Devdutt Pattanaik: Recently, there was a document by eminent historians condemning the atmosphere of intolerance in India post the rise of Modi as prime minister, to which there was a counter-document condemning the "Marxist state of historical scholarship in India". Your views?

Also read: This regime is worrying us: Historians’ statement against intolerance

Purushottam Agarwal: Thanks for giving me this opportunity of reading both the statements together. Frankly, I am surprised by both tone and content of the "anti-left" (for want of a more neutral term) academicians. For right or wrong the "left-wing" historians are making their point by citing concrete instances and placing them in larger social context and political perspective. They are talking of intolerance and violence with citizens and academics, without at all commenting on the academic competence of their potential opponents and critics.

Their opponents, on the other hand, instead of addressing the issue at hand, launch a diatribe against the "control" of academic positions, et al going even into indirect personal attacks. They flatten the differences amongst the "left" historians and make wild charges. Don't you find it amusing that there are only a couple of trained historians among the signatories of the contra statement?

But surely tribal histories and Indian knowledge systems have been ignored?

PA: The fact of the matter is, the subaltern school of history writing has focused a lot on tribal history and in general on history from below and the margins of society. There has been bitter polemics (in a serious, academic way) between the subaltern historians and other "left" historians as well. But of course, none of them would support the political Hindutva - hence all of them are to be targeted.

Similarly, new themes like wildlife and environment have been introduced by the "Left" historians. It is patently ridiculous to say that all of them have been focusing on caste only. Irfan Habib is primarily known for his work on the Mughal revenue system and history of technology. Harbans Mukhia inaugurated the crucial methodological debate, "was there a feudalism in India?" Bipan Chandra's exploration of the growth of economic nationalism remains all time classic.

Also read: Modi's silence worrying us too: Open letter from overseas historians and social scientists

About Indian knowledge systems, it is Romila Thapar who has argued for the Puranas to be taken more seriously for the writing of Indian history. As you are aware, (here's is a paper on Kabir's guru, Ramanand, once again), I have argued for a more serious engagement with vernacular sources, and results have been fascinating and well-received by the "left" historians who are accused of "ignoring and disrespecting" the Indian knowledge systems and sources.

But I have heard of something called Adhikara, by which only those who are well versed in a subject can argue on it?

PA: The idea of Adhikara in Indic epistemological tradition has been implicated in the hierarchical notion of society, but if we take it, in itself, without such implication, and I believe we must, it is about competence and qualification, which does not necessarily depend on a formal degree. The thing is the involvement with any area of knowledge and a sense of its methodology, issues and themes. Take your own case, you have a degree in medical science, but have acquired knowledge about mythologies due to your interest and study. That makes you an expert, though not a formally qualified one.

Also read: India must end history wars over Tipu and other controversial Sultans

Unfortunately, these days, anybody can claim a space in any debate courtesy social media, without any rigour or expertise. To express a lay person's opinion is one thing and to "criticise" an academic exercise or a school of thought quite another. This requires respect for the method and knowledge of the subject. History writing is not just the "record" of this happened and that happened as Chetan Bhagat would want us to believe, it is a scientific exercise, which ideally should have no place for Dinanath Batras and their method of pulping the books. I mean, do we take seriously any ignorant comments on the issues and themes in physics or even music? Can we say an Abhijeet or a Yo Yo Honey Singh as an artist is greater than Pt Bhimsen Joshi, merely due to fact the latter is hardly known amongst "ordinary" folks?

Can the same be said for Western historians commenting on India? Surely Sheldon Pollock's view on Ramayana has more to do with the social context and his disdain for Hindutva. And Wendy Doniger in writing an "alternative history", makes Hindutva inadvertently the mainstream!

PA: Sheldon Pollock's views on the political imagination in Ramayana have been impressively critiqued by BD Chattopadhyay, one of the signatories of the historians' statement, and thus according to contra statement, "guilty" of being against Bharat!

Actually, Pollock made the pithy statement in an interview (You can see actual quote in Outlook may, 10, 2010) that, "Colonialism tired its best to destroy India's capacity to know its past; the danger in the present era of globalisation is of destruction of the India's very desire to know its past."

He has also underlined the fact, that many things "discovered" as Indian traditions were actually the inventions of colonialism itself.

And, when Wendy is talking of "alternative" history, she is not making political Hindutva mainstream, but only trying to present a narrative, which according to her, is an alternative to the dominant narrative. Let me make my disagreement with her conclusions and method absolutely clear, and I will be critiquing these in not so distant future. But pulping a book is an inquisition method, not a scholarly and civilised way of engaging with an alternative viewpoint.

Also read: Now is the right time to reclaim the Indian intellectual

Surely, there is some truth in the counter-argument? It is not born of thin air. What do you think could be the reason for such rage against "Marxist" historians? Is it some genuine concern that is being wrongly articulated? And in your experience, where do you locate the impact of colonialism and the rise of Hindutva on the history of Hinduism?

PA: I would like to cover both these questions together. As a matter of fact, there has been a perception (not entirely invalid) of Hinduism being unduly critiqued by the "left" historians, but who stops the others to rectify such undue criticism? And it is not as if there have been no attempts in this direction. Heathen in his blindness, by S N Balagangadhara, is a great attempt in that direction. Such attempts are welcome and in fact, needed. It is competence, knowledge and the rigour which makes Balagangadhara's work thought-provoking.

Ironically, those claiming to speak on behalf of Hinduism and its traditions seem to have internalised the colonial methods and perceptions the most. Colonial episteme and its legacy is a major challenge, but it cannot be met with sweeping generalisations.

In my own work, I have tried to emphasise the crucial role of vernacular sources and everyday practices in rectifying many ill-conceived notions about India's past. My book Akath Kahani Premki: Kabir ki Kavita aur unka Samay, in spite of being written in Hindi, has been eagerly read and engaged with by the "leftists" in academia.

The point is that, we must have a dialogue of the concerned and engaged, not that of the deaf and dumb. The first prerequisite for such a dialogue is the respect for method and rigour of the discipline. The sweeping generalisations rooted in the perceived hurt of the sentiments take us nowhere else, but to mere cacophony and dangerous trivialisation of serious issues of scholarship as well as of citizenship.