Why are historians averse to mythology?

Dharma

Around the 8th century, many kings in the Deccan region built temples to Shiva. Here, they carved the image of Ravana struggling to carry Mount Kailash. Why was this image carved repeatedly? Is it a question that will interest historians? Can they answer without appreciating the Ramayana and the importance of Mount Kailash in the Hindu world-view? Are historians equipped to do such analysis? Why would kings so far in the south commission an artwork that depicts the transport of a mountain located far to the north, one that they may have never seen? And what explains the shift of iconography other than they wanted to differentiate themselves from earlier Buddhist kings? Why did they choose Shiva, not Vishnu? Why this episode, not others? Is it significant?

Historians refuse to engage with mythology generally. In fact, many hold it in contempt. History emerged as an opposition to folklore, mythology, and memory cultures in the 19th century when these subjects were invented. History had to be evidence-driven, data-driven, and sought objective truth. Subjectivity was seen as pollution to be distilled out. In the process, historians forgot that human language is full of metaphors.

When someone talks of an ocean of milk or a four-armed deity, are they being literal, or imaginative? Can a peer-review settle a metaphor? What makes an Ashokan edict factual, and the epic Mahabharata a work of fiction, rather than a symbol-rich memory of events that occurred long ago? Not necessarily an event, but an idea. In comparing Ashoka’s violence with Krishna’s violence, are historians not pushing forward a myth they subscribe to?

Historians tend to see the past in terms of politics and economics rather than faith. Christianity did motivate colonialism, for souls as well as gold. Islam did transform an Arab tribe into a formidable empire – not just to plunder but also to rid the world of ignorance. How does a historian identify the underlying belief system if he or she does not admit her own belief system? History departments are dependent on funders, and funders have agendas.

History was developed in Europe, in a Christian world, where the holiest book has two parts, the Old and New Testament. This imposes a teleology. History becomes a record of progress and improvement of material and spiritual cultures. This divides the world into the savage and the civilised, the ignorant and the informed, the underdeveloped and the developed. So academicians are trained to see the past as a site of injustice, and the future as the road to justice. Academicians turn into activists and investigate the past to provide evidence of patriarchy, misogyny, oppression and homophobia. As a result, the past is full of villains and victims need to be identified. Imperialism and colonisation and caste and slavery have to be qualified as sins to be confessed and penalised as they do not match our liberal values.

Historians ignore the fact that justice and equality are cultural concepts, not natural phenomena. They come from monotheistic faiths and are not universal values. If the Arabs and Persians fought over what constitutes true Islam, it was because of different myths they subscribed to, one that valued merit and the other which valued bloodline. If China and Japan sealed themselves from the rest of the world, it is not because the Emperors feared loss of power, but because they did not feel any obligation to indulge in trade with foreigners.

Historians often debate on what words are appropriate when describing the past. Why can we not refer to Mughals as Muslims? Why must they be referred to as Turks or Afghans? Why can we not refer to the British as Christians, even though the British rulers insisted on imagining India as a Hindu land ruled by Muslim kings? Historians fear this contributes to communalism. We speak of the Peshwas and the Rajputs and Sikhs, but do not refer to their caste affiliations. Does that then give an accurate and comprehensive picture of the past?

If Buddhism valourised monastic orders and mercantilism, these Hindu books valourised the household life and agricultural systems. The fight between Buddhists and Brahmins was not just about obtaining royal patronage, it was also about shaping culture with new ideas. Monasticism contributed to patriarchy as well as non-violence. Casteism was oppressive but it also enabled diversity. Monotheism enabled science and technology but at the cost of pluralism. Alexander, when conquering the earth, was not just being ambitious, he was striving to be a god, and be welcomed in paradise. His myth may not seem rational and reasonable but it shaped his behaviour and changed human history.

Many historians do not clarify that we have no evidence of the historical Buddha, for fear of upsetting some political groups. Likewise the historicity of Jesus, Muhammad and Shankaracharya can be challenged. But they played a key role in shaping history, just like the spread of Ramayana, Mahabharata, and the Puranas. History is shaped by beliefs. It is often remembered through fiction. Unless we appreciate the shifts in myths, we will never understand the shifts of the past.