"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"

-Napolean Bonaparte.

History is an area of knowledge that explores various aspects of the significant events, which may be political, social, cultural, religious or economic, that have taken place in the past in a particular region/ country or the world or that has affected in some way a society or societies.

This quote, in one line, claims that the nature of History is different from the common perception of history - it is not something that is established beyond reasonable doubt, but it is a selection of facts or claims that lead to an interpretation of the past that is decided by consensus .

The use of the word fable for history immediately makes it seem as if it is different from reality and truth. In my opinion, this quote accurately describes the nature of history as is perceived from various sources - textbooks (this is the only source of historical knowledge for a majority of people), books and accounts by historians. Historical sources catering to one civilization or nation or region are influenced not only by the emotions of the people towards prominent figures of history, but also the propaganda of politicians who wish to project their leaders and ideology in a positive manner. For example, most textbooks in the state of Maharashtra will project Shivaji in a positive light, probably exaggerating his good qualities/actions and ignoring his weaknesses, due to emotions of the masses as well as political pressure.

A recent incident which justifies the claim that history is like a fable decided by consensus is the expulsion of Jaswant Singh by the BJP for writing a book praising Jinnah. This is because most people agree to the version that paints Indian history in black and white - putting all the blame of India's partition on Jinnah, and placing leaders like Nehru and Patel on a moral high ground. Even if Jinnah was actually responsible for partition, there is nothing wrong in exploring the counterarguments to that claim, and then proving it wrong rather than simply suppressing views that disagree with what "the fable" says.

Thus, history is an area where it is extremely difficult to ascertain what actually happened. People in power and victors of wars can decide who would be called the villains, and who would be the heroes. Thus, we cannot say for sure whether Hitler was as bad as is made to be perceived and communism was as cruel as is now perceived, these views could largely be because the victors agreed to paint them in such a manner.

Knowledge at work(1) – Alleged abuse of prisoners

This article predominantly deals with allegations that terror suspects were abused by the Central Intelligence Agency. These allegations are based on a long-concealed inspector general’s report which is due to be made public. They claim that Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashri, accused of plotting the 2000 attack which killed 17 US sailors, was interrogated using a gun and electric drill on separate occasions to threaten him in order to obtain information. Mock executions were also alleged to have been carried out to frighten the prisoners into disclosing information.

While this abuse was alleged to have taken place between 2000 and 2006, it is only now that they are being perceived by the public, which is the result of pressure from the Obama administration and a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The article gives greater importance to the perception that the use of such means to extract information from terror suspects is unethical, while ignoring the reasons to support the view that such means are ethical for terror suspects. This forces the knower to question this stand, and reason out whether it can be considered ethical and/or should be used, and in what circumstances.

The descriptions of mock executions and gunshots to scare prisoners ought to stimulate negative emotions in the knower, such as contempt for the people who are doing this (interrogators) and may be even fear if they belong to a religion or community in whose name terrorist acts are carried out. It will also cause fear in the minds of people living in a country or region occupied by American or other foreign troops, such as Iraq. People could be reminded of oppressive regimes that historically existed in their countries, for example Germans would remember atrocities of Hitler and Indians oppression under the British.

Although the ACLU side perceives such acts as downright unethical, it is important to take note of the harm done by terrorist attacks which are unarguably of a greater magnitude. Apart from killing thousands of innocent civilians, causing emotional turmoil to hundreds of thousands and destroying property and other materialistic things worth billions of dollars, it also leads to the negative perception of religions in whose name it is carried out. The theory of Utilitarianism, which aims at the greatest happiness of the greatest number, may actually be able to justify the abuse of members of Al Qaeda who are suspected terrorists. However, this is assuming that such methods actually succeed in preventing future terror attacks, and not backfire by causing more hatred and more terror attacks.

Kant’s approach to ethics, however, would never allow this breaking of general rules especially for Al Qaeda suspects. It would reason out like this – if agencies all over the world began torturing/ abusing prisoners to extract information or force them to confess, there would be no legal system remaining, and innocent people would often be held for crimes which they have not committed, and agencies would not be bothered to find the actual culprit, as the people perceive the innocent person to be the terrorist. Thus, the author has reason to hold a bias against such abuses of prisoners by the CIA.