The recent revision of the NCERT History textbook has ignited a debate amongst historians and others, with some expressing satisfaction while others voice their dissent. The disagreements among historians, who dedicate themselves to elucidating the ‘historical facts’, are both perplexing and thought-provoking.

Why do historians disagree on essentially the same historical facts, the given truths? The root of these disagreements may lie in their differing interpretations of historical facts, which leads to a multiplicity of truths, an endeavour best suited to the wise.

As the saying goes, ‘Truth is one; the wise express it in various ways’ (Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti).

History And Interpretation

Since historical facts do not speak for themselves, it becomes essential for historians to engage in their interpretation. By using various sources—archaeological, literary, oral, and artistic—as well as diverse methodologies and techniques, historians strive to make sense of historical facts. Consequently, interpretation becomes pivotal in the writing of history. Eminent historian E.H. Carr (1961) emphasised the significance of interpretation by stating that ‘History means interpretation’. Similarly, Behan McCullagh (1971) remarked that interpretation lies at the heart of historical writing.

The interpretation-driven approach to history, being inherently subjective, becomes susceptible to disputes and poses challenges for historiography. Thus, Carr further described history as a collection of ‘hard facts’ enveloped in a ‘pulp of disputable interpretation’.

Objectivity remains a fundamental principle in any research, and is more easily achieved in experimental studies; however, the opportunities for experimentation in the social sciences are limited. Only a few disciplines, such as psychology and economics, employ experimental methods like Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) to........

© News18