1.
The Meaning of History
History is the study of the past in order to understand
the meaning and dynamics of the relationship between
cause and effect in the overall development of human
societies. Its key feature is its broad range of inquiry, as it
is as much concerned with wide perspectives, general
explanations, and fundamental questions, as with specific
detail or events, and the particular interpretation of
sources and evidence. The claim of history is not so much
its capacity to capture immense detail, or to record
knowledge of the past, but to interpret, to handle a rich
variety of sources in order to draw out their general
relevance or to reveal their general significance for human
understanding of why and how change occurs. Few
historians would contest the view that history is not a
science as a discipline of study, but is more a branch of
the arts or humanities. It can be seen, at most, as a social
science, and even then could not be defined as scientific in
any exact or predictive sense. The word “history”
originate from the Latin historia, meaning a narrative or
account of past events. History is itself a collection of
thousands of stories about the past, told by many different
people.
States use history to unite a nation. It can be used as a
tool to legitimize regimes and forge a sense of collective
identity through collective memory. History is the study
of the past – specifically, the people, societies, events and
problems of the past – and our attempts to understand
them. It is a pursuit common to all human societies. By
understanding where we have come from, we can better
understand who we are. It can be a tremendous story, a
rolling narrative filled with great personalities and tales of
turmoil and triumph. Each passing generation adds its
own chapters to our history while reinterpreting and
finding new things in those chapters already written.
Moreover, provides a sense of context for our lives and
our existence. It helps us to understand the way things are
and ways that we might approach the future. It also
teaches us what it means to be human, highlighting the
great achievements and disastrous errors of the human
race. History also teaches us through example. It offers
hints about how we can organize and manage our societies
for the benefit and betterment of all those who live in
them. Lessons from the past can be used to make sense of
the present. Learning of past mistakes can help people to
not repeat them. Being reminded of a great past can
inspire people to keep their good practices to move
forward.
2. Philosophy of History
Philosophy of history examines the theoretical
foundations of the practice, application, and social
consequences of history and historiography. It is similar to
other area studies – such as philosophy of science or
philosophy of religion – in two respects. First, philosophy
of history utilizes the best theories in the core areas of
philosophy like metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics to
address questions about the nature of the past and how we
come to know it: whether the past proceeds in a random
way or is guided by some principle of order, how best to
explain or describe the events and objects of the past, how
historical events can be considered causally efficacious on
one another, and how to adjudicate testimony and
evidence. Second, as is the case with the other area-
studies, philosophy of history investigates problems that
are unique to its subject matter. History examines not
what things are so much as how they came to be. History
focuses on the unique rather than the general. Its movers
are most often people who act for a variety of inner
motives rather than purely physical forces. Its objects are
no longer observable directly, but must be mediated by
evidence. These problems and many more that are specific
to the past have been studied and debated for as long as
philosophy itself has existed.
2.1. Philosophy of History of Giambattista Vico
One of the most important aspects of the study of
history is that particular view which sees history in terms
of the changing consciousness of mankind, coupled with
an attempt to interpret the past by a deliberate effort of
pure intuition and imagination. This historical outlook
was first delineated by an Italian, Giambattista Vico
whose speculation was to adumbrate the modern
philosophy of history that sees the story of the past as a
compound of innumerable biographies and of the
psychology of the men whose stories form this compound.
He was to break away from the atomistic Cartesian view
and, through a set of brilliant hypotheses (which he called
his “axioms”), was to construct the early beginnings of a
secular philosophy of history in contradistinction to the
religious interpretation that had prevailed previously. His
main work was called Scienza Nuova (The New Science)
and, though long unappreciated, and premature in both its
originality and in its tortuous thought, it marked a new
departure in man’s attempt to understand his past and
influence this has had on the shaping of his present. His
imaginative and objective examination of history as the
subject was known to his age was to have a profound
significance for European historiography. His writings
form a landmark in the development of the modern
outlook on history, and, as such, they are of considerable
interest to the historian.
It is the writer’s view that, to recognize a philosophy
of history, the whole of history as one of the various
expressions of reality must be seen in its totality. The
generalizations, conditions, and ultimate aim (if it has
one) of history, must not be resolved in terms of the
generalizations, conditions, and aims of any other aspect
of reality.
“The true and the made are convertible.
(Verum Factum)”
2.2. Philosophy of History of Fernand Braudel
 Fernand Braudel (1902–1985) was a French historian
and a leader of the Annales School (c. 1929–1980), an
anthropological approach to history that eschewed the
normal emphasis on narrative, politics, and the lives of the
great and powerful. Instead it combined geography,
sociology, and economics with history in order to create a
new and distinctively French school of historical writing.
The title of his history reflects his emphasis on the
role of geography in history, and not simply in the sense
of aiding or obstructing people’s immediate purposes.
Rather, he understood the role of geography as
determining certain behaviors, which, over generations,
became traditions, attitudes, and habits. Thus there is an
underlying geographic unity to any region, based, not on
proximity or contiguity, but rather of climate and
topography, which produces similar traditions, attitudes,
and habits in places that may be very distant in terms of
their culture, political allegiance, or physical proximity. In
order to understand the role of geography in history,
Braudel argued, we need to think of it in terms of its
effects for people’s habitual outlooks, not just its effects
on their immediate purposes. Further, we need to stand the
traditional account of history on its head. Geography is
not a footnote to events; on the contrary, it is events that
are the footnote to geography.
According to Braudel, there is something called a
social time span of historical analysis in relation to social
development. This social time span is categorized into
three types.
The first type is called the history of event and
Braudel called it microhistory. This type of time span
talks about events that have occurred such as war,
revolution, riot and etc. This time span also includes
famous figures who were involved in the events.
The second type is called the conjuncture. This type
of history not like the history of event for it covers 20 to
50 years. This type of history includes inflation, business
cycle and economical data of the time period.
Finally, the third type is called history of longue
durée, meaning long duration. The time span of longue
durée expands more that 600 to 700 years. And a good
example is the rising of a civilization.
“I remember a night near Bahia when I was
enveloped in a firework display or phosphorescent
fireflies; their pale lights glowed, went out, shone again,
all without piercing the night with any true illumination.
So it is with events; beyond their glow, darkness
prevails. –Fernand Braudel”
2.3. Philosophy of History of Karl Marx
Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher
and sociologist whose scientific approach to history,
combined with his revolutionary socialism, has made him
one of the most influential, famous, and indeed infamous,
intellectuals who ever lived.
He argued that history, like any science, was a law-
governed process, and therefore susceptible to prediction
based on observation. This was not to say that individual
human decisions were necessarily determined, but only
that there was one and only one rational way for a person
to pursue their interests under a given set of
circumstances. People who did not adopt it, for whatever
reason, would find themselves at a disadvantage in
competitive struggle, and must sooner or later either
reform or be eliminated by more rational competitors.
Further, like any science, the study of history must be
based on a consideration of objective, material factors.
While this is partially a matter of geography, climate,
resources, and so on, the material factors that mattered
most to Marx were economic and technological—in other
words, “the means of production.” If society were a
building, these material factors and the compulsion they
create would be the foundation, the structure, and the
other essential elements without which the building would
collapse. Marx called this “the base,” which he contrasted
with the windows, dry wall, carpeting, and in short,
everything not essential to the structural integrity of the
building, which he called “the superstructure.” Changes in
the base produce changes in the superstructure, but
changes in the superstructure only affect the
superstructure. The arts, religion, the careers of individual
politicians, the growth and decay of states, and so on,
might make some small difference in the short term, but
over the long run they are all trivial. A serious analysis of
history is a study of the base, the objective factors that
determine everything else.
The most visible effect of the base is to divide society
into classes determined by the productive process. These
classes exist in a necessarily antagonistic relationship, for
they are all trying to secure as much of the wealth
generated by production as possible, and, because their
class affiliation determines so much of their life
experience, assumptions, and beliefs, as well as their
material interests, they find their natural allies only among
members of their own class. 
“The philosophers have only interpreted
the world in various ways; the point,
however, is to change it.” –Karl Marx
2.4. Philosophy of History according to Karl Popper
Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) was one of the most
famous, and probably the most influential, philosopher of
science of the twentieth century. He grew up in the
Vienna of Freud, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists,
and the young Adolf Hitler, and in many ways his
philosophy can be understood as a response to its culture
of high intellectual life and political fragility.  His best-
known work, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, was
published in 1934, and aimed to clarify just what it was
about science that made it special. He returned to this
theme with The Open Society and Its Enemies (1943), and
then The Poverty of Historicism (1957)—his
contributions to the Second World War and the Cold War,
respectively—in which he set out to show that
the Hegelian and Marxist views of history were both
tyrannical and logically incoherent.  suggests the organic (totalitarian) theory of man and
Popper defined the object of his criticism
as historicism: “an approach to the social sciences which
assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim,
and which assumes that this aim is attainable by
discovering the ‘rhythm’ or the ‘patterns,’ the ‘laws’ or
the ‘trends’ that underlie the evolution of history.” He
divided it into pro- and anti-naturalist doctrines, according
to whether their partisans affirm or deny that physics
provides an appropriate model for the social sciences, and
set out to show that both were logically incoherent and
politically tyrannical.
According to Popper, pro-naturalist historicists (i.e.,
Auguste Comte, Karl Marx) argue that sociologists aim at
theoretical history, derived from the empirical study of
actual history, and at general, long-term predictions after
the model of astronomy. Because the aim is to predict
change in the future, the appropriate evidence is found in
periods of change in the past—or, in other words, of
revolution. Such predictions may be considered under two
headings: “prophecies,” which are beyond the power of
human agency to avert or bring about, and “technological
predictions,” which describe the likely consequences of a
given activity. Prophecy denies what technological
prediction affirms: that human agency is the decisive
element in history. Where technological prediction
advocates social engineering in order to realize limited but
definite aims, prophecy advocates preparation for the
inevitable in order to turn it to advantage, or else
minimize the resulting harm. Significantly, technological
prediction is the characteristic method of physics, which,
Popper argued, pro-naturalist historicists simply
misunderstand. Historical prophecy implies “the
historicist moral theory,” that “the morally good is what is
ahead of its time in conforming to such standards of
conduct as will be adopted in the period to come.”
Anti-naturalist historicists (i.e., Oswald Spengler,
Karl Mannheim, John Stuart Mill) argue that each period
is governed by particular historical laws, that these are not
applicable between periods, and that in consequence any
attempt at generalization for the whole of human history is
futile. Social experiments cannot be conducted after the
manner of physics in consequence of the scale and
complexity of the subject, the novel and unique character
of its processes, and the impossibility of separating the
researcher from the process. “Exact and detailed”
predictions in the social sciences are self-refuting, because
that knowledge would alter the circumstances on which
they were based. That knowledge could not be
suppressed, since the method that produced it would be
rediscoverable by anyone. Society possesses an organic
unity that transcends the structure of its components, and
makes it qualitatively different than the objects of physics.
In consequence it must be studied holistically, and not
through the disintegrative methods of physics. This in turn
society. For holism intuition and analogy, not experiment
and observation, are decisive.
Holism is derived from the philosophy of Plato, who
regarded ideas as the fundamental reality, and whose
influence on historicism is evident in the search for
supersensory entities (or essences—e.g., race, class,
society, History, etc.) that condition and explain sensory
phenomena. Thus the study of history is, for holists, the
study of those entities, and not of the sensory phenomena
that they produce. This method is opposed by the
empiricists, who regard sensory phenomena as the
fundamental reality, and ideas as merely arbitrary and
insubstantial descriptors thereof. 
Popper concluded with the following comments: that
progress in the sciences depends on institutions in which
freedom of criticism is both possible and encouraged, that
such institutions tend strongly toward the production of
objective knowledge, and that they are possible only in
the context of an open (non-totalitarian) society. In so
much as sociology of knowledge posits other sources of
knowledge, which is not and never can be objective in any
meaningful sense of the word, it is a sham science. The
fervent revolutionary rhetoric of historicists betrays a
frightened conservatism that seeks to negate change by
appealing to imaginary laws of history, whose principal
virtue is that they do not change, and whose logical
application is to halt change not just in theory, but in fact.
Further, the course of history is strongly affected by the
progress of knowledge. However, no prediction can reveal
the future course that knowledge may take. This in turn
precludes knowledge of the future course of history.
“The belief in historical destiny is sheer
superstition. There can be no prediction
of the course of human history by
scientific or any other rational
methods.” – Karl Popper
2.5. Philosophy of History of Arnold Joseph Toynbee
Arnold Joseph Toynbee (April 14, 1889 - October 22,
1975), British historian whose twelve-volume analysis of
the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, 1934
-1961, put forward a philosophy of history, based on
analysis of cyclical development and decline of
civilizations, that provoked much discussion (also known
as History of the World) was very popular in its time.
Toynbee began his Study of History in 1922, inspired
by seeing Bulgarian peasants wearing fox-skin caps like
those described by Herodotus as the headgear of Xerxes’
troops. This incident reveals the characteristics that give
his work its special quality - his sense of the vast
continuity of history and his eye for its pattern, his
immense erudition, and his acute observation. He was
interested in the seeming repitition of patterns in history
and, later, in the origin of civilization. He examined the
rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human
history, and he concluded that they rose by responding
successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative
minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations
declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively,
and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of
nationalism, militarism, and tyranny of a despotic
minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West,
Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as
inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to
successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history
as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces.
History as a humane study is defined by Toynbee as a
concern with the lives of civilizational societies in both
their internal and external aspects:
“The internal aspect is the articulation of the life of
any given society into a series of chapters succeeding one
another in time and into a number of communities living
side by side. The external aspect is the relation of
particular societies with one another, which has likewise
to be studied in the two media of time and space”
3. Historicity of Text
Historicity of texts refers “to the cultural specificity
and social embedment of all modes of writing”, the
rootedness of a text in the social-historical, political and
cultural ambiance of its production. Another important
notion of New Historicism is that the text is created under
the influence of the historical background and the
writer’s own life experience, and that the text in turn
exerts influence on readers in the then historical context.
Or in Montrose’s (1989) words, “the writing and reading
of texts are being reconstructed as historically determined
and determining modes of cultural work”.
4. Historiography
Historiography, the writing of history, especially the
writing of history based on the critical examination of
sources, the selection of particular details from the
authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of
those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical
examination. The term historiography also refers to the
theory and history of historical writing.
In a nutshell, historiography is the history of history.
Rather than subjecting actual events - say, Hitler's
annexation of Austria - to historical analysis, the subject
of historiography is the history of the history of the event:
the way it has been written, the sometimes conflicting
objectives pursued by those writing on it over time, and
the way in which such factors shape our understanding of
the actual event at stake, and of the nature of history itself.
Questions of historiography include the following:
 who writes history, with what agenda in mind,
and towards what ends?
 how accurate can a historian ever hope to be,
analyzing past events from the vantage point of
the historian's present?
 does the historian's own perspective, impacted as
it undoubtedly is by gender, age, national and
ideological affiliation, etc., contribute to an
"agenda" that the historian's work is playing into,
unwittingly or consciously?
 what about the types of sources,
both primary and secondary, an historian
chooses to base his or her work upon?
Do they too contribute to the above-mentioned
"agenda"?
 does the very selection of sources (and, by
extension, the decision to exclude certain other
sources) prejudice the outcome of the historian's
work in certain ways? et cetera...
The underlying sentiment of historiography is one of
skepticism. This is due to the recognition that
historians do have agendas and do select sources with the
intent of "proving" certain preconceived notions. History
is therefore never truly "objective," but always a construct
that presents the historian's view of things. At its most
objective - and even this is debatable - history presents
basic "facts" (dates, events, etc.); the task of the historian,
then, is to interpret those facts, the outcome of which (a
book, a journal article, a lecture -- even a student paper)
can never be truly objective, as interpretation is by
definition a subjective mental process
5. Relationship of History into other branches of Social
Sciences
History is a study of the various facts of human life
and is closely linked with other social sciences which
make a specific study of different facts of human life.
Many scholars held a view that history is the centre of the
social sciences which feeds other social sciences.
 History and Political Science:
“History without political science has no fruit and
political science without history has no root.” A historian
is not merely concerned with the tracing of the history of
the political process by a narration of the episodes. But he
has to learn the nature of fundamental political principles
and basic forms of political institution. In the view of this
closeness between two subjects, the development of
political institutions, rules, regulations, right and duties,
law and mode of justice, executive, legislative and
administrative functions, economic and financial
implications, nature of bureaucracy, fundamental
principles of state policy are all defined under the
constitution history. Diplomatic history is a specialized
branch of political history which deals with the principles
of international relations. Ambassadors are the links
between nations and they were custodians and
practitioners of diplomacy. The issue like—balance of
power, cold war, international peace, disarmament have
assumed great importance in recent times. The military
history is an important chapter in political history where
in wars, battles, campaigns and conquests figures very
prominently. It deals with the causes of a war, strategy
and war tactics, war weapons etc.
History is very helpful to politics because the
political aspects is a part of the whole range of activity
recorded by historian and knowledge of history would
enable the politicians to know the politics better and play
their role effectively. Prof. Acton has correctly pointed
out, “the science of politics is the one science that is
deposited by the stream of history like grains of gold in
the sand of a river.”
 History and Economics:
History is also closely related to Economics. As the
activities of a man in society are very closely related with
the economic matters, the historian of any period must
possess at least a rudimentary knowledge of the
economics. In fact, the economic history of any period is
an important branch of history and its understanding is
absolutely essential for the proper understanding of
history of any period.
There has been a new orientation in our historical
outlook from the days of the materialistic interpretation of
history by Marx and such class struggle, man’s skill in
earning, arts and crafts, trade, business and commerce,
land revenue, taxes and a host of all other economic
activities of the past figure very prominently in history.
No doubt, it is true that during the last few years
economics has become very complex and difficult subject,
mostly dependent on mathematics, and a modern historian
cannot acquire basic working knowledge of economic
theory without devoting a lot of time and leaving little
time for the study and writing of history. Therefore, a new
set of economic history by the use of economic historians
have emerged who try to study the economic history by
the use of the economic tools. At present, history is so
closely interlinked with the study of economic problems
that it would not be possible to reconstruct history without
knowledge of the relevant economic problems.
 History and Statistics:
In the present century the writing of history has been
greatly influenced by the statistical data. With the
invention of computers, the collection of statistical data
has become possible. The historians have given up the
former practice of using the in exact term like majority of
historians or people, “wide support” etc., and have started
quoting the exact percentage of the people or the help of
the computer and processing of enormous data can be
completed within a short span and a systematic
information can be collected.
Though the conclusion drawn on the basis of the data
may be known to the historians on the basis of the
impressionistic evidence, which does reduce the value
because it provides a concrete evidence for a previously
held thesis.
On the same line the use of the historical demography
‘viz-information regarding the movement of people, births
and deaths, fertility rates, immigrations, etc., cannot be
possible without the means to process and correlate the
vast and complex data made available by various official
records.
This type of detailed investigation enables the
historians to understand the different facts of the past life.
A new branch called “Cliometrics” has come into vague,
according to which the use of mathematics has come into
greater play in the writing of history and interpretation of
the numerous sources.
 History and Sociology:
History and sociology are intimately related and a
number of sociologists like Auguste Comte are also
important figure in the development of historical studies.
Karl Marx was also a great historian and sociologist. Both
History and Sociology are concerned with the study of
man in society and differed only with regard to their
approach.
In the recent years it was realized that a fruitful
interaction between the two disciplines was possible and
Emile Durkheim, Max Weber acknowledge the initial
dependence of sociology upon history. Although, history
too benefits from the synthesis produced by the
sociologists.
Sociologists exercised profound influence on the
study of history by developing the certain narrow areas of
human activity. They adopted the sampling techniques
and develop their tools with a view to minimize the
subjective element. In brief, sociology is helping history
to study ‘social dynamics’ which is a study not of society
at rest but constantly in social change and development
social processes and social causation are giving a new
perspective to history. India too our historians are now
giving increasing attention to social history.
 History and Ethics:
History and ethics have a close relationship.
Although a true historian is not expected to pass distinct
and sensitive judgments on the historical incidents and
characters, yet he must know about the ethical principle of
the time which influenced the conduct of the people in the
past. Probably in the past, there was not reliable ethical
science and much of followed were merely a reflection of
the bigotry, partial and complexes of the different writers.
In the recent times an attempt has been made to
evolve an ethical theory on the basis of biology,
psychology and sociology by the scholars like Stephen,
Duprat, Dewey etc. A science of conduct has been
evolved. A historian must understand and master this
science of ethics to have a wider perspective of the issue.
 History and Psychology:
History and Psychology are also closely linked. A
historian must have to show some psychological insights
while making an analysis of the motive and actions of
men and societies. Historian work would be mere fiction
unless he uses the discoveries of modern psychology. The
personal life and the environment of a historian has a
direct bearing in his decision and often import a bias to his
account and renders the much desired objectivity
impossible.
The impact of psychology on history is evident from
the fact that in the past historian inquired primarily into
the origins of war and ignored the result of war. As a
result of the influence of psychology historians have
under taken the study of the results and impacts of war.
An understanding of the group psychology can enable a
historian to determine the role of masses in the various
revolutions such as Jingoistic patriotism has been
described as the cause of certain wars but historian can
discuss this cause with the help of the social psychology.
 History and Geography:
Universally it is accepted that History and Geography
have very close ties. In fact it would be practically
impossible to study; certain branches of history without
rudimentary knowledge of geography e.g., the diplomatic
or military history cannot be fallowed without necessary
geographical knowledge of the region. Geography is one
of the eyes of history the other eye being chronology.
Time and space factors give history its correct
perspective.
Prof. Michelet was of the opinion that history was in
essence found upon geography. He says “Without a
geographical basis the people, the makers of history, seek
to be walking.” German philosopher Kant said,
“Geography lies at the basis of history.” Herder said that
“history is geography set in motion.”
There are others like American geographer, Ells
Worth Huntington, and Allen Semple who emphasize the
importance of climate as having crucial influence on the
course of history as well as on race temperament. It is a
fact that many geographical factors such as climate,
social, rivers, mountains, sea, coastline and mineral
resources aided the development of river in valley.
Cultures as in early Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China.
Herodotus, the early Greek historian describes that “Egypt
is the gift of the Nile”.
Even Aristotle and Montesquieu have emphasized the
influence of climate on man. The physical formation of
the country such as Britain, Japan and Greece with broken
coastlines had a very powerful impact on its history. This
facilitated their naval strength and empire building
activities.
Similarly, the Himalayas and the jungles of Assam
have acted as barriers against invasions from the North
and East of India. The Himalayas and the Gobi and
Mangolian deserts were responsible for the isolation of
China. The geographical discoveries of America and a
new route to India determined the character of World
History since the Renaissance.
Geography also plays an important role in the
national character formation and influence the human
behaviour. As we know that climate of a country greatly
affected the civilization of a country. Hence the
knowledge of geographical is very essential for historians.
It would be wise to accept the limited interpretation of
geographical influence on man’s conduct or on his history