History a stimulus to present and future; History of today is reflected in tomorrow. But, History is influenced by the rulers. Historians write what their dictators (or prevailing leaders) want. How can a writer, in those times when there was no freedom of speech and expression go against his authorities? Even in today’s world where media is said to be enjoying this above mentioned freedom; is it confident enough to say that they are not influenced? Take Kashmir issue as an example; Indian and Pakistani media are contradicting to themselves, even the neutral observers are biased depending on their interests to the sub-continent.
To any event comprising of two parties there are three views, each of former, latter and the Truth (better to say neutral). Why to say neutral? In the “own perspective” no one is undeniable. Things are very much justified; be it LTTE, ULFA, SIMI, or Al-Queda, their damn acts are justified in their “own perspectives”. 9/11 was justified by Osama, Iraq and Afganistan was justified by America, Israel is justified, even America was justified after the biggest ever massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Someday India will resolve its inner conflicts by virtue of prevailing demographic amalgamationswhen our beurocracy (and of course historians) would prove the much required justification to our “own perspective”. So “own perspective” can not be condemned by individuals. Truth in this case is “own perspective” of a neutral observer. This is an ideal in this very relative/perpetual political world.
This is why histories are contradicting by respective nationalism and their “own perspective”. Revision of NCERT textbooks is also a reflection of the historian’s way of pleasing their prevailing leaders, which is an indication of their ballot bank biasness. What if.. the Kauravas had been able to win the battle of Mahabharata? Duryodhana might have been retained his name Suyodhana, Shakuni was observed as a great well wisher of hastinapur, there had been temples of Bhism Pitamah and so on. If the written history is biased and histories to be written will be influenced, then what would be the probable significance of knowing the unknowns?
Your response carries a significant value.