In a recent opinion piece, Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy argued that neither celebrating nor condemning imperialist or militarist invasions by a foreign political group is a mature thing to do, but rather to accept it as ‘clinical’ facts. The argument, while understandable from the standpoint of a value-free scientific worldview, does not consider the socio-anthropological and political weight of the history of colonization and the ripples that it creates in the process of re-shaping the trajectories of societies.

In the case of Pakistan and generally South Asia, it is equally important to tend to lean towards a critical scepticism regarding the power relations that defined and re-defined its history books. Agreeing with Dr Hoodbhoy, I would not be quick to celebrate the Mughal Empire or condemn the British Empire for the sake of establishing identity and embracing both the good and bad it resulted in our present society as this would be mere arbitrary judgement, however well based on justified narratives. On the other hand, I would also argue to stay cautious in reading a history free of value judgement and a critical narrative as this is not the sense of writing history.

The purpose of writing history might be setting narratives of dominance and triumph at the cost of ‘elimination’ of the foreign and the ‘barbaric’ accounts. However, the purpose of historiography can also be to understand the entanglements in human societies that connect us on a much deeper and more profound level. These entanglements interest the field of global history. Global history is not merely ‘world’ history constructed by putting together local histories, but a web of human activities over time generating a complex narrative of inter-dependence as well as independence.

The history of colonisation is not value-free; least of all mere ‘facts.’ It is deeply entangled with nationalism, inequalities, racism and exploitation. In the midst of the anti-racism and Black Lives Matter movements — emerging from the local and transgressing to the global — amid the Covid-19 pandemic, I am reminded everyday through personal lived experiences of being an ‘alien’ in a country I did not grow up with the entanglements of ‘human activities’ we call ‘imperialist.’

On the other hand, how may we approach the contradictions that ever so fill this web of human activities? One important viewpoint is Shiv Visvanathan’s essay on the ‘celebration of difference’ on studying the history of science in post-colonial India. Visvanathan approaches the history of science and empire in a way similar to Dr Hoodbhoy in exposing contradictions and power relations, however the former would embrace the view that history writing is anything but value-free.

The embracing of contradictions in history demands also an acceptance of their occurrence, and the willingness to learn to understand them. The Marxist intonation in this argument is not my intention. For example, in a recent interview the renowned philosopher Bruno Latour responds to a question concerning the ways in which Covid-19 is changing our world: “it is a catastrophe that has come not from the outside…but from within.” This relates similarly with the way imperialist invasions have changed societies like Pakistan. The celebration of the invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim, generated from within, has changed the Pakistani society.

Value-free historiography, such as global history as well as transnational history, brings attention to a different set of issues that would otherwise be a hurdle in challenging misinterpretations of the past. However, the shift to ‘global history’ convinces that entanglements of human actions and practices are a lens of understanding global structures—such as the modern state and imperialist regimes—and that the necessity for a value-free history is no more.

The history of colonialism is just as connected with the history of ‘technology transfer’ as it is with structures of oppression. Just as without colonialism there would be no democracy in South Asia or no modern biomedicine in hospitals across Pakistan, there would also be no Eurocentric modernity at the cost of the plurality of South Asian socio-political and technological sensibility. Similarly, the suppression of dissent and the structures enforcing it have been reproduced and enhanced due to colonialism.

The struggles of minorities in Pakistan need local attention not only because they are seeking a ‘voice’ of their own. It is also because their struggle continues since ‘independence’ from colonialism. This struggle cannot be separated from the history of colonialism. Borrowing from the renowned critic Spivak, the subaltern of Pakistan can not only speak, they are as loud as the guns blazing in the 1857 Battle of Independence. But they are muffled by the structures of oppression, still existing today, left behind from our colonial past.

The dilemma of celebrating or condemning the narrative of colonial history, either of the colonised or the coloniser, is a myth reproduced in the name of nationalist historiography. Insofar as Dr Hoodbhoy’s position makes this myth problematic, I cannot agree more. However, this does not constitute a case for value-free history. It is necessary to take this opportunity to make a case instead for dismantling nationalist - dominating as well as apologetic - narratives based on imperialist historiography. It is an opportunity to discover entanglements that generate such narratives and history writing. The entanglements of colonial history of South Asia and an imperialist archetype of South Asian medieval history as well the greater project of global imperialist expansion need to be discerned and challenged. This understanding demands that we abandon the notion that history is mere ‘facts’.