By Jeeva P aka G Waugh
Surveying the so-called First War of Indian Independence that took place at Delhi through the eyes of historian William Dalrymple in his book The Last Mughal, I was led to revise many of my long-held assumptions. The rebellion that took place, also called the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, was not fought wholly on account of, as I had assumed for so long, pressing issues such as the widespread exploitation of the Indian working classes, the merchants and the artisans by the Company Raj or the deliberate mishandling of famines and food shortages by the Company that were so rampant during its rule. Dalrymple’s analysis shocked me as it amounted to reducing or trivialising the assumed loftiness of the cause of the Sepoys by attributing it to a more or less unidimensional factor- religion.
Dalrymple lays strong emphasis on the uninhibited evangelism practised by the Christian missionaries fully sanctioned by the Company administration. Dalrymple writes with so much pain about a transition that took place in India, from a time in Indian history that starts around the 1700s when British traders, soldiers and officials who had made India their home had actually embraced Indian culture, customs and ethos with so much love and liberality, to a point in the second decade of the 19th century when they started for reasons not fully apparent, looking at the local culture with condescension, bigotry and typical European exceptionalism. There was a huge proportion of the migrated European population that had actually transitioned to Indian-ness, adopting Indian fashion and cuisine, religious practices and customs to the extent of even being called as ‘White Mughals’ in the 1700s. A lot of Britishers married Indian natives and the Company in its initial days was quite open to this practice. Their initial purpose was to make sure the Company made enough profits for its subscribers and shareholders in London and any intermingling of races and customs that might encourage a harmonious relationship between the Company officials and the locals was treated very much as a welcome development towards building a favourable climate for business.
This attitude Dalrymple emphasizes, started changing in the early 1800s probably due to the unforeseen ascent of the Company’s political fortunes in India by which time, the local kings and the Nawabs had been reduced to pretty much the status of puppets in the hands of the foreigners. The early 1800s was the time the Company had established a strong foothold on almost the entire Indian subcontinent and a new bunch of officials entering India from England had decided most probably to assume the attitude of an all-powerful, hyper-civilized, supercilious, ‘white-skinned’ ruler overseeing the affairs and destinies of thousands and thousands of ‘barbaric’ and superstitious black natives.
Dalrymple mentions the efforts of one Padre Jennings who had received plenty of funds to practice his favourite vocation on the locals, especially on the Indian sepoys and clerks- Christian Evangelism. Even if the Indian response to these efforts was initially muted and indifferent, with the passage of time, clerics and religious leaders of both Hinduism and Islam started taking offence at what they considered as the deliberate and meticulously planned onslaught of Christianity on the local religions with a view to uprooting and destroying them.
As many might have known from their history books, the partially correct rumours about new cartridges having been made up of cow and pig fat that had to be bitten off before loading had spread like wildfire among the sepoys and served as the tipping point towards the Mutiny. Dalrymple mentions that the army composed of a high number of upper-caste Hindus and Muslims both of whom were thoroughly disillusioned with what they perceived as a deliberate attempt by the ‘pro-Christian’ Company administration to insult and demean their religious sentiments.
Dalrymple in his book focuses solely on what happened in Delhi during the Mutiny and ignores other towns where the Mutiny took place. For me, there were plenty of areas where I was surprised by how much was missed by our history textbooks while covering this topic on account of complexity and the vast length and breadth of detail that might have been needed to explain it convincingly. One area was how ruthless the Indian Sepoys had behaved not only with respect to the innocent British population including women and kids living in Delhi but also with the local shop-owners and merchants who were subjected to continuous pillaging and harassment. For weeks together, Delhi became a very dangerous place for even Indians to go out and sometimes even locked havelis and bungalows weren’t spared. Looting ranged from diamonds, rubies and jewels to essential commodities such as foodgrains, fruit and meat. The detail that Dalrymple gives with regard to the suffering of innocent public at the hands of the mutineers is sickening and explains pretty much why the Mutiny didn’t have as much popular support as it should have ideally had,if it were to achieve its final purpose- to depose the Company Raj and re-install the Mughal king back on his throne.
The sufferings endured by British women and children during the first few weeks of the rebellion are very difficult to read and imagine, the intensity of which to an extent manages to explain why the British soon after their recapture of Delhi, resorted to extremely barbarous ways to clamp down on the mutineers and the locals whom they assumed as backing them. General John Nicholson who seems to have led a huge regiment of British soldiers is portrayed as a psychopath and Theo Metcalfe, sons of one of the highest Company officials were according to Dalrymple, at the forefront of what can be described as one of the greatest and the most gruesome episodes of man-slaughter ever witnessed by mankind, that happened in Delhi during the British recapture of the city. If my understanding is correct, at least more than fifty percent of the local Delhi population must have been massacred regardless of their gender and age without rhyme or reason and the rest must have managed to endure a painful flight from their native city to far-off, unknown places for safety.
Descriptions of how the Indian Sepoys backed by even Muslim ‘Wahabbist’ Jihadis who flocked to Delhi in huge numbers from various parts of India, resisted the British army for weeks together even without proper planning and co-ordination among them and managed to impress even their enemies, are so vividly written and absorbingly chronicled by Dalrymple. I was surprised to learn, in contrast to what I had studied in my history book about the Mutiny as a very small-scale conflict that happened between a very insignificant number of Indian Sepoys and a mighty, sophisticated Company army, that the Mutiny was indeed as future historians later put it, a real War of Indian Independence even if the causes behind it appear flimsy to me now, of course in lazy retrospect. The battle that happened at Delhi was so huge, real and involved plenty of planning, strategizing by both sides and Dalrymple reserves more than a hundred pages to describe its astonishing intensity and unmissable importance.
Even amid all the din, turbulence and tumult of all these large-scale, earth-shattering events, Dalrymple manages to keep his focus on the subject of the book, the last Mughal Emperor of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar whose story with many of his sons, wives and of course his master, the Company brim with sadness, humanity and of course, bittersweet nostalgia. Zafar is portrayed as a weak man in his early eighties who has no aspiration to regain his throne but when confronted with a salivating possibility for an eventual restoration during the Mutiny, he appears to waver and give in. Even if the man is shown as someone with vices that you generally associate with royalty, his commitment to the safety, unity and well-being of his subjects over which he has of course no power and authority, especially after the arrival of Wahabbism to Delhi that threatens to cleave local Hindu-Muslim unity, is very touching and compelling. The last few pages where the Company forms an enquiry commission to look into the causes of the Mutiny and the brazenness with which it refuses to recognize and examine the Company’s mistakes that actually led to it, are thought-provoking and so finely detailed.
P.S: The Last Mughal by Dalrymple is one of four books that form his so-called Company Quartet, all of which describe events that happened during the days of the British Raj. I have already reviewed two more books of this series in this blog.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Rahini David
May 9, 2023
Certainly a very interesting set of books, G Waugh. How big is the book. Certainly sounds very violent in parts but I have often wondered about the Sepoy mutiny and may read it as I am woefully under informed in the topic.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 9, 2023
Jeeva a.k.a G Waugh! – one suggested read if incase you have not read it yet will be J Sai Deepak’s India, that is Bharat. In my view, an extremely polarizing and hard hitting book that does not spare anyone. It will be around the same subject of European Imperialism, colonization and colonialisation. Brilliant work, punctuated liberally by evidences and corresponding inferences by JSD. IMHO, a book every Indian should read – but a very heavy read in terms of the subject and language. I have not read Dalrymple and based on your wonderful reviews (just read all 3), it appears that Dalrymple, though obviously well researched, seems to take the approach of elaborating on those times based on singular incidents of historical importance. JSD takes a very macro view and showcases, with extraordinary details, the singular thread of religion being the primary reason for European colonization, not only of India, but the whole world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeeva Pitchaimani
May 9, 2023
@Rahini the book is 480 pages long. I think the violence will not be off-putting for you.
@Raghu Thanks for the reco. The reason why I pick Dalrymple for history is because of his prose. It is so exquisite and it feels like reading an Orhan Pamuk novel. Actually White Mughals was not a subject I was much interested in but the prose really sucked me into it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yajiv
May 9, 2023
JSD is a lawyer not a historian, unlike Dalrymple.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 9, 2023
@ Yajiv – Let me begin with a confession that I am quite ignorant of Dalrymple’s status as a historian, and end with a question – does this difference really matter?
LikeLike
Madan
May 9, 2023
Raghu Narayanan: As long as we accept the assumption that subject matter experts are important, then it does matter because Dalrymple is a much decorated historian. A Cambridge alumnus and as faculty is affiliated with Princeton, Brown, Oxford. J Sai Deepak studied engineering and eventually took up law as his profession. They’re not in the same ballpark. Yes, one could snigger the moment Cambridge is mentioned, but Dalrymple is the farthest from a colonial apologist. This isn’t to say that it’s wrong for Sai Deepak to write about history or anyone to read it, but as long as we are aware of this difference.
I know it is fashionable to diss academia and experts today and it is even justified to some extent (economists failed us both in 2008 and now again). But for all that, if a bypass surgery was your only shot at survival, would you still choose Sadguru because he is a more persuasive communicator than your average heart surgeon? Would you want a trained pilot or Baba Ramdev to man the cockpit in your flight? I think the same distinction applies in history as well. There may be a narrative aspect to history indeed but it nevertheless encompasses a very vast body of knowledge that historians, by virtue of their qualification, analyze and disseminate and isn’t only about the narrative alone.
LikeLiked by 3 people
ItsVerySimple
May 9, 2023
in addition to all the qualifications mentioned above, Sai Deepak J is also a third-rate bigot.
LikeLike
Aman Basha
May 9, 2023
All I know about this Deepak guy is he thinks Pawan Kalyan is well read. That’s all I need to know about him to form an opinion. FYI few people write as passionately about Chiranjeevi as I do, so not a mega fam hater.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 9, 2023
@Madan – So let me elaborate my question further. But before that, a few things need clearing up as well. I dont think we need to assume that SMEs are important. They are and for just that very reason – that they are SMEs. So I will not go to Dalrymple for consultation on a matter of law, just as I would not go to clarify a point about history to JSD. Also, my point was not to adopt a POV that might be fashionable today in terms of dissing academia or experts, and quite simply I am quite ignorant too of why it might be justified. And neither would I have reason to doubt that Dalrymple is not a colonial apologist – because, again, I do not know enough about him to form an opinion.
So my question was not based on whether Dalrymple is more qualified in history than JSD or not. No doubt, Dalrymple’s knowledge and qualification in his area of expertise would have enabled him to churn out extraordinary pieces of work. But my question is, what has Dalrymple’s qualification as a historian got to do with JSD’s book? Further, my question is why cant we look at both these works as stand-alone pieces, and not compare, and contrast, and peg them into hierarchies – especially hierarchies based on the respective creator’s qualifications? In cricket there is a saying, play the ball and not the bowler – because a great bowler can still bowl a bad ball whereas a part-timer can still produce a wicket-taking delivery. So rather than going by qualification, I would prefer to go by work output. I have not read Dalrymple, so no comments whatsoever about his work. I have read JSD’s first book. It was impactful and, IMHO, its an important piece of work.
Finally, about the narrative point. Narrative is important. It is actually what we make out of our history. But it is also important that narrative should be formed out of facts and evidences. It must be an activity that is concluding, something that we arrive at rather than a lens that is worn before-hand as we read the facts and evidences about history. Based on my reading of JSD’s book, which is packed with evidences – pages and pages of verbatim reproduction of documents, minutes, letters, etc. from centuries ago, I get the opinion that the narrative has been arrived at, rather than predetermined.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
May 9, 2023
Raghu Narayanan: Fair enough because when you asked does it matter, it sounded like you were asking how does it matter how qualified Dalrymple is. I think what Yajiv was trying to convey is that while for a lay reader, JSD’s work may still come across as well researched, it cannot really be considered as rigorous as a qualified historian’s work and so doesn’t belong in the same conversation.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 10, 2023
Madan: When two people are saying the same thing in their books, does it really matter that one is a qualified, reputed historian and the other is a engineer-turned lawyer? Their reputation and qualification will come into the picture only when they disagree on the same topic, than when they agree. Consider the following lines from the review above:
“Dalrymple’s analysis shocked me as it amounted to reducing or trivialising the assumed loftiness of the cause of the Sepoys by attributing it to a more or less unidimensional factor- religion.”
“The early 1800s was the time the Company had established a strong foothold on almost the entire Indian subcontinent and a new bunch of officials entering India from England had decided most probably to assume the attitude of an all-powerful, hyper-civilized, supercilious, ‘white-skinned’ ruler overseeing the affairs and destinies of thousands and thousands of ‘barbaric’ and superstitious black natives.”
“…. the deliberate and meticulously planned onslaught of Christianity on the local religions with a view to uprooting and destroying them.”
The above parts of the review was the primary reason why I recommended JSD’s book to Jeeva, which seemingly has brought him into the conversation here. I have very valid reasons for doing so, because a predominant portion of JSD’s first book has been dedicated to establishing the fact that the primary reason for European colonization, not just of India, but of the rest of the world was to spread Christianity coupled with a supremacist self-perception, that they are qualified to tell the world what to do. And he produces more than abundant proof in terms of documents, etc. -literally to the point of suffocating the reader, to substantiate this fact (not a claim). It has to be agreed that this is a very significant overlap between what Dalrymple says in his book as mentioned in the quoted lines above. Whereas Dalrymple has mentioned this fact primarily while covering the First War of Independence, JSD covers this as a common denominator of European invasion across the world, including India. So when talking about this specific aspect of history, given what these two say in their books, can they not be bracketed in the same conversation? That is why I say that the test should not be merely by reputation or qualification – the ‘who’, but rather by ‘the what’ – which is the work that is done. In fact, with Dalrymple saying this in his book, it sort of strengthens what JSD has written about the same topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
May 10, 2023
“When two people are saying the same thing in their books, does it really matter that one is a qualified, reputed historian and the other is a engineer-turned lawyer? ” – It matters because aside from this specific subject, there may be other issues where the lawyer doesn’t agree with the historian. It could be nothing more than a coincidence that JSD as an Indian shares Dalrymple’s views about imperialism. There are other more domestic topics where JSD’s views don’t resonate with me.
LikeLike
Yajiv
May 10, 2023
@Madan: Thanks! You explained my point far better than I ever could have 🙂
LikeLike
Vishnu
May 10, 2023
@Madan : “There are other more domestic topics where JSD’s views don’t resonate with me.”.
And his views not resonating with you doesn’t imply (and nor it should) that his historic work can not be of a great value backed up by facts and proofs. Even with his polarizing (more fashionable term being “bigotry”) views, a factually sound and literary rich work can be produced. And I think all Raghu is asking to acknowledge that aspect that though his views may lean to extreme right, his work may lean to extreme opposite of your liking, he may be a lawyer (read not a qualified historian) but the quality of work he has put out is not a rhetoric or flavor of the season kind of routine crap.. Raghu is asking to separate the art from the artist and discuss about the art.. Not about what the artist has said on so and so platform.
In that sense both W. Dalrymple and J.S. Deepak can have their views differ on numerous of subjects but can still produce a high quality content on each of those differed subjects backed up by evidences and literary richness..
PS :: The VD Savarkar’s book on the same subject highlights that mass acre was done by both British and Indian Sepoys and that too on more than one occasions in the span less than a couple of year. And unfortunately such is the nature of Violent Revolutions that after a point they end up becoming what they are trying to eradicate. French Revolution centuries ago and The Arab Springs a decade ago are more burning examples of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anti-bigots
May 10, 2023
“ Even with his polarizing (more fashionable term being “bigotry”)”
Yeah.. bigotry is not the same as being polarizing.
LikeLike
Raghu Narayanan
May 10, 2023
“It matters because aside from this specific subject, there may be other issues where the lawyer doesn’t agree with the historian. It could be nothing more than a coincidence that JSD as an Indian shares Dalrymple’s views about imperialism. ”
Well now, put that way it takes the course of the discussion away from the point that I had made in my first comment on this thread. I would prefer to keep my points within the ambit of my first comment because, for one, that was all I wanted to bring out – that what Dalrymple has said in his book resonates with what JSD had written, and therefore the latter’s book could be a worthy read. And secondly, I do not know what other issues are out there on which these two agree or disagree. So it will be quite hypothetical, at least for me. But to say that it could be nothing more than a coincidence seems more a conjecture. However, even if it indeed proves to be a coincidence, it still does not matter or change anything that I have said before. If two people, through adequate research and due diligence, converge on the same conclusion on the basis of facts and evidence then, to me, it really is not important if that convergence is coincidental or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
hari
May 10, 2023
Raghu “That is why I say that the test should not be merely by reputation or qualification – the ‘who’, but rather by ‘the what’ – which is the work that is done.” this resonates with a lot of what JSD talks about as well. Make the “mudda” as the centre point not the person.
So far to be a historian one has to get certificate of historian from another historian. So if you don’t toe their “line” then bhool jao. A cousin of mine gave up the idea of becoming a historian because of the harassment he faced in his Uni.
LikeLike
musical v
May 10, 2023
History is a mystery, they say. Is it not enough if we know the dates and events of history and leave the rest for research scholars? History provides some stories for film makers. But our film makers rather romanticise history than go into gritty details.
American history is less confusing as it is more contemporary than ancient. European history is a mess but more factual than fiction. William Shakespeare effectively used English history in his works.
And there is World history to deal with. Chinese Japanese, Korean and other countless histories which are far more interesting.
Jeeva said that he is more interested in good prose of Dalrymple than in his history lessons.
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
May 10, 2023
Hi all,
Might seem a tangential thought.
Even if history is supposed to be objective and biased, I have an approach to history which is very much subjective and personal.
Any fact that does not dovetail into my already assiduously constructed consciousness is something that will be rejected no matter who is giving me that fact/point.
Even for reading history, there is that component of “subjectivity” that is inherent in every reader.
Just in case, a fact comes and bombards my consciousness that is totally contrary to what I had read and understood all these years, that fact won’t instantly enter my system. I will need more exposure to the same idea and will use the same filters I already had before I assimilate it fully into my system.
I don’t have a good opinion of Sai Deepak so far but what Dalrymple says and what the former says seem to converge here. I have heard great reviews about his book but his book in a nutshell seems to totally chuck away the economic aspect of imperialism and stresses very much the cultural factor which as a Marxist sympathizer doesn’t sit well with me.
There is a high possibility that most Indians remained ignorant about the economic consequences of colonialism during the 1800s and culture could have been the factor behind the rise of the Sepoys. I have read a lot about our Freedom struggle that went on to tell me that until the arrival of Bapu and Chacha, our people weren’t aware of how economically impoverished we Indians were getting under the Brits and had the Brits treated us better on that aspect, there would have been absolutely no reason for us to chase them away from our country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aman Basha
May 10, 2023
@Jeeva sir, I have read GB Malleson (if I’m right) and Savarkar on 1857 and for me, Savarkar had a better narrative while Malleson was very rigorous and detail heavy but hard to read. Both though didn’t take Dalrymple’s approach and I think he’s definitely going to be my favorite when I read him.
For people who enjoy history, the next few years are going to be unbelievably annoying with history being invented, inverted or whitewashed by politically vested interests. Take the case of BJP trying to invent two Vokkaligas who killed Tipu and being stopped by Nirmalananda Swamiji from going out to town with it.
I think you should check out some of the books about the anti Nizam agitation. The communist contribution to the struggle against the Nizam, the Razakars and Patwaris is being erased day by day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hari prasad
May 10, 2023
Savarkar refers to that guy who escaped from the Andaman Jail by sitting over a bulbul’s shoulders , isn’t it?
Hope Rajamouli makes this as a scene with his next movie with Mahesh Babu.
LikeLike
Madan
May 10, 2023
Raghu Prasad/Vishnu: My point, which I seem to be failing to get across, is simply that I find the “does it matter” comment too flippant and a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And it’s not that I need JSD’s views to align with mine to accept what he says but that it becomes problematic if I know him to be a biased operator and he then operates in a field that’s not his speciality. That is, JSD’s views do not reflect on his capabilities as a lawyer. But when he attempts to write on history without being a historian, then I cannot help but doubt the level of rigour in his work. I am sure he can make a very persuasive case of having done a well researched job to a lay reader but I would now need that affirmation from historians to accept his work in the same light as historians. Which is not to say I would not accept it at all or that I have any problem with people reading JSD’s books on history but that I cannot accept it as as scholarly as a qualified historian’s work because (a) he is not a SME and (b) he has shown himself to be rather biased previously. In that light, who the two respective authors are does matter even if their views happen to converge here. With that, I have said all I have to about this and am not here to convince anyone against reading JSD. Only making a distinction between JSD and Dalrymple which you may not consider important and that’s your prerogative.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RK
May 11, 2023
@Jeeva: I am currently reading The Anarchy & the most important point that Dalrymple puts forth is that India was subjugated by a corporate entity, East India Company. And the only concern of the company is making money for its shareholders. It is once again worth noting that the soldiers rebelled/ revolted against a company, not against a country.
Is Dalrymple contradicting himself or is he saying that the initial purely profit motive of the company turned into proselytisation? Or is he saying the company merely looked away from proselytising efforts of the missionaries without actively encouraging them?
And about narratives, it is only with narratives we understand history but no narrative can fully explain it because we humans & the world we inhabit are way too complex for any narrative/ theory. Narratives are a way that we look at the complex world and make sense of it. shapes our worldview. Unless we constantly question our worldview, we will change reality to suit our worldviews and not the other way around. From your writings, it is quite obvious that you would be well aware of these issues, but just wanted to put it across.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spandana
May 11, 2023
@Aman Basha
‘I think you should check out some of the books about the anti Nizam agitation.’
Do you recommend any?
LikeLike
RK
May 11, 2023
Also a podcast recommendation:
Empire by William Darlymple & Anita Anand is superb. It is into its third season which is on slavery while the second season is on the Ottomans. The first season was about pre-Independence India & it has episodes on the Sepoy Mutiny & other related topics.
Darlymple has the tone of a very good fiction writer & that is probably the only thing that differentiates his dense books from other academic works.
LikeLike
Jeeva Pitchaimani
May 11, 2023
RK: from what I understand, the Company’s agenda was primarily to make profits. But when it grew into a political power, it started interfering into India’s cultural and political affairs as well just like every other mega corporation of today.
LikeLike
musical v
May 11, 2023
I dont think that our mega corporations are interfering in India’s cultural affairs. The mega corporations are homegrown with cultural roots here. And they are not interested in political power either. They just want to influence government in power irrespective of political affiliations to give bestow favours and in return they will do the government in power bidding. East India company wil not happen.
LikeLike
Vishnu
May 12, 2023
@Madan : ” I cannot accept it as as scholarly as a qualified historian’s work because (a) he is not a SME and (b) he has shown himself to be rather biased previously.”
I understood the point you were making but there was a tangential thought around it which was of “What should be the criteria to consider a work of history scholarly “.. And here I have a different understanding.
Case in point ::
Jawahar Lal Nehru was an advocate and not a subject matter expert in history. But two of his work “Glimpses Of World History” and “Discovery Of India” are considered to be of great value.
There is biography of NabaKrishna (One of the players who were East India Company Loyalist in the Plassey Conspiracy). This biography has been written by N.N. Ghose who was an advocate in Calcutta High Court. Not a certified historian but his book is referred by many ‘Historians’ in their works related to Plassey.
The point is :
(And this is in general, not to do anything with W. Dalrymple or JS Deepak.) That just because someone has a bias doesn’t make him incapable of producing good work. There have been historian since colonial era who were biased towards company but their work is still celebrated because even after all their biases it provides for an interesting read and gives facts chronically. They work as an archive sometimes and sometimes they simply work as British view point in that era.
What makes a historian a historian? One has to start from somewhere. Now it is a choice if one wants to be a member of any society or community. Just because one is not having degree or membership of a platform, doesn’t mean his/her piece of history or chronicle is of less value. It should be judged for its content, research, language and facts and evidences.
I have been a software developer since last 7 years. But my degree has been in Electronics (the smile on your face is welcomed 🙂 ). I don’t have a single certification from any coding community or organization. I am not a participant on any platform related to software development. But I still am a software developer. And there are many in our society who have formal education in one field but they went on to become a celebrated personality in the another field. Similarly, to produce a work of history you don’t need expertise (Expertise can help but that is just a label in the end). That will come with time, experience and acceptance. All you need is sources, access to archives, old letters, linguistic capability (if translation of old documents are needed) and your own knowledge about the subject.
If we go by SME criteria then we will never be able to attribute classical status to a lot of first works by a lot of new authors and writers for a starter would always lack that credential. And about being bias, everyone is biased. Just because one’s bias is opposite of my bias I can not term even an artistic and historic piece less valuable. I am not a fan of Ramchandra Guha. He comes across like a personal secretary of Nehru in his many works. But man, his work “India After Gandhi” is a must read both to understand economics and polity of the time. As a reader it is my responsibility to gauge where he is going overboard in praising Nehru. But that doesn’t take away credit for the brilliant work he has done in putting out such a book and neither does it take away credit from Nehru also for a lot of good policies at that time.
So that’s the point that first, who and what should decide who is an SME and second – can bias of a person make his work , produced with efforts, knowledge, wisdom and, experience, a lame one??
In my opinion answer to both is a huge huge No..
Rest of the point is taken and understood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
musical v
May 12, 2023
Meanwhile Cleopatra docu series is facing controversies. History can be twisted, rewriten. I am finding this new series quite interesting in a twisted way. If only Mani or SLB decide to make their version of Cleopatra!
I don’t consider or label Nehru a historian. He must have written it based on other historical works. Must have studied history as a subject and then developed a liking to delve deep into it to produce his own take on the events and their significance. History can never be a science like Physics or Chemistry. Collingwood’s claim that History is a science is hotly disputed. One may produce documents etc. but there will be people who will question that evidence and can produce counter evidence. Their maybe bias, politics or genuine curiosity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vishnu
May 12, 2023
@musical v : That’s exactly my point. That Nehru was not a historian but could produce a work in that field after due diligence. And so can any one.. The work should be looked upon and analyzed and debated without seeing that from whom it is coming.
LikeLike
hari
May 17, 2023
Dr Uday S Kulkarni a retired armed forces Dr is churning amazing books about Maratha empire one book after another. I find argument about only historians should write history books very MEH.
LikeLiked by 1 person