All historical writing, even the most honest, is unconsciously subjective, since every age is bound to see the past through its prejudiced present. As some thinkers suggest it would be a good idea if the various countries of the world occasionally swapped history books, just to see what the other people are doing with the same set of facts. We are constructing, telling and believing in narratives about ourselves but we must first ensure that they are grounded in Truth and serve to inspire us to build a better inclusive world, write former IAS officer V.S.Pandey, and historian & freelance writer Dr. Smita Pandey.
“ Study history. Study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.’’ This seems to be the most preferred Confucian admonition and has been followed by politicians universally but with a crafty caveat – interpret the past in the light of the present by popularising ‘their’ ideologically imbued version of it created through sedulously propagated historical narratives. Hence the dominance of a false imperial historiography continued to regally hold sway for centuries in which the brutal brazen bloody loot of imperialism was allowed to shamelessly masquerade under the historical guise of a ‘civilising mission’ ‘bearing the brown man’s burden and ‘emancipating’ the heathens -created by colonial racist fawning historians ad infinitum. This victors narrative of History as ‘they’ want to see it continues -aided and buttressed by ‘their’ historians. The famous journalist Franklin Jones resonates strongly too “Perhaps nobody has changed the course of history as much as the historians.’’ There are a very few historical accounts available which are simply a narration of events as they happened, minus the opinion of the person writing the text. Here lies the problem. Across the globe, historical narratives suffer from the bias of the author, but are accepted as the gospel truth by many. The question is how to write history as Dr. Ambedkar envisaged, “A historian ought to be exact, sincere and impartial, free from passion, unbiased by interest, fear, resentment or affection. And faithful to the truth, which is the mother of history, the preserver of great actions, the enemy of oblivion, the witness of the past, the director of the future.”. Naturally it is difficult to find such unbiased and truthful people in any walk of life so there will be only a few in the history writing tribe too.
Historiography has progressed from empiricism to being leftist, rightist, modernist, post modernist and currently it is at its most ‘imaginative’ as Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian writer had presciently stated Historians are creating so called “history” out of nothing. The famous American historian Philip Jordan echoed the same when he wrote “history is an aggregate of half-truths, semi-truths, fables, myths, rumours, prejudices, personal narratives, gossip and official prevarications. It is a canvas upon which thousands of artists throughout the ages have splashed their conceptions and interpretations of an era.”
Governance, across the globe, is continuing to saliently splash its ideological colored interpretation on the national canvas which is mostly agenda driven. The question staring at every nation is whether to rewrite history honestly or let it remain as it is with its many splendored interpretations. The rewriting of history in India—or anywhere—can be a double-edged sword. It’s not inherently “good” or “bad”; it depends on the intent, method, and evidence behind it. Revisiting history can correct distortions. India’s historical narrative has been shaped by colonial lenses, like the British portrayal of the 1857 uprising as a mere “sepoy mutiny” rather than a War of independence. Post-independence, some argue that Marxist historians dominated academia and sidelined regional or indigenous perspectives. If rewriting means uncovering primary sources—like inscriptions, archaeological finds, or overlooked texts such as the “Arthashastra”—to challenge these biases, it’s a net positive. Truth should trump dogma. For example, recent efforts to highlight the Chola dynasty’s naval prowess or the scientific contributions of ancient India (e.g., Aryabhata’s astronomy) add depth to a story often oversimplified.
However, rewriting often slides into propaganda if it’s driven by ideology rather than facts. In India, this shows up in debates over Mughal rule or the Aryan migration theory. Some push to glorify a Hindu-centric past, downplaying Islamic or external influences, while others cling to outdated frameworks to avoid ruffling political feathers.
The real test is the process. Are historians, archaeologists, and scholars leading it with peer-reviewed research? Or is it politicians and ideologues cherry-picking to score points? India has a rich, syncretic past—Vedic texts, Buddhist councils, Mughal chronicles, colonial archives. Any rewrite should lean on that diversity of sources, not rewrite them to fit a linear narrative. The recent debate about Aurangzeb, the sixth Mughal emperor of India (r. 1658–1707), has flared up in early 2025, particularly in Maharashtra. This controversy reflects both historical grievances and contemporary political tensions, making Aurangzeb a lightning rod once again, over 300 years after his death.
This controversy arose in the context of the film Chhava, released in late 2024, which portrays the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, the Maratha king and son of Shivaji, who was brutally executed by Aurangzeb in 1689 after 40 days of torture. Critics of the movie claimed that the film distorts history and praised Aurangzeb, saying, “He ruled for 52 years, and if he was really converting people, no one would have been left Hindu. India was prosperous under his rule.” They argue that Aurangzeb’s actions, including temple construction and governance, were misrepresented, and that succession struggles among kings were not religious but political.
Aurangzeb came to power after a brutal war of succession, imprisoning his father Shah Jahan and executing his brothers. He inherited an empire where Hindus—Rajputs, Marathas, and others—were key to administration and military prowess. Mughal records like the Maasir-i-Alamgiri show he retained many Hindu nobles in high posts; by some estimates, Hindus comprised about 31% of his nobility, higher than under Akbar. This wasn’t altruism—keeping the empire stable meant co-opting local power structures, Hindu or otherwise.
Aurangzeb’s relationship with Hindus is oft debated through his religious policies. In 1679, he reimposed the jizya, a tax on non-Muslims, reversing Akbar’s abolition. This move, detailed in the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri (his legal code), signaled a shift toward Islamic orthodoxy and alienated many Hindu subjects.
Temple policy is the real flashpoint. Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of several prominent Hindu temples—e.g., the Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi (1669) and the Kesava Deo Temple in Mathura (1670)—often replacing them with mosques. Persian chronicles like the Akhbarat record these acts, justified as punishment for rebellion or “idolatry.” Estimates vary, but historian Richard Eaton tallies about 80 temple destructions over his reign, a fraction of India’s thousands, often tied to political defiance (e.g., Rajput or Maratha uprisings) rather than blanket iconoclasm. Yet, he also protected temples when it suited him. In 1659, he issued a firman safeguarding the Chintamani Jain temple in Gujarat, and Hindu festivals like Holi continued in many regions. Scholars like Catherine Asher note grants to Hindu priests in Bengal, suggesting a nuanced approach—piety didn’t always trump practicality.
Aurangzeb’s reliance on Hindu elites undercuts the “Hindu-hater” label. Rajput kings like Jai Singh I, who led campaigns for him (e.g., against Shivaji in 1665), were trusted allies—until some rebelled over jizya or succession meddling. The Marathas, under Shivaji, became his fiercest Hindu foes, but that feud started as a power struggle, not a religious crusade. By the 1680s, as he pushed into the Deccan, resistance from Hindu groups like the Marathas and Sikhs (after Guru Tegh Bahadur’s 1675 execution) hardened, but Hindu officials like Raghunath Rao still managed his finances. This pragmatism shows he wasn’t out to erase Hindus—just to keep them subordinate to his suzerainty.
All historical writing, even the most honest, is unconsciously subjective, since every age is bound to see the past through its prejudiced present. As some thinkers suggest it would be a good idea if the various countries of the world occasionally swapped history books, just to see what the other people are doing with the same set of facts. We are constructing, telling and believing in narratives about ourselves but we must first ensure that they are grounded in Truth and serve to inspire us to build a better inclusive world.
(Vijay Shankar Pandey is former Secretary Government of India and Dr. Smita Pandey is historian & freelance writer)
