A Renowned historian William Dalrymple’s recent comment in an interview that responsibility for the rise of the “WhatsApp story” must be placed on academic historians has sparked public controversy. He argued that the work done by academic historians was primarily aimed at each other; they made no effort to reach a wider audience. This, in turn, has led to the filling of the pseudo-story void in social media.

As debate continues to rage over whether placing full responsibility on academic historians is justified, it is important to ask this crucial question:

The Whatsapp audience generally wants instant information in the form of small capsules. He does not have the patience to read or even hear reasoned arguments. He also wants a “story” that feeds into his existing biases, and becomes angry and accusatory when confronted with research-based counterarguments. Much of this public believes that history should be “black and white,” with clearly drawn battle lines – an “us versus them” narrative where “us” are the “wronged” and “them” are the ones. “enemies”.

Why is this so?

There are several reasons for this and they have been discussed on public platforms. But one aspect has been largely neglected: the way history is taught at school, particularly at secondary level, where the majority of students “abandon” the subject never to study it again.

History is more than just facts

History taught at the secondary level conveys historical information in chronological order, in an organized manner. Students must learn a large number of names, events and dates. But nowhere is it sufficiently emphasized that history is much more than a simple set of facts. At the heart of the subject is the interpretation of facts, the ability to be open to diverse points of view and to accept that there may be multiple, even diametrically opposed, interpretations.

Students studying history as an undergraduate are often surprised to learn that the same set of facts can give rise to contradictory conclusions. And that these different interpretations can – and do – coexist within the framework of the discipline. For example, many historians have shown, with supporting evidence, how British colonial policies destroyed India’s indigenous crafts and manipulated customs duties to benefit British manufacturers while harming Indian manufacturers and systematically emptying the country of its wealth. But many other historians interpret the same evidence to argue that British colonial rule was essentially beneficial to the subcontinent.

Also read: Who is responsible for the state of Indian history? Propaganda, profits and influencers

Debates are crucial

Divergent interpretations are acceptable provided they are based on verified sources. After all, debates are the lifeblood of history. It would be difficult to go into detail at the grade level, but how many high school textbooks even mention that debates exist?

High school students are generally never told that the history they are taught is usually the winner’s version, that other versions may exist, and that this is nothing new. Around the world, when a major ideological change occurs in political regimes, it has often been observed that school history textbooks are among the first to be changed.

After coming to power in Germany in 1933, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party removed old textbooks from the school curriculum and introduced new ones that revered Hitler, advocated unconditional obedience to state authority and defended anti-Semitism, militarism and racism. Likewise, the history of the Indian subcontinent from the early to mid 20^th century will likely be described very differently in Indian and Pakistani textbooks.

Also read: Why is it fashionable to ridicule historians? The answer lies outside academia

Teaching history in the age of WhatsApp

History does not demand uniformity. What is important is whether the version in question is based on evidence discovered by real research and analyzed according to accepted methods.

Today’s students have easy access to knowledge. Many would say that instead of just loading them with information, it is important to make them aware of the difference between facts, opinions and interpretations – something that is rarely explained to high school students. This can be done by using examples that they will relate to. This way, when students read a historical writing, they will be able to ask the right questions: who wrote this and why? What is the evidence? Is the assessment just a set of subjective judgments or is it supported by evidence?

Interestingly, this is an essential part of the skills needed to identify “fake news”, and more and more Western schools are to prioritize this as part of their study program.

The result of all this is not What happens is that Indians tend not to question the evidence or credibility of any story they “consume”. Especially if it fits the narrative of their choice.

This then creates a perfect audience base for the pseudo-story broadcast on WhatsApp and YouTube.

Dr. Krishnokoli Hazra teaches undergraduate history in Calcutta. Opinions are personal.

This is part of ThePrint’s opinion series on Indian history in the age of Whatsapp. Read all articles here.

(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)