END SEMESTER ASSIGNMENT

NAME: VINAYAK SARIN

ROLL NO: M2023BSASS033

HUM 03: INTRODUCTION TO HISTORICAL THOUGHTS

Topic 1: What is a historian’s task?

INTRODUCTION

Imagine uncovering a lost civilization, deciphering ancient scripts, or solving the mysteries
behind epic events that have shaped human destiny. This is the thrilling task of a historian!
Far more than chroniclers of dates and names, historians are detectives of the past, piecing
together clues to form vivid narratives explaining what happened and why it matters.
Through their meticulous research and insightful analysis, historians bring the past to life,
offering us lessons and perspectives that resonate through the ages. Their work is a
fascinating blend of investigation, interpretation, and storytelling, making history an ever-
evolving tapestry of human experience. But not only this, there is more to it. But first, we
need to know what history is and why we need to know about it.

GETTING INTO THE TOPIC……………………………………………………………

It is an understanding or study of the past or we can say it is an illusion of finality. As an

analyst student, understanding history is essential for me because it provides a rich context
for interpreting current events and trends. Moreover, history teaches you critical thinking
and analytical skills. Not only that, it also enriches your understanding of cultural contexts
and global perspectives. Now what is a historian? What does he do? The person does not
merely study history and excavate the old artifacts or findings. A historian is an individual
who studies and interprets the past by critically analyzing historical sources, such as
documents, artifacts, and other records. They seek to understand and explain historical
events, contexts, and perspectives through rigorous research and evidence-based
methodologies. We can dive into the steps. First, we need to investigate the events and
formulate questions for future reference. Then we need to gather the information and
organize it. Then we interpret and analyze the information. And at last, they evaluate and
conclude. We can go deep into these points. First, when they get the information, they
investigate that event. When they investigate these events, they generally formulate
questions that will help them in the future. These questions can help them to develop

7
 criteria that will be used in evaluating evidence and information, making judgements or
decisions and reaching conclusions. Then we need to gather and organize the sources. Here
we have relevant evidence and data from a variety of sources. These sources can be primary
and secondary. But what do you mean by primary and secondary sources? Primary sources
are those sources which are written when the event happened and Secondary sources are
those sources which are written by historians in the later point of time. But when we get
these sources, we also should determine if these sources are credible or not. It can also be
some false information. We need to identify the purpose and the intent of each source.
Some sources might have ideologies that might be liked by only a few people. We need to
use different methods to organize the evidence and information from the sources. Then we
have to interpret and analyze that information. We need to deeply analyze each piece of
evidence and information by applying the concepts of historical thinking. We need to
determine the key points from each source. We need to find out if there are any biases in
each source. Finally, we need to evaluate and draw conclusions. We need to synthesize
shreds of evidence and make critical judgments based on that evidence. From the evidence
we got, we need to make connections between the past and present. Not only that, we need
to determine the short-term and long-term consequences of events, developments, and/or
issues for different individuals, groups and regions. And at last, we need to conclude.

If we look at the distinction between merely gathering historical facts and truly
understanding history, simply sorting out what happened, while necessary, only provides
the raw material for history, not history itself. If one stops at this factual level, one misses
the deeper, intrinsic truth of historical events.

This process is likened to the work of a poet, who transforms collected fragments into a
meaningful whole. 1Hence, historians add value through their interpretations, providing
insights that mere factual accounts cannot offer. Historians must use their imagination to
connect and interpret disjointed fragments of direct observations and evidence, their
imagination is always grounded in reality and experience. The historian's task involves

1
Humboldt, Wilhelm Von. “On the Historian’s Task”. History and Theory. 1976, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1967), pp. 57-71.
Wiley for Wesleyan University. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2504484

7
more than just presenting facts; it requires creatively filling in gaps and establishing
connections to reveal the deeper truth of historical events.

However, unlike poets who may freely use their imagination to create fictional or
metaphorical narratives, historians must ensure that their imaginative efforts are firmly
rooted in evidence and factual investigation. This grounding in reality distinguishes the
historian’s work from pure fiction, mitigating the potential dangers of distorting the truth.
Essentially, historians use their imagination to reconstruct the past coherently and
insightfully, but they always remain anchored in empirical evidence and rigorous research.
But when we are talking about this, we should also know what a historian must not do.

They not only articulate the objectives of historical study but also delineate several critical
practices that historians should avoid to maintain the integrity and accuracy of their work.
These guidelines are essential to ensure that the study of history remains a rigorous and
objective endeavor, rather than a subjective or distorted narrative.

CONCLUSION

Historians warn against the peril of presentism, the anachronistic application of

contemporary values and perspectives to historical events and figures. They posit that
historians must strive to understand the past on its terms, recognizing the distinct social,
cultural, and moral contexts of the periods they study. By imposing modern judgments on
historical actions, historians risk misinterpreting the motivations and significance of those
actions. Therefore, avoiding presentism is crucial for preserving the authenticity of
historical narratives. They also underscore the importance of objectivity in historical
writing. They need to assert that historians must avoid letting personal biases and
subjective opinions influence their accounts of the past. This principle of objectivity
requires historians to present a balanced view, considering multiple perspectives and
sources of evidence. The intrusion of personal bias can lead to a skewed portrayal of
history, undermining the historian’s credibility and the trustworthiness of their work.
Objectivity ensures that historical narratives remain as true to reality as possible, reflecting

7
 the complexities and nuances of past events. warns against the mythologization of history.
Creating heroic or mythic narratives can be engaging, but it often distorts historical reality.
While stories of heroism and grandeur may captivate audiences, they should not come at
the expense of factual accuracy. Historians have a responsibility to depict events and
figures as they truly were, not as they might wish them to be. Avoiding mythologization
helps maintain the factual integrity of historical accounts and prevents the perpetuation of
false or exaggerated narratives. By avoiding presentism, maintaining objectivity,
respecting complexity, using evidence comprehensively, steering clear of mythologization,
and committing to rigorous research, historians can produce works that are truthful,
balanced, and insightful. These principles not only uphold the integrity of historical
scholarship but also enrich our understanding of the past, providing a more nuanced and
accurate portrayal of human history.……

Bibliography
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1967. "History and theory." On the historian's task 57-71.
Spiegel, Gabrielle M. 2009. "The Task of the Historian." The American Historical Review 1-15.

7
 Topic:4 Subaltern Studies

INTRODUCTION

“History is the recorded struggle of people for ever-increasing freedom and newer
higher realisation of the human process”. 2Subaltern studies are a series of volumes
which Ranajit Guha, the ideologue of the project, brought up. He edited the first 6 volumes
of the book. The next 5 of them were edited by others. The term ‘Subaltern’ was first coined
by Antonio Gramsci who was an Italian communist leader. The term Subaltern means
inferior in rank. Its approach focuses on and around the people as people constitute the
central theme of history. Looking at history we can see that there existed only 2 kinds of
people, the Superiors and the Inferiors, where the superiors were given more importance
than the others. So to overcome this issue, the need of something like Subaltern
historiography was needed. This trend of writing captures the suffering experienced by
exploited workers, labourers, oppressed castes, and women, extending beyond mere
contemplation. To fully engage in subaltern studies, one must look beyond the ideological
realm and consider the everyday lives of common people, such as impoverished farmers,
shepherds, labourers, workers, and oppressed caste women.

RISE OF SUBALTERN STUDIES IN INDIA

Those who supported the idea of subaltern studies proclaimed this as a new school in the
field of Indian history writing. The mastermind behind this school was Ranjit Guha. He
was an academic and historian who led the Subaltern Studies group, a group of South Asian
academics dedicated to bringing attention to the perspectives and experiences of the
subaltern. He found out that Indian histography often neglected the voices of the common
people. The three main categories of the Indian historiographies were the colonialist,

2
Sahoo, Abhijit. “Subaltern Studies: A New Trend in Writing History”. 2014.
https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/2014/Nov/engpdf/82-87.pdf

7
 Nationalist and the Marxist. These historiographical traditions, according to Ranajit Guha
and his associates, are inherently elitist. Their conceptual frameworks were based on the
ideological discourses that were developed during the British colonial era, which by their
very nature disregarded the political and social dynamics of the masses. According to
Guha, bourgeois-nationalist and colonialist elitism had long dominated Indian
nationalism's history and had ignored the subaltern classes' political realm. They all
excluded the subaltern groups. The studies aimed to address the elitist bias and to bring out
the voice of subaltern groups.

CRITIQUE AGAINST COLONIALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

The British colonialists frequently presented their reign as a kind effort to advance
modernism, civilization, and advancement in India. They emphasised the alleged
achievements of British rule, including railway construction, legal changes, and Western
education and excluded the work done by the lower classes. Colonialist historians
propagated the idea of Western cultural superiority, portraying Indian society as backward,
divided, and in need of guidance from a more advanced civilization. 3This historiography
largely ignored the active resistance and complex socio-political structures of Indian
society, reducing Indians to passive subjects of colonial rule. But the subaltern studies
scholars argued that these narratives were deeply flawed and biased. They sought to rewrite
Indian history from the perspective of the subaltern, the marginalized and oppressed groups
who were largely absent in colonial records.

CRITIQUE AGAINST NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

Now looking at the nationalist-histography, the Indian National Congress, in particular,

promoted nationalist historiography that emphasised the fight for freedom from British
domination. It frequently presented this conflict as a single, cohesive movement headed by
well-known individuals like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. This perspective

3
“Subaltern Studies”. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/44479/1/Unit-25.pdf

7
presented the independence movement as a coherent nationalistic endeavor, glossing over
regional, class, and caste differences and conflicts within the movement. Subaltern Studies
challenged this perspective by bringing to light the numerous local and regional
movements that were often ignored in nationalist historiography. These movements were
characterized by their spontaneity, violence, and radicalism, contrasting with the controlled
and legalistic actions of the elite.

METHODS TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE ELITIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

They brought up several methodological innovations to break away from elitist

historiography. The first technique was “Reading against grain” which involved critically
analyzing colonial and nationalist records to uncover the suppressed voices and
experiences of subaltern groups. By carefully and skeptically examining official
documents, diaries, administrative reports, and other records, this strategy sought to
uncover the tacit and frequently concealed proof of subaltern agency and resistance. By
interrogating these texts, subaltern historians challenged the dominant narratives
constructed by colonial and nationalist elites, revealing the biases and omissions in these
accounts. Ranajit Guha’s work on peasant insurgency in colonial India is a prime example
of this method. By analyzing colonial records of peasant rebellions, Guha demonstrated
how these uprisings were systematically misrepresented as mere law and order issues,
ignoring their deeper political and social roots. The second technique was interdisciplinary
approaches. Subaltern Studies integrated methodologies and theories from anthropology,
sociology, literary studies, and cultural studies to enrich historical analysis. This
interdisciplinary approach provided a more nuanced understanding of cultural and social
processes. To learn more in-depth details about the customs and daily lives of subaltern
communities, anthropological methods including participant observation and ethnographic
fieldwork were employed. The incorporation of theoretical frameworks from sociology and
literary theory, such as Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and Foucault’s ideas on power and
knowledge, helped in understanding the complex dynamics of subaltern resistance and
consciousness. The third was the use of oral histories and local sources. Recognizing the
limitations of written records, subaltern historians turned to oral histories as a crucial

7
source of information. Oral testimonies, interviews, folklore, and songs provided insights
into the experiences and perspectives of subaltern groups that were absent in official
documents. Subaltern Studies emphasized the importance of local sources, such as village
records, folk narratives, and indigenous texts, to reconstruct the history from below.
Subaltern researchers were able to include the voices of those who had been left out of
standard historiography by actively participating in communities and documenting their
histories. As an example, In order to record the experiences of tribal groups and highlight
their struggles and resistance against colonial and post-colonial oppression, Gyanendra
Pandey used oral histories and regional customs. Subaltern Studies introduced novel
techniques that prioritised the agency, autonomy, and views of marginalised groups,
thereby breaking away from elitist historiography. Subaltern Studies challenged
conventional narratives and brought attention to the experiences of the marginalised by
utilising critical analysis, multidisciplinary approaches, oral histories, and the
deconstruction of dominant discourses. These methods allowed for a more inclusive and
nuanced understanding of history. In time we see subaltern Studies exposed the exploitative
nature of colonial rule and the myths surrounding the civilizing mission. By highlighting
the active resistance and autonomy of subaltern groups, it demonstrated that colonialism
was not a benign force but a system of oppression and exploitation. Looking at the
nationalist view, the project criticised nationalist historiography's elite-centered narrative,
claiming that it ignored the viewpoints and contributions of grassroots movements.
Subaltern Studies offered a more nuanced and comprehensive view of the independence
movement by highlighting the varied and frequently radical activities of subaltern groups.
Subaltern Studies advocated for a 'history from below' approach, which focused on the
experiences and agency of marginalized groups. This approach aimed to democratize
historiography by valuing the voices and actions of the oppressed.

CONCLUSION

By contesting the prevailing elitist narratives, exposing the independent political realm of
the subaltern classes, and advocating for a "history from below" that honoured the

7
 viewpoints and deeds of the oppressed, Subaltern Studies brought about a paradigm change
in the academic field of history. Along with criticising established historiographical
techniques, this movement cleared the path for fresh approaches and conceptualizations of
Indian history. Subaltern Studies has had a long-lasting influence on the discipline of
historiography, both in India and internationally, by elevating the voices of the
marginalised and highlighting the significance of their agency and resistance.d to
democratize historiography by valuing the voices and actions of the oppressed.

Bibliography
Chakrabarthy, Dipesh. 1986-1995. "Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History." A Subaltern
Studies Reader.
Spiegel, Gabrielle M. 2009. "The Task of the Historian." The American Historical Review 1-15.