Podcast Summary

New Books Network:

"Speaking of History: Conversations about India’s Past and Present"

Host: Nicholas Gordon
Guest: Namit Arora (with reference to co-author Romila Thapar)
Date: January 22, 2026

Overview

This episode centers on the book Speaking of History: Conversations about India’s Past and Present by Namit Arora and eminent historian Romila Thapar. The interview explores the challenges of doing and communicating history in India today, examines common distortions in public history, discusses academic vs. public-facing roles for historians, and reflects on how politics and nationalism shape the discourse about India’s past. The conversation is rich with insights on methodology, historiographical debates, and the responsibilities of public historians.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Inspiration and Format of the Book

[03:15]

• Motivation: The project grew from a discussion about why history is controversial in India.
• Format: The authors chose a conversational approach for accessibility and to allow the discussion to organically expand into a comprehensive exploration of India’s history and its public representations.

“We chose the conversational format because it felt more accessible and inviting for general readers...the conversation naturally expanded to cover a much wider range of themes and questions, turning into a book length exploration.”
— Namit Arora [03:15]

2. Problems Facing Indian History: Academic vs. Public Spheres

[04:24]

• Academic History: Professionally, historians in India are diverse and generally united by commitment to the historical method, evidence, and reasoned argument, mirroring practices elsewhere in the world.
• Public History: The real issues stem from the public domain, where debate is polarized and heavily influenced by Hindu nationalist narratives that often contradict the academic consensus.
• Key Examples of Distortion:
  • Indo-Aryan migration is misrepresented; despite strong academic consensus, public narratives insist on the indigenous origins of Aryans, Sanskrit, and Vedic culture.
  • Academic historians who challenge these public myths face abuse; women scholars are especially targeted online.
  • Conspiracy theories (e.g., about “Marxist historians” controlling academia) and misinformation are widespread.

“Organized Hindutva disinformation in the public space, actively supported by the Indian political regime, is what plagues history in India today.”
— Namit Arora [09:44]

3. Historical Method and the Role of Historians

[11:22]

• Historians must balance academic rigor (evidence, revising views with new info) with a public role: making history accessible and defending scholarly standards against misinformation.
• The health of the discipline and of Indian civic life depends on this public engagement.
• Historians should speak up when scholarship is misrepresented, and find ways to reach the public (lectures, essays, media).

“Taking public history seriously is, I think, part of a basic civic virtue in India today. It’s essential to the health of both the discipline and that of the Indian Republic.”
— Namit Arora [15:01]

4. Major Distortions in Indian Public History

[16:19]

• Indo-Aryan Migration: Denial of Central Asian origins for political ends.
• Ancient ‘Golden Age’: Idealized and homogenized vision of Vedic India; propagation of exaggerated or false scientific claims about ancient texts.
• Islamic Period: Depicted as a thousand-year period of ‘slave’ Hindu victimhood, erasing evidence of collaboration and cultural mingling.
• Caste and Patriarchy: The realities of oppression are minimized or whitewashed.
• Timelessness: Hinduism portrayed as eternal and unchanged, ignoring well-documented historical transformations.

“Historians see Indian civilization as constantly changing...Hindu nationalist thought, however, presents it as an unchanging civilization rooted in an eternal Hindu essence...”
— Namit Arora [19:25]

5. Limits of Historical Sources & Connecting Past Research

[21:41]

• Evidence for very early Indian history (pre-Harappan) is sparse; most artifacts come after societal complexity increases.
• Harappan civilization (ca. 3,000 BCE) offers richer archaeological evidence, but major questions remain (especially without deciphered script).
• Development of new scientific methods (e.g., genetics, carbon dating) expands what we can know, but good historians are always mindful of evidential limits.

“History is always limited by the sources we have, and India is no different...good historians...treat their interpretations as provisional, tied to available evidence, and they resist bending the past to serve present day ideological or political agendas.”
— Namit Arora [24:46]

6. Impact of Colonialism on Indian History Writing

[26:09]

• Colonial-era historians introduced systematic study but relied heavily on limited textual sources with strong Eurocentric biases and overemphasis on Brahminical texts.
• The periodization (Hindu vs. Islamic periods) and two-nation theory had deep, lasting impacts, fueling modern communal narratives.
• Colonial methods (archaeology, epigraphy) were invaluable, though many interpretations were flawed, and have been reassessed by later historians.

“The colonial legacy in history writing in India is a mixed one, deeply flawed in its interpretations...but also foundational in the methods it introduced.”
— Namit Arora [29:41]

7. Politics and the Use (and Misuse) of History

[31:25]

• The interaction between history and politics is inevitable; nations need stories of origin and meaning.
• Problems arise when history is treated only as political ammunition, undermining academic standards and complexity.
• A healthy division of labor is needed: politicians may invoke history, but historians must hold firm on evidence and critical inquiry—even when unpopular.

“Politics will inevitably use history, but historians at least must not bend their methods to suit political ends.”
— Namit Arora [32:37]

8. Public History as Vocation and Marketplace

[34:34]

• Namit Arora identifies primarily as a writer who engages in public history, striving for accessibility and rigor.
• Points out the lack of demand for high standards in India’s public history scene, with many “public historians” lacking training or respect for method, resulting in vulnerability to propaganda.
• The solution: cultivating a culture of critical engagement and higher expectations from consumers and audiences.

“We need to demand as consumers, as discerning people, we need to demand higher standards and critique bad public history in public life.”
— Namit Arora [36:22]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The real problems with history in India ... lie in the public-facing space rather than in academic scholarship. That space is full of intensely polarized debates about the past, in which ideas that differ sharply from established research are deliberately invented or kept alive.”
  — Namit Arora [04:24]
• “Historians have to do more than produce careful work for fellow scholars. They also have to defend the historical method itself.”
  — Namit Arora [14:36]
• “If historians retreat entirely into academic silos, they leave the public sphere open to distortion.”
  — Namit Arora [14:55]
• “A mature political culture, should India ever have one, should be able to engage with such history without demanding that it legitimize its ends.”
  — Namit Arora [32:55]

Important Timestamps

• [03:15] – Why the book is a conversation, not conventional prose
• [04:24] – Core problems in Indian history: academic vs. public space
• [11:22] – Historian’s mission: academic and public responsibilities
• [16:19] – Principal distortions in Indian history narratives
• [21:41] – What we know about early India and the limits of sources
• [26:09] – The impact of colonial historiography
• [31:25] – Politics, nationalism, and the use/misuse of history
• [34:34] – Public history as vocation, business, and public responsibility

Tone and Language

Namit Arora is patient, deliberate, and clear, emphasizing careful reasoning and an evidence-based approach. He avoids polemic but is nonetheless direct in attributing contemporary distortions to specific political and ideological currents. The conversation is substantive, accessible, and foregrounds the importance of public engagement for historians. The overall tone is measured but urgent about the need for higher standards and greater vigilance against distortion.

The episode is essential for anyone interested in how history is made, weaponized, and defended in modern India—and for understanding the stakes of public history worldwide.