The Impact of Changing Historical Names on the Understanding of History and Culture
Biswanath Bhattacharya
May 6, 2024, 08:10:02
History is not a static or fixed entity but a dynamic and contested. Depending on their interests, ideologies, and perspectives, different groups and individuals may have different interpretations and representations of the past. One of the ways that history is constructed and communicated is by naming places, monuments, buildings, and events. Names can reflect the identity, culture, values, and aspirations of the people who name them and the historical context and circumstances in which they are called. Names can also influence how people perceive and relate to the past and how they imagine and shape the future.
Yet, these names are not immutable. They are subject to reshaping, challenge, and even erasure by a myriad of actors and influences, ranging from governments and social movements to religious groups and cultural shifts. The motivations behind these changes are as diverse as the changes themselves, spanning from power assertion to identity reclamation, memory erasure, history rewriting, or development promotion. The outcomes of these changes are equally varied, from causing confusion to sparking debate, fostering dialogue, and raising awareness. This article delves into the impact of these changes on our understanding of history and culture, drawing parallels between the recent renaming trends in India and Bangladesh.
In India, changing historical names has been a frequent and contentious phenomenon, especially since the independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Many names associated with the colonial legacy or foreign influence were replaced by names deemed more indigenous, nationalistic, or patriotic. For example, Bombay became Mumbai, Calcutta became Kolkata, Madras became Chennai, and Bangalore became Bengaluru. Regional, linguistic, or ethnic sentiments and political and economic considerations often drove these name changes.
However, in recent years, changing historical names has taken a more radical and controversial turn, as some names that bear any semblance to the Muslim or Mughal culture are being drastically changed to satisfy the ego of a megalomaniac and his associates who espouse a Hindu nationalist ideology. For example, Allahabad became Prayagraj, Mughal Sarai Station became Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction, the Rajpath became Kartavya Path, the Mughal Garden changed to Amrit Udyan, the Mughals became Timurids, and the list is endless. These name changes are aimed to be justified by invoking the Hindu mythology, history, or culture and by denouncing the Muslim or Mughal legacy as foreign, oppressive, or brutal.
And, furthermore, some argue that Jadunath Sarkar, Sushovan Sarkar, Iswari Prasad and Tapen Roychoudhury are not historians. Vincent Smith is biased, and so is James Todd. Then, who are the natural historians? M. S. Golwalkar, Keshav Baliram Hedgewar???
A historian is someone who studies, writes, and teaches about the past. A historian uses various sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, oral testimonies, and statistics, to reconstruct and interpret the past. A historian also uses multiple analysis methods, such as comparison, causation, continuity, and change, to explain the past. A historian also engages with the existing scholarship on the past by acknowledging, challenging, or revising the arguments and interpretations of other historians. A historian also communicates the findings and conclusions of the historical research to different audiences, such as students, peers, and the public, in various forms, such as books, articles, lectures, and podcasts.
Some have confused the criteria of being a historian with the requirements of being a good or a lousy historian. A good historian is someone who uses reliable and relevant sources of evidence, applies rigorous and appropriate methods of analysis, engages critically and constructively with the existing scholarship, and communicates clearly and persuasively the findings and conclusions of the historical research. A lousy historian is someone who uses unreliable and irrelevant sources of evidence, applies flawed and inappropriate methods of analysis, engages uncritically and destructively with the existing scholarship, and communicates poorly and unconvincingly the findings and conclusions of the historical research. A good or lousy historian is still a historian, but a good historian is better than a bad historian.
Every historian has a perspective or a point of view shaped by various factors, such as the historical context, the research question, the sources of evidence, the methods of analysis, and the intended audience. A perspective or a point of view is not necessarily a bias, but a bias is a perspective or a point of view that is distorted, discriminatory, or unfair. A bias is a perspective or a point of view that ignores, misrepresents, or suppresses the evidence, the analysis, or the scholarship that does not support or contradict the historian's argument or interpretation. A bias is a perspective or a point of view that is not open to revision or correction based on new or better evidence, analysis, or scholarship. A bias is a perspective or a point of view motivated by a personal, political, or ideological agenda unrelated to the historical inquiry. A bias is a perspective or a point of view that is not honest or transparent about historical research's limitations, uncertainties, or controversies.
The claim of Vincent Smith and James Todd of being biased has no evidence or no analysis that supports this accusation; they have not shown how these authors have ignored, misrepresented, or suppressed the evidence, the study, or the scholarship that does not support or contradict their arguments or interpretations. They have also not shown how these authors have been motivated by a personal, political, or ideological agenda unrelated to the historical inquiry. They have not demonstrated how these authors have been dishonest or opaque about their historical research's limitations, uncertainties, or controversies. They have also not demonstrated how these authors have distorted, discriminatory, or unfair their perspectives or points of view. They have assumed that these authors are biased because they have different perspectives or points of view from mine or my preferred authors. They have not engaged with the arguments or interpretations of these authors but have dismissed them as biased without any evidence or analysis.
The ideologues of the Hindu nationalist movement, such as M. S. Golwalkar and Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, are not historians because they have not fulfilled the criteria of being historians. They have not studied, written, or taught about the past but have used the past as a tool to advance their political and ideological agenda. They have not used various sources of evidence but have cherry-picked, fabricated, or distorted the evidence to suit their narrative. They have not used multiple methods of analysis but have imposed their own assumptions, beliefs, and values on the past. They have not engaged with the existing scholarship but have ignored, attacked, or banned the scholarship that does not agree or comply with their narrative. They have not communicated the findings and conclusions of their historical research but have propagated their propaganda and indoctrination to their followers and supporters.
Some have suggested that some of these ideologues might be considered natural historians, but this suggestion is based on a fallacy of what makes a natural historian. A real historian does not confirm or validate anyone's identity, ideology, or agenda. A natural historian does not glorify or vilify the past or the present. A natural historian does not simplify or homogenise the past or the present. A natural historian does not claim or possess a monopoly or authority on the past or present. A natural historian is someone who follows the criteria of being a historian, as explained above and strives to be a good historian, as described above. of history .Let us think, read, learn, and think more critically and constructively about the past and the present.
One has cited the book ‘Eminent Historians by Arun Shourie by delving into details. Let me delve into this book. I read it a long time ago. His Rule of Fatwa is a must-read book.
Eminent Historians is a book by Arun Shourie, a journalist and former minister of India that exposes the alleged distortions and biases of some of the prominent historians of India, especially those associated with the leftist or Marxist school of thought. Shourie claims that these historians have manipulated the facts and interpretations of India's past to suit their ideological and political agendas. They have also misused their academic positions and influence to control the institutions and policies related to history education and research in India. The book, first published in 1998 and updated with two new chapters in 2014, has sparked intense controversy and debate among historians, scholars, and the public. Some have praised it as a courageous and eye-opening expose and criticised by others as a biased and sensationalist attack on the academic integrity and freedom of historians. This controversy itself makes the book a compelling read for anyone interested in Indian history and historiography.
The book is a gripping exploration of the alleged malpractices of the leftist historians, presented in six thought-provoking chapters. The first chapter, titled 'The Fraud', provides a riveting overview of the main arguments and evidence that Shourie uses to accuse the historians of falsifying and fabricating the historical data and sources, especially related to the medieval period of India, when the Islamic invasions and rule took place. Shourie's narrative is peppered with several examples of how the historians have either ignored, suppressed, or distorted the accounts of the contemporary chroniclers, travellers, and rulers, who recorded the atrocities and destruction caused by the invaders and how they have instead portrayed them as benign and tolerant rulers who contributed to the cultural and social development of India. Shourie also accuses the historians of inventing and exaggerating the instances of communal harmony and syncretism between the Hindus and Muslims and of downplaying or denying the role of religion and ideology in the conflicts and violence that occurred in the past.
The second chapter, titled 'The Technique', analyses the methods and strategies that historians have used to manipulate historical evidence and interpretations and present them as objective and scientific. Shourie identifies four main techniques that the historians have employed: (1) omission, where they selectively leave out the inconvenient or contradictory facts and sources; (2) invention, where they create or embellish the facts and sources that suit their narrative; (3) abridgement, where they truncate or summarise the original sources in a way that changes or obscures their meaning and context; and (4) transfer, where they attribute the statements or opinions of one source to another, or to themselves, without proper citation or acknowledgement. Shourie provides several examples of how historians have used these techniques to distort the historical record and mislead readers and students.
Having said so, it is not an easy task to rule out the views of leftist historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, or Bipin Chandra. They are also acclaimed historians.
Leftist historians are those who adopt a Marxist or socialist perspective in their analysis of history. They often challenge history's dominant or mainstream narratives, especially those based on religious, nationalist, or colonialist ideologies. They also emphasise the role of class, caste, gender, and other forms of oppression and resistance in shaping historical events and processes. In India, leftist historians have been influential in the fields of ancient, medieval, and modern history, and have contributed to the debates on the nature and origins of Indian civilisation, the impact of foreign invasions and rule, the formation and development of the Indian state and society, the role of culture and religion, and the struggles of the marginalised and oppressed groups. Some of India's most prominent leftist historians are Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, and Bipan Chandra, who have written extensively on various aspects of Indian history and engaged in public and academic controversies with their critics and opponents.
Now let us look into Bangladesh, our neighbouring country And let Bangladesh lead us to light. Dhaka remains as Dhaka; Chittagong remains Chittagong; Sylhet remains Sylhet ( Shree Bhumi); Chatteswari Road in Chittagong remains Chatteswari Road, and people come out in the street if some heinous attempts or contemplation of renaming is made.
Bangladesh is a country that has a proud and distinct identity based on its history, its culture, and its people. Bangladesh is a country that fought for its language, freedom, and dignity and emerged as a sovereign and democratic nation. Bangladesh is a country that celebrates its diversity and heritage and strives for its development and prosperity. Bangladesh is a country that leads by example and inspires others with its vision and spirit. Bangladesh is a country ready to face the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and contribute to the global community. Bangladesh is a country that is proud of its past, confident of its present, and hopeful of its future.
Thousands of towns and villages in Bangladesh are named after gods and goddesses worshipped by people of the Sanatan dharma. There was no attempt made by any government, including military dictators the centre-right BNP and the far-right Jamate Islami coalition government, to rename these places. A country's diverse culture, the level of tolerance of a nation, and acceptance of others can all be measured by not tempering with historical names. Indeed, how civilised a country is can only be understood if names are left alone.
These names are a testament to the ancient and enduring presence of Hinduism in Bangladesh and a recognition of the diversity and plurality of the religion itself. Hinduism is not a monolithic or homogeneous faith but a collection of various sects, schools, and traditions with different deities, scriptures, rituals, and practices. The names of places in Bangladesh reflect this diversity and plurality, as they honour different aspects and manifestations of the divine, such as Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Kali, Lakshmi, Saraswati, and many others.
I have been met with hostility and ridicule. I have tried to engage in civil and rational dialogue but have been ignored, dismissed, or attacked. I do not intend to change my opinions or expect others to agree. Still, I expect a minimum level of decency and tolerance on a public platform.
I am neither afraid of the authorities nor have anything to hide. I am a patriotic citizen who loves my country and its people, but I also have a critical mind and a moral conscience. I believe that the current regime is a threat to democracy, the rule of law, and the human rights of the citizens. I think that the leader is a megalomaniac who has amassed too much power and influence and who is using fear, propaganda, and corruption to silence any opposition or dissent. I believe that agencies like RAW, ED, CBI, and others are being used as tools to harass, intimidate, and persecute anyone who dares to speak up or challenge the status quo.
I know I am not alone in my views, but I also know many people are scared to voice them openly because of the possible consequences. I respect their choice but urge them not to lose hope or give up on their principles. I hope that one day, we will see a change for the better and that we will be able to have a free and fair exchange of ideas and opinions without fear or hatred.
(Tripurainfo)