_edited.png)
In India, history has always been a battleground of ideas and interpretations. It transcends the confines of academia, engaging individuals with their own opinions and perspectives. Over time, the discipline of history in India has evolved significantly—from colonial narratives to contemporary studies of Adivasi, Dalit, and queer histories. Broadly, two primary approaches to history have emerged: academic history and public history. These approaches often find themselves in conflict.
Author William Dalrymple’s widely debated observation about Indian academics' failure to engage general audiences has reignited the discussion surrounding academic versus public history. Speaking at The Indian Express Idea Exchange, Dalrymple remarked, "The failure of Indian academics to reach out to general audiences has allowed the growth of WhatsApp history." While provocative, this view oversimplifies a complex issue: just how "public" is academic history in India?
The term "WhatsApp history" refers to the unchecked spread of historical misinformation on social media platforms. Often ideologically motivated, these narratives distort facts for virality. In India, where smartphones and social media are ubiquitous, this phenomenon has grown alarmingly, amplified by political agendas.
As a historian-in-training deeply engaged in public history, I find myself reflecting on the dynamic interplay between academia and broader audiences. My journey with Karwaan: The Heritage Exploration Initiative has been very enriching. Since our inception, we have been trying to make history accessible, foster dialogue, and create spaces for knowledge dissemination beyond the confines of university networks. In the process, I have observed both challenges and opportunities in bringing serious historical inquiry to the public—an endeavor that is especially critical in an era of heightened historical revisionism.
Let us begin by acknowledging Dalrymple’s assertion: academic writing in India is often inaccessible to the general public. But the question remains: where does the responsibility lie? Should professional historians strive to make their work more accessible, or is it up to the public and platforms like social media to bridge the gap? More importantly, are we, as a society, ready to engage with history’s complexities and nuances, even when they challenge our preconceived beliefs?
The Evolution of Historical Inquiry in India
As any good student of history would, let us begin at the beginning by examining the evolution of historical inquiry in modern India. Early and medieval Indian traditions had diverse methods of recording history, reflecting how historical understanding has transformed over millennia. Here, we are not dealing with those historical traditions of itihasa-purana and tawarikh, but the tradition of history that the British introduced in India.
The modern discipline of history in India emerged during the colonial period when the British began studying India’s past to govern the country more effectively. This effort also served as a justification for colonial rule, portraying India’s past as chaotic and stagnant, ruled by "Oriental despots." The British positioned themselves as agents of a so-called "Civilizing Mission." Orientalists like William Jones and James Prinsep became interested in India’s ancient languages and inscriptions, offering insights into its rich past but often through a colonial lens. It was the colonial tradition of history writing that initially divided Indian history along communal lines—Hindu, Muslim, and British (not Christian)—which set the tone for much of the historical discourse that followed.
By the 1930s and 1940s, another tradition of writing history took center stage—the Nationalists. Historians like Jadunath Sarkar and H.C. Raychaudhuri began reclaiming India’s ancient ‘glorious’ past, challenging colonial narratives and framing the past as a source of national pride. However, their writings suggest that they continued with the communal division of India's past, perpetuating the same erroneous division of history. Those writings also occasionally veered into hyperbole, which, if put in the context of the national movement, seemed timely, but we must understand that we have moved on from there to the present times.
Post-independence, historians moved towards more secular, rational interpretations of history, distancing themselves from both colonial and nationalist lenses and offering much more critical approaches to history based on various frameworks. Framework is a term that refers to the kinds of questions a historian asks of sources, the field of inquiry, and the themes that fascinate a historian—these could be social, economic, political, religious, caste-based, or gender-focused. Some frameworks that have developed over the years include Marxist, Subaltern, Feminist, Queer, Annales, Dalit, and even Revisionist approaches. For a long time, many people have viewed academic history as inherently "leftist," written by "left historians." This perception is problematic because academic history is not bound to a political left-right dichotomy. Historical writing encompasses various approaches, such as nationalist, Marxist, subaltern, tribal, and feminist perspectives, which provide essential frameworks for understanding the past. The Marxist historical school, for instance, is not the same as political Marxism.
Modern historical research has since grown more specialized, drawing from archaeology, genetics, sociology, anthropology, and other related academic disciplines to create nuanced interpretations of the past. New methodologies have allowed us to ask fresh questions, making history a complex web of narratives and interpretations rather than a mere chronology of events. This proves that the understanding of history is not static; it changes with new evidence and new interpretations. It is debated, argued, and counter-argued with the understanding that we may never know exactly what happened in the past, but academicians provide us with possibilities to engage with. This does not sound as appealing as giving a provocative answer to a historical question, but that is how academic history works. Consider the many debates in Indian history to understand how this process unfolds—the Feudalism Debate, the 18th Century Debate, the Golden Age Debate, and many others.
History and the Public
The issue at hand extends beyond political ideologies. Many people avoid reading altogether, preferring instead to cling to constructed narratives and engage in "hero worship" based on selectively curated histories. Questioning these figures—whether political, cultural, or religious—often leads to trolling and abuse on social media. A widespread misconception is that academic historians are inherently biased, with many being labeled as Marxists without substantive reasoning. Critics argue that historians manipulate sources or selectively choose evidence to distort history. However, these claims are rarely accompanied by academic arguments or supported by sources. In scholarly discourse, challenging an argument requires presenting a well-reasoned counterargument, yet in the fast-paced realm of social media, few take the time to engage in such discussions.
Ironically, all sides of the political spectrum on social media accuse one another of distorting history while avoiding meaningful engagement with historical complexities themselves. This polarization complicates the historian's role. While academic historians attempt to engage the public through books, lectures, and forums, their effectiveness is often undermined by a public unwilling—or unable—to listen.
Academic history, produced within universities and research institutions, prioritizes rigor, evidence, and peer review. These works cater to specialists, making them less accessible to general audiences. Public history, in contrast, seeks to simplify and communicate historical narratives to a wider audience, while still drawing from academic research. To the layperson, academic writing may seem dense and challenging, yet history, much like any other discipline, is inherently complex. Oversimplification risks distorting the past. Thus, public history must strike a delicate balance—making history accessible without sacrificing nuance.
It is also a misconception to view academic history as a monolith. Many scholars actively strive to engage wider audiences through accessible writing and public discourse, demonstrating the diversity within the discipline.
In India, there is a tendency to absorb hearsay, WhatsApp forwards, and political rhetoric as historical fact while dismissing academic historians for our supposed biases. The rise of "WhatsApp history" is not solely due to the failings of academia. The nature of social media—its rapid dissemination, accessibility, and ease of spreading misinformation—has exacerbated these challenges, which extend beyond history to other fields as well. This issue is as much technological and societal as it is academic. Meanwhile, public historians play a crucial role by translating academic research into accessible formats. Many of their works, often best-sellers, introduce historical knowledge to new audiences, helping bridge the gap between academia and the public.
Karwaan: A Case Study
Leading Karwaan: The Heritage Exploration Initiative has been an extraordinary journey of fostering curiosity, breaking barriers, and building a community that cherishes India’s rich, pluralistic past. What began as a humble students' collective in 2019 has grown into one of India’s leading platforms for engaging with history and heritage. From the outset, our mission has been clear: to make academic history accessible to the public and bridge the gap between scholarly research and public knowledge.
What has truly fueled this journey is the remarkable enthusiasm and generosity of historians who have been more than willing to support and contribute to this initiative. When Karwaan hosted its first series of online lectures in April 2020, during the height of the pandemic, we were overwhelmed by the response from scholars across the globe. More than 300 historians, including stalwarts like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Nayanjot Lahiri, and Veena Talwar Oldenburg, joined us to share their expertise on topics ranging from ancient India to contemporary cultural debates. Their eagerness to connect with wider audiences has been both humbling and inspiring.
Historians have not only brought their rigorous scholarship to our platform but have also embraced the vision of making history engaging and inclusive. Whether through their participation in Karwaan lectures, Baithaks, or our weekly heritage walks, their contributions have elevated the discourse and demonstrated the transformative power of public history. Through the unwavering support of scholars, we’ve seen history leap from textbooks into the streets, museums, and digital spaces. It has been deeply rewarding to witness the impact of these initiatives—not only in fostering historical awareness but also in building a sense of community and connection.
Karwaan’s journey is a testament to the power of collective passion and the incredible willingness of historians to bring their expertise to the public sphere. Together, we are ensuring that India’s rich and pluralistic histories continue to inspire, inform, and empower generations to come. In the last five years, we have witnessed the emergence of countless social media handles like The Itihas Project, The Hyderabad History Project, Mad Mughal Memes, Indian History Collective, Ruchika Sharma, Harleen Singh, and even Karwaan itself. These platforms, followed by thousands of people on Instagram, use academic material and transform it into reels, memes, and small excerpts, making it accessible to a largely non-history audience.
Conclusion
The interplay between academic and public history in India is a dynamic and evolving field. While academic history provides the depth and rigor needed to understand the complexities of the past, public history ensures that this knowledge reaches a wider audience. Initiatives like Karwaan demonstrate that collaboration between scholars and the public can yield transformative results.
In a time of growing historical revisionism and misinformation, it is more critical than ever to foster spaces where history is debated, questioned, and celebrated. By bridging the gap between academia and the public, we can ensure that India’s rich and pluralistic histories continue to inspire and inform future generations.
Academics, social media platforms, writers and public historians must work together to challenge misinformation and foster a culture of critical inquiry. Public history plays a vital role here, translating academic insights into relatable narratives without compromising integrity. Expecting historians alone to popularize their work is unrealistic. Like scientists, their primary responsibility lies in research. At a time when the public sphere is influenced by dominant ideologies and public history is not untouched by them, criticizing academic historians only serves those seeking to find faults in academic history to replace it with uncritical and inaccurate narratives of the past.
Public and academic history need not be at odds; they must complement each other. Public historians can use academic research to craft compelling narratives for broader audiences, while academics can support public history by ensuring its factual grounding. The onus of engaging the public with academic history lies with multiple stakeholders - including the public. If we are asking academics to collaborate with public historians, then the public must also approach history with curiosity and a willingness to learn, rather than seeking confirmation of existing biases. Creating accessible platforms—like literature festivals, public forums, and social media channels—can help amplify their voices. Rather than blaming historians for perceived inaccessibility, we must address systemic barriers and promote spaces where history—academic and public—can coexist. Only then can we create a society that values a nuanced understanding of its past.
Well-written.