Aligarh: On August 12, 2026, historian Irfan Habib turned 95. As a distinguished figure in Indian historiography, Habib has written about and debated numerous significant questions concerning history, society, and politics throughout his extensive academic career. His views continue to hold significant relevance today, especially in light of the ongoing efforts to reinterpret and rewrite history in India.Here, we present a combined account of two meetings and conversations held with him – the first in August 2025 and the subsequent one in July 2026 – at his residence in Aligarh. Each meeting offered a glimpse into the nostalgic, traditional ambiance of his home. Nestled among lush greenery, the house stands like a memory of a bygone era amidst Aligarh’s swiftly changing urban landscape.Standing amidst the towering modern structures, this historic house retains the essence of a different era within its windows, doors, switchboards, and ceiling fans. While the world surrounding Habib’s home has transformed – with high-rise buildings replacing older houses – the historian’s abode appears content to remain anchored in its own time.Also read: Noted Marxist Historian Sumit Sarkar Passes AwaySpeaking to The Wire Hindi, Habib acknowledged Karl Marx as his mentor and expressed no objection to being described as a ‘Marxist historian.’ During the conversation, he discussed various topics such as his approach to history, the notions of ‘Aryavarta’ and ‘Akhand Bharat’ (Undivided India), the concept of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, efforts to alter history, the influence of fascism on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Indian tradition of knowledge, and the status of Shudras within Hindu society.A recurring theme in the conversation with Habib is the idea that history ought to be interpreted based on evidence and actual events, rather than individual biases or political exigencies. “History must be based solely on evidence,” he asserts.Edited excerpts from the conversations with Habib are as follows:How do you view attempts to alter history?History is about describing events that actually occurred. It does not mean asserting that an event occurred merely because we desire it to have happened. History is not concerned with good wishes; history is concerned with actual facts. This distinction is precisely what is being overlooked.The very idea of altering history implies a desire to misrepresent what is true. Why would one want to change history? Let history remain as it is. Making a new discovery is a good thing – for instance, if it were discovered that Marco Polo was born in India, that would be a significant historical discovery. But if that is not the case, then it simply isn’t so. History must be based solely on evidence.What is your opinion on the concepts of ‘Akhand Bharat’ and ‘Hindu Rashtra’?The concept of a nation is a distinct matter. Determining when the concept of India became deeply rooted enough to form a ‘nation’ is itself a subject of historical inquiry. To claim that the Mauryan Empire held the same concept of a nation that exists today would be incorrect.If someone cites ‘Aryavarta’ in this context, remember that it does not encompass the Deccan region, but the Mauryan Empire did. Geographical concepts keep evolving with time. They should be studied, but they should not impact contemporary politics.India is now a unified nation. It should remain so. We became one nation because of British rule or because of the Mughals… but now we are a single nation.As far as Hindu Rashtra is concerned, a religious nation cannot exist. Hindu Rashtra is a contradictory term in itself. How can a religious community be a nation? If someone says Muslim nation, that can also not happen.India is a country in which different communities coexist with Hindus constituting the majority among them. It’s a fact.Is it right to call the Sangh a fascist organisation?They are not fascists, but they are influenced by fascism. It becomes clear from their early documents that Hitler had an influence on them. Although it was founded before the rise of Hitler, he had a lot of influence by 1938. Later, due to the world war, they were forced to go low-key. Mentioning Hitler’s name was a taboo back then. Such things could not be discussed at that time.But look at the Sangh’s writings of the 1930s where Hitler has been extolled.What do you have to say about the Indian Knowledge System as being discussed in the New Education Policy (NEP)?This is wrong. Knowledge is neither Indian nor English, it is simply knowledge. Knowledge does not change with race nor does it change with caste. This very point of view is wrong.The current government is trying to establish that Hindus have been wronged throughout history, and that Hindus are victims. What is your opinion?Hindus have always been victims. Shudras are Hindus only, and they have been victims.This article has been republished from The Wire Hindi and translated by Naushin Rehman.