The distortion or politicisation of history may constitute the denial of historical crimes. It is also sometimes called negationism. We need to understand why historians distort history? Is it because of their ideological affiliation or because they are assigned the task of history-writing by political or religious authorities to promote their ideals?

In ancient and medieval times, historians were employed by the rulers to write the history of their dynasties. They were given certain guidelines to follow according to which they would omit events and situations which could reflect badly on the ruler and his policies.

In ancient Egypt, history writing was controlled by the rulers. Historians could not write about the defeat of Egyptian armies. This is why Pharaohs like Thutmose III and Rameses II were always portrayed victorious in the battlefield by historians of that time.

Following the same pattern of editing, there is also no information available about the Jews in Egypt and their exodus. Predecessors’ names would be obliterated by successors who did not like them. Likewise, Akhenaton, the heretic Pharaoh also fell victim to this policy. Their names were not only deleted from history books but also obliterated from their tombs and temples that they built.

Historical facts also become altered when historians narrate speeches made by historical people. The Greek historian Thucydides includes long speeches in his historical narratives and according to some modern historians, these speeches are his own creation.

The Greek historian, Herodotus provided graphic and heartrending details of the battle of Thermopolis. One wonders how he captured such minute details. It seemed as though he was there in person. Modern critics of Herodotus argue that the whole description is a creation of his vivid imagination as neither he was there, nor was any Greek who survived to tell him the story of the battlefield.

The practice of distortion continues from the ancient to modern times. In the present day and age, historians who believe in a certain ideology may twist historical facts on the pretext of national interest.

During Stalin’s reign, the names of all those individuals who he did not like were excluded from history books, which were strictly censored by the state. Stalin ordered the writing of a new book called A Short History of the USSR which had to be used in schools. The way subjects were taught was laid down by the government — especially where Stalin’s part in the 1917 Revolution, and his own image was glorified while his relationship with Lenin was overplayed.

‘Heretic’ philosophers, thinkers, and writers met the same kind of fate in most ancient societies. For instance, in India, the Charvak philosophers were rejected by their contemporaries for the element of skepticism in their philosophy. Their writings disappeared and what we know about their philosophy is from the critical views of their opponents who quoted passages from their writing in order to reject them. Modern researchers are making efforts to reconstruct their philosophy based on this material.

The narration of history of the subcontinent is inclined towards the Congress and the Muslim League — the two parties which are credited most for their monumental role in fighting for freedom from the colonial powers.

Other political groups like the Ghadr party, an organisation founded by Punjabi Indians, in the United States and Canada with the aim to liberate the subcontinent from the British rule have been ignored.

In writing the historical accounts of the Sultanate period, Ziauddin Barani projected and legitimised his own ideas through speeches made by credible and reliable historical figures.

Another method of distortion is the misinterpretation of events. For example, some historians eulogise Mahmud of Ghazni as a holy warrior when in fact, like most conquerors, he was an invader whose interest was to plunder the vanquished.

In writing alternate history or revision of history, an attempt is made to try and retrieve lost information in order to restore a dignified place to those who have been ignored by state historians.

Sometimes it becomes difficult for historians to separate history from faith and hence it loses its validity and facts disappear, while history constructed by the believers becomes legitimate. Historians may use concise language to describe an event whereby it loses its meaning and is reduced to just a piece of information. Distorted history creates false consciousness and fails to teach any lessons. Even worse, it may well teach the wrong ones.