We have been through a whole period of public debate and discussion on teaching of history in schools & universities. Ad nauseum we have been told that such and such curriculum has excluded this or included that. Hurt feelings and sentiments are touted again and again. In this din ironically what has been lost is that there are certain basics of teaching history. What we have been served up has so far been the political and ideological flavor of the broth of history, its basic ingredients relegated to the obscure background of forlon departments and obscure archives.
It needs to be pointed out that history is basically a reconstruction of the past. This reconstruction follows certain established procedures for gathering, interpreting and presentation of the data from the remains of the past. This reconstruction done by an individual historian for a particular theme is subjected to a process of review amongst fellow historian and then served up as material for our consumption. This process is repeated for a variety of themes historians tackle and then perhaps a group or a collective of historians renders these reconstruction into a text book and normally this serves as history. The historians and perhaps the text book writer is conscious of this aspect of reconstruction and knows that most of the findings are subject to further debate and questioning.
However, to most of the unsuspecting readers of this fare this aspect is never revealed. Even if mentioned, it becomes a matter of little importance and mostly is brushed under the carpet. The most glaring aspect of this omission is that in the debates on history so far not one writer has thought it fit to argue that this process of reconstruction can be within the purview of the learner of the history or that he can be empowered to participate in the process in any meaningful manner. In contrast in UK or the west this process gains an importance through a series of local workshops and history in the backyard strategies. The crux of these learning strategies place the learner centre stage and makes him an active partner in reconstructing his/her past and give insights into his/her own development process. This does not mean that the professional historian is belittled or what he has to say looses relevance. What actually happens is that the amateur spirit of the learner is tapped. He is encouraged to either search his local context or through an appropriate strategy of familiarizing him with sources and process of history writing he is brought into the method of writing history.
It needs to be pointed out that history is basically a reconstruction of the past. This reconstruction follows certain established procedures for gathering, interpreting and presentation of the data from the remains of the past. This reconstruction done by an individual historian for a particular theme is subjected to a process of review amongst fellow historian and then served up as material for our consumption. This process is repeated for a variety of themes historians tackle and then perhaps a group or a collective of historians renders these reconstruction into a text book and normally this serves as history. The historians and perhaps the text book writer is conscious of this aspect of reconstruction and knows that most of the findings are subject to further debate and questioning.
However, to most of the unsuspecting readers of this fare this aspect is never revealed. Even if mentioned, it becomes a matter of little importance and mostly is brushed under the carpet. The most glaring aspect of this omission is that in the debates on history so far not one writer has thought it fit to argue that this process of reconstruction can be within the purview of the learner of the history or that he can be empowered to participate in the process in any meaningful manner. In contrast in UK or the west this process gains an importance through a series of local workshops and history in the backyard strategies. The crux of these learning strategies place the learner centre stage and makes him an active partner in reconstructing his/her past and give insights into his/her own development process. This does not mean that the professional historian is belittled or what he has to say looses relevance. What actually happens is that the amateur spirit of the learner is tapped. He is encouraged to either search his local context or through an appropriate strategy of familiarizing him with sources and process of history writing he is brought into the method of writing history.
Here in India, for both pedagogical and political reasons this aspects never sees the light of day. Rather an attempt to ideologise history is the basic thrust. Here even the scientific writings are taken over and paraded to favor one ideological camp or the other. Ideologisation of course serves variety of political ends but for the process of teaching learning history it is seldom sufficient to generate the desired nature of historical sense. For this reason alone it is important that we delineate history from ideology. Of course an awareness of what ideologies are and what they do could also be a part of historical training. But the areas need to be demarcated and put across as such.
