The debates that arose in the aftermath of author William Dalrymple's remarks in which he attributed the widespread acceptance and prevalence of a distorted and misrepresented history of India through platforms such as WhatsApp to the inaccessibility of Indian academic historians, has sparked a heated and important discussion about the ways in which historical knowledge is produced, how history is taught, and the roles of two imagined categories of historians: academic historians and popular historians. Dalrymple’s sweeping judgement is problematic on several counts and has been piercingly critiqued by several historians.

In his article on Dalrymple's statement, historian Samyak Ghosh accurately noted that academic historians have not failed to reach the "public," but rather are prevented from doing so through a variety of strategies that are a tangible manifestation of the Foucauldian assertion of power. There are also structural factors linked to early historical pedagogy as well as a (neo-liberal) socio-cultural disdain for a field of study that is neither "necessary" nor “useful." Additionally, he argues that those who provide authors of such inaccurate, untrustworthy, and intellectually dishonest works in the field with a popular platform to reach a wider audience and gain more recognition only serve to reinforce the contentious (sometimes wholly incorrect and ideologically biassed) interpretations of historical narrative. A recent example is Vikram Sampath, who was supported by numerous media outlets and stages of literary festivals throughout the nation popularising his two volume biography of Savarkar, even though several professional historians criticised his work, including two whom he had cited and who both said that what he had done would be considered plagiarism in academic circles, three other academics Rohit Sharma, Audrey Truschke and Ananya Chakravarti- the latter two being prominent academic historians based in the US wrote to the UK Royal Historical Society asking his membership to be revoked after claiming that 50% of his book was either plagiarised or improperly sourced and were promptly sued by Sampath for defamation, with the Delhi High Court issuing a stay order on the three publishing anything further regarding their claims. On top of this, historians who challenge established nationalist and right-wing narratives can expect to deal with harassment, trolling, and actual threats to their lives and to that of their families, all of which takes a substantial mental toll apart from anything else.

A broader, encompassing term for this phenomenon is "WhatsApp University," which was put forward by journalist Ravish Kumar. Kumar addresses the idea of "knowledge inequality," which is pervasive in Indian society but rarely discussed, to explain the concept and efficacy of such an organised and strategic approach to (mis)information dissemination. He contends that although students nationwide lack access to classrooms and teachers (particularly in Tier 2, Tier 3 cities, and villages), they have a voracious hunger for knowledge. For these hungry students, who are at the bottom of the spectrum of knowledge inequality, the "WhatsApp University" thus turns into a reliable source of understandable information. It fills a systemic vacuum created by the political class with their deliberate disregard for educational institutions and their growing demands. As a result, there arises a disparity in not only education levels between people of different classes, but also in educational quality and credibility, which in turn affects their cognitive growth and analytical abilities.

Dalrymple argues that it was the failure of academic Indian historians “from about the ’50s through to the beginning of the present century” to reach general audiences and to only talk among themselves that led to the growth of WhatsApp versions of history. The problem with this is twofold- firstly it ignores the work of popular historians who have made an impact and reached wider audiences and secondly, it places the blame for the growth of misinformation via mechanisms such as WhatsApp University at the feet of academics, rather than the right-wing nationalist ecosphere, which is well organised with specific goals and is the body that actually produces such a discourse. We must remember that history is always by someone for someone, by which one means that it is always written by a particular author(s) with their own specific bundle of biases, intentions, and limitations and for a specific audience in mind, whether it is an academic clerisy or for a broader group interested in either the history of a particular religion, individual, political cause, or nation. One can think of at least three popular histories which have made an impact, not in the least with the amount of sales they have generated- and in a country where sales of 2,000 (in English) and 4,000 (in vernacular languages) is deemed a success, with 10,000 being considered a bestseller, they have achieved considerable success. Notably, all three seek to undermine established myths and distortions about the past which have been........

© Free Press Journal