History, when browsed up on Google, returns, “the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing.” There is something however, that still remains left out in this definition. In reality, History is “the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing” as penned down by a noteworthy historian of the era we talk about. Indian history is sumptuous. 

From the Aryan times till today, India’s significance in framing the affairs of the international sphere, remains unsurpassed. However, it has seen lakhs of disparate dynasties, rise and fall. There were the Mauryas who had their own viewpoints into the history of the period they ruled in, the Guptas who wrote it in a way that would regard their period as the “Golden Age in Indian History”, the Rashtrakutas, the Pallavas, the Cholas and so many notable others who had their own share in writing history. For an instance, King Harshavardhana, a noted ruler of the northern India is recognised for his administrative and judicial capabilities, for transforming Kannauj into a cosmopolitan capital and most importantly, for being the first to establish the Sino Indian diplomatic relationships. As per notes of Chinese traveller Xuanzang and his Sanskrit court poet Banabhatta, Harshavardhana was an exemplary man of letters and the invincible emperor of the north. However, he was decisively defeated by the ‘Lord Paramount’ of the South, Pulakesin II of the Badami Chalukyas and did possess some expansionist flaws as well, owing to the fact that he desired a rapid expansion into the South without even realising what potentialities their rulers possessed. The Harshacharita refuses to genuflect to the truth. Why would it? Banabhatta was Harsha’s Asthana Kavi and remained under his patronage, this being his first venture into a biographical narrative of his king. John Keay, in his book, “India: A History” states that Banabhatta had presented the king through a biased lens that appraised his virtues throughout, and was overly favourable about his actions and administrative capabilities. Although Harsha is known to be an excellent ruler, Banabhatta’s sempiternal laudation makes him more of a ‘Maryada Purushottam’ than a normal human king. 

George Sayantana quotes, “History is a pack of lies about events that never happened, told by people who weren’t there.” Amish Tripathi’s latest release is titled ‘The Legend of Suheldev: The King Who Saved India’. But, who was King Suheldev? Most Indians would fail to answer this promptly. 

This is the second instance of history being, what has been written down by the victors and the triumphant ones. Churchill affirms the view, quoting, “History is written by the victors.” History is as important to a nation, as roots are to a plant. But, most of it is a conceptualised version of a narrative that would attempt to transmogrify terrorists into martyrs, when they are victorious.  For Suheldev, he was the king of Shravasti, who dared to stand face off with the Ghaznavid empire, wrecking havoc at its most stable foundations. His victory against the Ghazi general Salar Masood, although recognised now, was something lost in the annals of Hindustan, until the 17th century Persian historical romance entitled, Mirat i Masudi refers to his name. Why would Ghazi historians compile down a narrative that would lead to a grotesque stature of theirs? An event that took place around the eleventh century, a battle that shattered the Turks such, that they feared to raze Hindustan for another century and a half, remained shrouded by the veil of darkness for six prolonged centuries!