The whole basis of history is facts. People, happenings, dates. Dates are often a starting point. For example, the story of Allama Iqbal, and the lead-up to the Allahabad Address,l started with his birth, One could go back even further, to the marriage of his parents, their respective births, or forward, to his entry into Murray College, or Government College Lahore, or Heidelberg University, but the point of entry would always be a date.
And everyone knows he was born on 9 November 1877, and every year November 9 is duly celebrated as Iqbal Day. But one of the things about history is that nothing is really certain. One of the related controversies relates to the Quaid-e-Azam’s speech to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Was it that of a secular leader? When he said that “The Quran shall be our Constitution,” was he indulging just in rhetoric, or was he giving a guideline? Historians give their opinion on his, and other such, questions after taking into consideration other historical facts and then making an analysis. The process is not as dispassionate as it might sound, because the historian may take sides and be influenced by an ideology. Or maybe he reached his ideological position because of his study? But it’s useful to remember that, while historical analysis is often fiercely ideological, historical facts are not.
The Allama’s birthday, for example. It seems the centenary committee had to decide the exact date, having to consider some alternative dates. They stuck with November 9. But take Aurangzeb’s death. One would think there would be no controversy about the date of the death of the Padishah of India, of the Shadow of the Almighty on Earth. But the reason the problem arose is because he died while campaigning in the Deccan, in his Army’s camp. That sounds more dramatic than it was, because he was 88 and died of natural causes. Or did he die because he read what is now known as the Zafarnama, a letter by Guru Gobind Singh? Historians feel free to fight about it. The controversy is caused when historians tried to express the date of his death given in the lunar calendar in the Christian calendar. You see, the lunar date of his death was the date there, which was not the same as the date in Delhi because of the moon sighting. (Even now, Eid moonsighting can be a hassle, with the sighting made in one place, and not another.) So do you express the lunar date of Delhi or that of Bhingar in Maharashtra in the solar calendar? The solar calendar is constant, but the lunar isn’t. (well, it is, but in those days, you didn’t have the means of communication you do now).
Then there is the controversy over the date on which Hitler made his trip to Paris after Germany had received the French surrender in World War II in 1940. No wonder you have Holocaust deniers
One death whose date is known is that of Mariam Cissë, a blogger from the Timbuktu region, who was shot very publicly by Islamic militants in the Timbuktu region because they said she was providing information on them to the Malian Army. No one knew previously about these spying activities, just that she had posted photos of herself in Army uniform, and expressed support for it.
If you’re in Timbuktu you’re hardly at the centre of civilization. Now try and imagine being in an area where Timbuktu is the main city. Can you really be blamed for putting on a uniform you’re not entitled to and posting pictures on TikTok?
Still, I wouldn’t argue with the militants. I don’t argue with anyone who has a gun and is willing to use it. I wouldn’t suggest you do, either, dear reader. I don’t mind historians determining my death of death, but I do mind militants. They don’t so much determine what it is as decide when it is?
