I have been a student of History for the last 36 years now, perhaps when I was in class II. Since then I am deeply impressed by this subject. However, it is a tragedy that in India, at least, which has today a population of one thousand million plus, the subject is totally a discarded one. I remember, when after passing out my Matric exams, I was put on the Board's merit list, I received a huge number of my well wishers, who insisted on me to take medical or non-medical, or at least Commerce for my college studies. When I clarified them that I was not a champion of science or maths, and I may be happy with History and Political Science as my subjects for higher studies, none had objection with Pol. Science, but was infuriated with the name of History.
After all, what is in History? Why are you going to waste your time with a useless subject, just digging the graveyards of the dead? I was astonished at the behaviour for a subject by the majority of masses. Personally I have no grudge for any subject. After all, every subject has its own value. It is only up to the mental level of a person that he is weak in one and brilliant in another. There is a majority who is very fine in Maths or Science, but knows nothing about History.
During my College days, I came across a very fine statement by an English philosopher, Bacon, that History makes a man wise. I kept on thinking that how can a person become wise by studying History. Or if one who doesn't study History is a fool? No, not at all. In fact, History is something which gives us knowledge about our past. I came across a very fine study about History by E.H.Carr- 'What Is History'. It was here that my vision about the subject became more clear. No doubt, History teaches us our past. But here we are dependable on evidences. Not all the past is History. History is not a study of fables. It is a study of the facts, the facts which we explore, and may be named the historical facts. Here Marc Bloch gives a very interesting example. He writes that during the past, a number of people would have died by the bite of dogs or monkeys, but we don't find any reference to them. The reason is that no records of them were kept. However, Peter the Great, the great Czar of Russia died after he was bit by a monkey, is a record in the history. Carr writes that it is essential for a historian to know where from is he going to access his evidence, just as a fisherman knows which lake or river would fetch him fish.
It is true that history is not like science where we would conclude on the basis of experiments. It is not possible to have a view of the battle of Panipat, by calling the souls of Ibrahim Lodhi and Babur alogwith their soldiers. It is only from the record books that we can gain our knowledge. On the other hand if we want to know as to how did the people in those times felt regarding the political or social or economic environment, it is possible to understand from our present circumstances if they persist. For example if we want to know as to how the people during the beginning of the 16th century in India felt when there was anarchy and confusion all around, and corruption was at its height, it is not difficult to understand as the present day is a clear example. We must accept Mr. Carr's views that History is an unending dialogue between the past and the future, that we understand our past staying in the present and reconstruct our future. If we don't study history, we would be committing the same follies which were committed in the past.
