A hero is born

The Great Man Theory put forth by Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle establishes history as the biography of individuals, the ones he calls ‘heroes.’ When Rajnath Singh decided to question why Akbar was called ‘Akbar the Great’ while Rana Pratap wasn’t, he was subscribing to this theory. But the issue with revisionist history is not the story in itself; but that said amateur historians follow the normative course set by the kind they call ‘Marxist historians.’

To attribute history to a single man — women don’t make it to the books in any case — from any perspective is not only unscientific, but ignorant of the long and complex series of influences a social state has on historical events. Tolstoy brought this out beautifully in War and Peace , in the epilogue when he wrote, “The recognition of man’s free will as something capable of influencing historical events, that is, as not subject to laws, is the same for history as the recognition of a free force moving the heavenly bodies would be for astronomy. That assumption would destroy the possibility of the existence of laws, that is, of any science whatever.”

Stephen Fry’s book

Making History is based on a similar theme. Two people, a doctoral student and a professor go back in time to prevent Hitler from even being conceived. They are successful, only to wake up and find out that it didn’t prevent the war, and if anything, the outcome is worse as a man more ruthless than Hitler leads the war. This is when ruthless is too tame a word to use in the same sentence as Hitler.

To make Rana Pratap the central character in a history book is not too difficult, but to justify it by using the Great Man Theory rankles just a bit. In our own way, there has been quite a bit of revisionist history at work over the last 60 years. The result of this is Jhansi Rani Laxmibai and Veerapandiya Kattabomman becoming rulers who protected their countries against the evil empire. Chhattrapati Shivaji has also been subjected to this, his entire identity dumbed down to being a Hindu king who envisioned a Nepal-like nation state.

In all this, the social circumstances of the eras in which these kings and queens lived have been conveniently forgotten. Kattabomman was a feudal chieftain who refused to pay taxes to the British. Now, he has become a king who stood up for his people. Shivaji fought against both Hindus and Muslims.

Take the case of Narendra Modi. He isn’t primarily responsible for right-wing ascendancy in India. If anything, it is the other way around. If there weren’t Modi, there would be another person as Prime Minister following the same values he does, in a different style, possibly. History, when written in this context, takes the power away from a single man, and instead gives to millions who have propped up this man.