A recent comment by well-known historian William Dalrymple in an interview, that the blame for the rise of ‘WhatsApp history’ is to be laid at the door of academic historians, has triggered a public controversy. He has argued that the work done by academic historians has primarily been for each other; they have made no effort to reach out to the wider audience. This, in turn, has led to the void being filled by pseudo-history across social media.
While the debate continues to rage on whether it is justified to pin the entire blame on academic historians, it is important to ask this crucial question: Why has it been so easy for ‘Whatsapp University’ to spread pseudo-history? The Whatsapp audience generally wants instant information in bite-sized capsules. It does not have the patience to read or even hear out reasoned arguments. It also wants ‘history’ that will feed its existing biases, and becomes angry and accusatory when faced with research-based counter-arguments.
Large sections of this audience believe that history ought to be ‘black and white’ with the battle lines clearly drawn – a narrative of ‘us versus them’ where ‘we’ are the ‘wronged’ and ‘they’ are the ‘enemies’. Why is this so? There are several reasons behind this and they have been discussed on public platforms. But one aspect has been largely overlooked: this refers to the way in which history is taught in school, especially at the secondary level, which is the stage wher.