important is to respect this separation. The controversy is a result of its possible potential for religious mobilisation. It has happened in the past in the case of Ramjanmabhoomi. Historians then played an important role in bringing out the historical evidence, or the lack of it, regarding the temple.

They have not done it sufficiently in the case of Sethusamudram. It would be good if those who decide these matters pay heed to the professional opinion of historians.

Q: There is increasing interest in micro-history. Is there a deflection of attention from the larger issues as a result?

There is such a tendency, particularly with the influence of post-modern theories. In a way it is a global phenomenon. But the focus on microhistory need not necessarily dissociate the micro from the macro. As Eric Hobsbawm observed, “more historians find the microscope useful at present, but this does not necessarily mean that they reject the telescopes as out of date.” In Indian historiography, micro-history has not had many practitioners and therefore methodological issues have not been adequately debated. For a long time mega-narratives have held centre stage.

However, micro-history is now gaining ground, particularly in the writing of regional history. The history of smaller localities is being written, which has brought to the fore a variety of methodological and conceptual questions. Micro-history would unearth new types of evidence and highlight new dimensions of social and cultural diversity. The multiplicity of voices it would recover would enrich the quality of historical assessment. However, they cannot be addressed by dissociating the micro from the macro. [This can be done] only by exploring their integral connection.

Q: There is a kind of fast-forwarding taking place in life, with technology intervening tremendously in our lives. Do you think these processes in contemporary life impinge on historiography?

I think it does. The way history is now being approached is a direct reflection of the larger changes in society. Consider, for instance, the current interest in global history. It is not the old World History. It is directly influenced by what is happening around us today, in technology, in politics and in economy. In fact, the opening session of the International Conference of Historians in Sydney two years ago was devoted to Global History, in which historians reflected on the emerging tendencies. They were really looking at the future through the past. Their opinions were an indication of the way history as a discipline is responding to changes today. But in India there is very little interest in contemporary history.

Whatever little we have written does not attempt to locate our history in the global context, without which contemporary history makes no sense.

Q: In Asia, or at least in South Asia, we have had a common historical experience. Has there been enough work to link the experiences of at least the South Asian countries and to trace the processes that have brought us to the present stage and the way things have evolved in these countries?

Very little, perhaps none. A few years ago some of us did make an attempt to initiate a project to write a history of South Asia. The idea emerged out of a dialogue with Pakistani historians while I was in Lahore as part of a cultural delegation. It was generally welcomed in both countries, but for some logistical reasons that could not be accomplished.

Even recently, during the “1857” celebrations, a suggestion was mooted by some of us for writing the history of the event from a South Asian perspective because other countries in South Asia were also involved in the Revolt. I thought such a perspective and collaboration between historians would be useful, but unfortunately what has happened during the last few years is the further isolation of historians of the subcontinent. I do not think the IHC receives a delegation of historians from Pakistan or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka at its annual conference. Nor are we able to exchange or market publications. It is a pity because we have so much to share in terms of common historical experience.

Q: Detoxifying textbooks was a proposition advanced after the last election. Almost four years of UPA rule are over. Are you happy with the way that process has progressed?

Not at all, if you are talking about history in the larger context. The government took some positive steps to change the textbooks published by the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT). But NCERT textbooks are used only in 3 per cent of schools in the country. The remaining 97 per cent of schools use textbooks that are much more communal than the NCERT textbooks concocted by the BJP dispensation. If detoxification were to be effective, this large segment had to be cleansed of communalism. A suggestion was to set up a National Commission, which could keep vigil over the quality of textbooks used for all subjects and take cognisance of communal or anti-secular views in them. The commission should have enough teeth, judicial powers, like the Minorities Commission or the Women’s Commission, so that whenever there are departures from secular norms it would be able to take action. But the government did not undertake an all-out fight against communal ideology. As a result, communal interpretation of history continues to be present in an overwhelming majority of the textbooks.

Q: After your well known work on the Mappillas, you seem to be concentrating on intellectual and cultural history, as is evident from your latest publication, Colonialism, Culture and Resistance published by Oxford University Press in 2007. What lies ahead? What happened to the controversial Towards Freedom volume, which the BJP government withdrew?

Hopefully it would be published this year. About 1,500 pages of the manuscripts which were “lost,” according to the ICHR, have now been restored from my copy. That sordid story is over. Currently I am engaged in a couple of other projects. First is a cultural history of Colonial India, which is mainly an attempt to explore the evolution of the public sphere in terms of the cultural contexts within it. Simultaneously I am working on a social history of Kerala which focusses on the complexities and contradictions in the evolution of modernity. I am also in the final stages of putting together my popular writings on communalism and secularism. A couple of books in Malayalam are also in the pipeline. That is a handful, isn’t it?