The judgment of history

Historians are still debating the question of passing moral judgments within the study of history. Those who believe that it is not the task of history to pass any judgment argue that the responsibility of historians is to reports the events as they happened without any distortion or alteration. According to them, historians are not reformists or moralists to comment on the basis of good or evil. It entirely depends on the readers and how they want to judge the events after reading and analysing them, and then make a decision about its underlying moral value for themselves.
Anti-moralist groups especially spared the great individuals through history from the ambit of moral judgment. They argue that their acts are beyound ordinary morality because whatever they do, it is for the larger interest of a country or nation or for the whole of humankind. This justified their deception, lies, and killing and massacring of people, ironically, in the name of peace, and humanity.
On the other hand, there are those historians who believe that it is their responsibility not only to narrate the events but also to give their opinion on the basis of moral values. Lord Acton, who was famous for the dictum ‘All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, was against the anti-moralist approach. He was a staunch believer in the fact that historians should judge all individuals – whether kings, dictators or heroes – on the basis of morality. If they were spared by any punishment in their time because of their powerful positions, they should not be spared by modern historians for their crimes.
He condemns those historians who find justifications for rulers and great individuals who had killed and massacred people for the sake of their power. According to him, such historians come forward with a sponge to clean the bloody dagger of these rulers; the actions of these historians reward and purify the acts of brutality and barbarity. He asserts that Queen Elizabeth should be tried as a murderer on the assassination of Queen Mary. And, so should Alexander, whom historians painted as great, on the massacre of thousands and thousands of people just for the sake of his glory and grandeur.
If history remains neutral and does not condemn and declare such acts as immoral, it would fail to create any consciousness about these evil deeds. We have seen the result of this approach in our own time. Take the example of United States and its crimes in Vietnam. All American presidents who were responsible for killing of the millions of Vietnamese were not tried as war criminals. The American government inscribed the names of those American soldiers who died in Vietnam and glorified their bravery but completely ignored those Vietnamese who were gassed and brutally killed by the American forces. Ronald Reagan is a hero in the history of the USA. His crime in the ‘Iran-Contra affair’ in supporting Iran against Nicaragua is forgotten. Bush and Blair, who are responsible for the Iraqi invasion and killing of more than 150, 0000 civilians, have not been tried on the charges of massacre. There are hundreds of such examples which traditional historians describe and dismiss as the ‘natural process of history.’ General Dyre, who was responsible for the Jallianwala massacre, was elevated to the status of hero by the well-educated British public as the saviour of the British Empire. Gene Kelly, responsible for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, was transformed into a hero by the Americans. Hence, many such criminal have escaped the judgment of history and have been glorified.
When it comes to moral judgment, the historians of the oppressed and the oppressors are divided. Jewish historians accused Hitler and his Nazi party for the killing of millions of Jews during the Second World War, known as the Holocaust. Such is the moral pressure of this historical depiction, that its denial is a criminal act in some European countries. The Israeli state asserts that this term should exclusively be reserved for the Jewish massacre and should not be applied to other nations who have suffered a similar atrocity. However, on the other hand, the state of Israel is killing and massacring the Palestinians since 1948 and it has no moral qualms with that. Those European powers who accused Hitler keep silent on the mayhem unleashed upon the Palestinians. It shows that their support of Israel or condemnation of Hitler does not have any moral basis but is rather based on political considerations; if they condemn the Holocaust (which was indeed a grave crime against humanity), they should condemn the violence of similar magnitude being wrought upon the Palestinians.
In the case of Pakistan, the military action taken against the Bengalis in 1970 is ignored by local historians. Even those perpetrators who were responsible for the mass killing of the Bengalis were not tried and punished. They came back and lived a respectable life. There is no sense of guilt, whether amongst certain sections of the ruling classes or amongst the people. The official whitewashing of history has impacted that to some extent. On the other hand, Bangladeshi historians have documented the crimes of the Pakistan army and have judged it on the basis of morality.
The question is that if the study of history fails to create a sense of guilt for one’s and one’s nations past sins, such incidents would be repeated again and again and people of oppressive nations would continue to support such acts. It is true that governments try to hide facts from public in order to hide their crimes and this subterfuge does a lot to distort history. But when the facts come to light, as they invariably do sooner or later, history should be rewritten and those who committed crimes must be condemned.
However, it is also an unfortunate fact that, in such a situation, there are only a few historians who strive to bring the hidden facts to light and correct the version of history. Though there are few voices against the falsification and distortion of history, their impact is deep and lasting. There is a need to rewrite a history does not spare conquerors, national heroes, and great individuals of their crimes against humanity. They should be pulled down from their high pedestals and be treated as ordinary criminals.

The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.