1. History, Memory, and the Use of the Past in the Present
Romila Thapar’s scholarship consistently highlights that history is not merely an account of the past but a resource used by societies to justify present identities and power structures. Her works emphasise that the past is often selectively interpreted to legitimise contemporary political and social claims rather than to understand historical realities.
In the Indian context, this selective use of history has become increasingly visible in public discourse. Competing narratives about culture, religion, and nationhood draw upon simplified or distorted versions of the past, which then influence policy debates, social relations, and political mobilisation.
For governance, this matters because public understanding of history shapes civic values, constitutional morality, and social cohesion. When historical understanding is reduced to legitimising present agendas, it weakens the ability of institutions to promote pluralism and informed citizenship.
Ignoring this dynamic risks normalising historically unfounded claims in policymaking and public debate, thereby undermining evidence-based governance and democratic deliberation.
The governance logic is that a society’s relationship with its past informs its political culture; when history is instrumentalised rather than critically examined, decision-making becomes vulnerable to myth-driven mobilisation instead of rational policy choices.
2. Rise of “WhatsApp History” and the Crisis of Historical Literacy
Thapar identifies the phenomenon of “WhatsApp history” as a major contemporary challenge, referring to the rapid circulation of unverified, simplistic historical claims through social media platforms. These narratives often present themselves as factual while lacking methodological rigour.
A key driver of this trend is the poor standard of education, particularly in social sciences. Even formally educated sections often lack basic historical reasoning skills due to fragmented curricula and diluted textbooks that fail to convey how historical knowledge is produced and debated.
Politics further intensifies this problem by actively shaping historical narratives to suit ideological positions. Certain interpretations of the past, especially those linked to Hindutva ideology, draw selectively from mythology, colonial historiography, and imagined histories, while critics are delegitimised as ideologically motivated.
For development and governance, this erosion of historical literacy weakens critical thinking, increases social polarisation, and reduces the capacity of citizens to evaluate policy claims grounded in history.
The underlying logic is that low-quality education combined with politicised narratives creates a fertile ground for misinformation; if unchecked, this leads to governance challenges rooted in misperception rather than empirical understanding.
3. Colonial Periodisation and Its Long-Term Consequences
Colonial historiography played a decisive role in shaping how Indian history is popularly understood today. British historians, notably James Mill, divided Indian history into rigid “Hindu” and “Muslim” periods, assuming permanent hostility between these communities.
This division rested on the false assumption that India lacked its own historical tradition and that colonial authorities needed to “create” history for Indians. Such periodisation ignored the diversity and continuity of social, economic, and cultural processes across centuries.
By attributing communal identities and conflicts to entire historical periods, colonial historiography laid the foundation for later communal interpretations of the past. These simplified frameworks continue to influence textbooks, political rhetoric, and popular media.
From a governance perspective, inherited colonial categories distort policy debates on identity, minority rights, and national integration, often leading to oversimplified and polarising narratives.
The governance logic here is that outdated colonial frameworks still structure public understanding; failure to critically revise them perpetuates social divisions that complicate inclusive policymaking.
4. Misinterpretation of Origins: Aryans, Hindus, and Identity Claims
One prominent strand of popular historical distortion concerns the origins of Indo-Aryan speakers. Thapar notes that most scholars agree that Indo-Aryan languages originated outside the boundaries of British India, with close linguistic and ritual connections to Iranian-Aryan traditions.
Linguistic evidence, such as parallels between the Soma and Homa rituals and the transformation of “Sindhu” into “Hindu” in Iranian usage, shows that “Hindu” was originally a geographic descriptor rather than a religious identity.
Despite this scholarly consensus, simplified narratives often portray Aryans as the original inhabitants of India, using this claim to assert exclusive cultural ownership. Such interpretations blur the distinction between linguistic, cultural, and religious categories.
For governance and social harmony, these misinterpretations fuel exclusionary identity politics and undermine the pluralistic foundations of Indian society.
The logic is that inaccurate origin stories become tools of political mobilisation; if left unchallenged, they legitimise exclusionary policies and weaken constitutional principles of equality.
5. Patriarchy in Historical Structures and Limited Exceptions
Thapar highlights that patriarchy was deeply embedded in Indo-Aryan social structures, with Dharmashastras prescribing strict control over upper-caste women by male relatives throughout different stages of life. This reflects a broader pattern of male dominance in historical institutions.
While there were notable exceptions—such as Prabhavati Gupta acting as queen regent in the fifth century or women Bhakti saints like Andal, Lal Ded, and Mirabai—these instances did not substantially alter the overall patriarchal order.
Even political marriages, such as alliances between Mughals and Rajputs, largely treated women as instruments of diplomacy rather than autonomous agents. Thus, gender inequality remained structurally entrenched across periods.
For contemporary governance, recognising these historical patterns is important to understand the persistence of gender disparities and to design informed gender-sensitive policies.
The governance reasoning is that historical patriarchy shapes long-term social norms; ignoring this continuity risks superficial reforms that fail to address structural gender inequality.
6. Ethical Values, Communal Toxicity, and Social Stability
Thapar expresses concern over the declining association of India with values such as non-violence, tolerance, and ethical debate—values historically linked to figures like Gautama Buddha and Ashoka Maurya. She argues that ethical discourse itself has receded from public life.
In such a context, society becomes vulnerable to mob behaviour and demagoguery, where emotional mobilisation replaces ethical reasoning. This environment amplifies communal toxicity and weakens institutional checks on power.
For governance, the erosion of shared ethical values undermines rule of law, social trust, and the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Policy implementation becomes more difficult in a polarised social climate.
"If you have a society in which ethical values are no longer even discussed, let alone practised, then you’re in for a society that... will be ruled by mobs and demagogues." — Romila Thapar
The logic is that ethical norms function as informal institutions; when they weaken, formal governance mechanisms face higher costs and lower compliance.
7. Change, Continuity, and Historical Perspective
Despite her critique, Thapar adopts a long-term historical perspective, emphasising that societies undergo cycles of stability and disruption. Periods of decline are not permanent, and change is a constant feature of history.
This perspective encourages patience and resilience rather than fatalism. It also underscores the importance of sustained institutional efforts in education, scholarship, and public discourse to correct distortions over time.
For policymakers and administrators, this reinforces the need to invest in long-term capacity-building rather than short-term narrative control.
The governance insight is that durable change requires institutional continuity; neglecting long-term approaches risks repeating cycles of misinformation and social conflict.
Conclusion
The article underscores the critical link between historical understanding, education, and democratic governance. Distorted narratives of the past—shaped by colonial legacies, poor pedagogy, and politicisation—have tangible consequences for social cohesion and policy effectiveness. Strengthening historical literacy, ethical discourse, and institutional integrity is therefore central to fostering inclusive development and resilient governance in the long term.
