History is not written by the victors

History is written by the victors, you say? These Victors disagree.

As a history enthusiast, I am very disheartened when someone utters the completely incorrect phrase "History is written by the victors". It tells me that the person using that excuse does not understand the process of writing history and is not familiar with the concept of historiography.

Consider the number of vanquished sides who are celebrated and whose stories are well known. Here are just a few:

1. Leonidas-I and his small band of Spartans lost the Battle of Thermopylae to Xerxes-I and his Persians. Yet who is remembered and lionised? The guys who lost. Who wrote that history? The victors? Unlikely!

2. William Wallace, the inspiration behind the rather fictionalised Hollywood film Braveheart, lost to the English and was drawn and quartered. How is it that we know of his exploits? How is it that Hollywood chanced upon the details from which they could create a film? Who was writing about this person who lost...?

3. Razia Sultan was defeated and murdered. Yet we seem to know about her and about the promise she showed as a ruler.

4. Rana Pratap lost the Battle of Haldighati, yet he and even his horse are celebrated heroes! Chetak has a memorial to himself at the site of the battle, which I've visited many times owing to my years in Rajasthan.

5. Porus, the defeated king who Alexander reinstated because he was reportedly that impressed with his valour.

Let's also look at some "winners", about whose dark side and shortcomings, a lot has been written. Ashoka, Lenin,?Stalin, Churchill,?Khomeini,?"Dubya", Putin -- all winners but with every failing documented.

So how do we know about these people who lost, about their qualities and valour? How do we also know about the terrible failings of the victors? It raises an important question - Is history really written by the victors? The answer is no. History is written by multiple people. In Rana Pratap's case, the main Mughal historian Abul Fazl wrote about him. On the Rajput side, poets composed veer-rasa poetry about him, which "Charans" (bards that accompanied them on to the battlefield) probably sang to motivate warriors. Also, Colonel James Tod, a Britisher wrote extensively about the Rajputs and about Pratap. Porus is not mentioned in any Indian sources. We only know about his valour though Greek sources.

Since history is documented by many different people, good historians refer to all the sources available to them. For example, when they write about Emperor Ashoka, they refer to inscriptions on pillars and to Buddhist texts from that time and any other sources that might exist. When historians encounter multiple, verifiable sources saying similar things about a person or an event, they can infer with some confidence that the event took place or the person did exist. This is why the historicity of several religious figures is debated - no sources apart from religious ones exist that mention them. No non-religious records of dynasties, no inscriptions on pillars, no coins bearing their name. How is a historian to ascertain whether this person and the events ascribed to them did indeed take place?

On the other hand, remnants of bones, severed skulls and weapons at a battle site provide hard evidence that such and such battle took place. Radiocarbon dating makes it possible to scientifically establish the date of these remains. History that is based on hard evidence such as this is more reliable than history reconstructed only from texts or folklore.

Therefore, historians can say with a greater degree of certainty that the Egyptian or the Indus Valley Civilisations existed, than say Atlantis. The pyramids, the cities, the inscriptions and seals are hard evidence. Atlantis, in the absence of any evidence, is a myth.

For any historian or even a lay reader of history like me, a basic understanding of epistemology (the study of knowledge) is necessary.?In Indian philosophies, pramana (meaning "proof" and "means of knowledge") are the methods which can lead to knowledge, and serve as one of the core concepts in Indian epistemology. The three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted are perception, inference, and the testimony of past or present reliable experts. The only source of knowledge that all branches of Indian philosophy uniformly agree on as reliable is perception (direct experience through one's senses). Essentially, we are saying that if you haven't experienced it yourself, inferred it through applying reasoning or got the testimony of a reliable expert, then your?knowledge probably is from?an invalid source. You can perhaps see how testimony and inference are not as reliable as direct experience, and therefore not considered valid proof by the Carvaka, Buddhist and?Vaisheshika philosophical schools.

Now let's apply that to historical sources. If historians had to write reliable history, they would have had to either experience that event themselves, or rely on the testimony of a dependable source, or use reasoning and examples to arrive at a theory. Testimony alone may not be considered sufficient, which is why even in the field of law,?independent corroboration, over and above testimony, is essential to establish facts.

Another thing you may have heard people complain about is how in school textbooks,?"too little coverage was given to that empire versus this empire". Some people like to believe that this is because the government of the time directed historians on what to include or exclude. This is again falling prey to the belief that history is written by the victor of an election. As we have recently seen, this may happen some of the time; but in a system with checks and balances it certainly is not the main reason for inclusion or omission in school syllabi. The two reasons for that are: (1) Limits on syllabi length / book length, and (2) Availability of information from reliable sources. For instance, how much can a history book include about the Haryanka dynasty when all that is available about them are the names of their kings and the battles they fought? If there was information available about their social, architectural and literary contributions, only then would historians be able to add it in. On the other hand, if there is more information available about the Maurya dynasty or the Mughal dynasty, then there is obviously more that the historian can write about it. And yes, the support of an impartial government certainly helps the writing of good history as this excellent article by Yogendra Yadav illustrates .

That is what I wanted to say about the process of writing history. If we are to create thinking citizens, maybe we want to consider including?epistemology in school syllabi instead of things such as loci, trigonometry and calculus! As usual, Kerala seems to be ahead of every other Indian state in education. They recently started teaching schoolchildren to identify fake news . Apart from becoming smarter citizens, these kids might grow into reliable historians tomorrow!

Aman works in leadership, talent and organisation development, teaches positive psychology at the TISS-ODA ODCP and coaches professionals on their strengths. His?attentionally-challenged?brain rejects the idea of single-minded focus and indulges his multiple interests such as history, archaeology, anthropology and paleontology. He spends his spare time on Wikipedia and has even taught a course on dinosaurs.