Architectural History

In the 19th century, British scholars redefined India's architectural history, overshadowing traditional Itihasa and Tarikh narratives. They criticized these indigenous histories as 'unscientific' and 'ahistorical.' Itihasa, despite its rich socio-cultural content, lacked chronological and topographical precision, while Tarikh, though chronologically accurate, was marred by religious and monarchical biases. Deemed 'non-objective,' these accounts were supplanted by British-imposed 'modern' historiography, a practice later adopted by Indian scholars.

Beyazilt Akman, in Fiction or History? A Brief Theoretical Elaboration on Historical Fiction and Fictional History, critiques this scientific approach to history. He argues that it fails to capture the emotional and experiential aspects of history, such as a king's wrath, a peasant's suffering, or a warrior's heroism. According to Akman, historical fiction, unlike scientific history, can fill research gaps with creative imagination and convey deeper 'truths' about life and the human condition. Stories offer a 'truth' that transcends mere factual recounting, addressing larger existential questions. Thus, the replacement of India's historical epics with 'scientific history' led to the loss of essential 'truths,' especially in architectural history. Viewing history as a narrative, rather than a collection of facts, is crucial for uncovering the complete truth.

“Truth is not merely a matter of fact. Truth is the spirit which underlines all appearances and materialises in facts and deeds; truth is a hidden and spiritual force and facts are only modes of its operations…A characteristic legend, or tradition, or myth concerning a city, or a man, or a woman, when rightly interpreted, will often express more truth than will barrels and bales of statistical facts.”

(Michael Williams. Opportunities in Historical Fiction. 1992)