Prema Jayakumar

Napoleon had it right when he asked, ‘What is history but a fable agreed upon?’

Some of the fables that have lived on for centuries are now being corrected in the face of fresh evidence. It is taken for granted that all the sciences have to correct themselves every now and again and formulate new theories with the advent of new inventions and discoveries. A scientist has to correct views held for centuries when new facts come to light, when new inventions take him or her to hitherto unknown areas. It looks as though historians, who were considered exempt from such corrections, too have to learn to do so, to let fondly held stories go and learn new ones. History, we thought, was set in stone and did not have to alter itself since the past was the past. And yet, with new discoveries, with new tools invented for more accurate studies, parts of history are having to be rewritten. Some of the heroes are seen to be cowards or sometimes racists and bigots. Some of history’s blackest villains find themselves being rehabilated. Historians are discovering new things all the time and having to alter their views. They find themselves analysing clues to the past and formulating new theories about what these clues might mean.

These ruminations were engendered by the preview of an exhibition called Nero: the man and the myth. Mention Emperor Nero and what is the image you have of him? A ruler who sat and fiddled, while all around him the capital city of Rome burned. The absolute picture of the cruel ruler who did not care what happened to his subjects. Well, it looks as though cartoonists who showed any ruler with a laurel wreath and a violin with flames in the background will have to find themselves a new reference point. Nero was not a cruel ruler, he did not fiddle because the fiddle would not be invented for a thousand years or so, and it seems he was not even in Rome when Rome burnt. A lot of presumptions were re-examined when graffiti that had been hidden for years by the ashes from the erupting Vesuvius were cleaned from walls and rocks. So, there you are. Another villain who seems to be getting rehabilitated is Richard III from British history. According to present day historians Shakespeare’s play maligns a fairly enlightened ruler. Nor was he hunchbacked. This was realised when his skeleton was excavated accidently in the process of building a new bye pass.

We face a similar problem with someone who lived as recently as a couple of centuries ago, with ample documentation from his own archives and the archives of his enemies. I’m speaking of Tippu Sultan. He is an enlightened ruler with impeccable secular credentials, he is a religious bigot who destroyed temples and converted people forcibly, using considerable cruelty. You are free to choose either side of the argument. Both views have sufficient supporting evidence. Each time a new document is recovered, deciphered, we are forced to change our views on the historical personage and his or her rule. So too for civilizations. The Harappans were Aryans, and then they were not Aryans but people who were driven southwards when the Aryans invaded them, the Aryans did not invade at all, they were here all the time. You can take your pick. In the absence of well-documented evidence, any of these might be true.

It is true that history is usually written by the victors. While most facts remain the same, the interpretation varies. Sometimes, with the discovery of something written and hidden till recently even the facts change their shape. When the ones who lost find their voices, find their own narratives, the received story might have to be changed. Historical narratives, especially when we go to ancient history is so tangled with myth and legend that any small discovery, the deciphering of a fragment of an inscription can change everything. What we have received is a narrative with lots of blanks in the telling. When these blanks are filled up, the historian needs an open mind and a willingness to let go of arguments and theories. Also the student or the lay reader. ‘History to the defeated /May say Alas but cannot help or pardon’ said W. H. Auden. But perhaps it can set right wrong stories or at least attempt to do so.