The historian does not write history unless he connects and explains his carefully reconstructed facts out of the reliable historical data. Again, he cannot explain, unless he accepts some general beliefs as an explanatory base. This base is rooted in the world view of the historian. The world view is never a self-evident truth or a logical deduction or a verifiable hypothesis. Generally speaking, the world view of the historian is seldom chosen, but is culturally conditioned, to begin with.  The critical and mature historian may, however, transcend his tradition. Often, those who outgrow or reject their traditional world view come into the grip of some other tradition, instead of winning and preserving their own independent spiritual autonomy. Such persons escape from one conceptual straight-jacket, only to enter into another, instead of opting for an 'open' conceptualization of the human situation and the mystery of the universe.

It does not follow from the above analysis of historical explanation that history is condemned to be subjective and incorrigibly unreliable. There is a clear cut sense, in which history may be subjectively or objectivity written, even after conceding that it can never be objective in the scientific sense of the term. What is important is not the insistence upon subjectivity or objectivity of history, but to decide whether there are some criteria to distinguish good history from bad. If so, reliable history may be said to be objective, while unreliable history subjective without equating historical objectivity with the scientific. The reason why some find themselves perplexed by this issue, is that they think under the spell or fascination of a single paradigm or model of objectivity, i.e., the scientific. They, thus, fail to see that the term 'objective' may well have other meanings or uses in other contexts.

Historical Objectivity

What are the features or distinguishing criteria of historical objectivity? The main features are: absence of bias or antipathy; a sympathetic but critical approach; awareness and utilization of all available records; critical assessment of the motives and personality orientation of the testifier or historian, on the basis of known factual truths or valid insights into human behaviour; and help from archeological evidence. Good history must also reflect a judicious selection from the enormous range of factual material, in order to focus the attention of the reader upon specific issues. Selection also becomes necessary for reducing the cost of publication and also making the material reader friendly, especially for young readers.

No harm accrues from such selection, provided the motive is not to suppress truth at higher levels of research or fuller levels of comprehension, but merely to simplify it out of concern, not for any narrow group, but for human welfare as such. Thirdly, good history must enter into the spirit of the age or society, just as a good dramatist enters into the spirit of his characters, without passing a value judgments. Finally, the work of the good historian must serve as a mirror to one's contemporary situation, in so far as there are genuine significant similarities between the past and the present.

In spite of all efforts to be objective, in the above sense, historians will continue to differ in their evaluation of historical personalities, their reconstructions of historical facts and their explanations. Like philosophical controversies, historical disagreements can never be settled once and for all. However, the issues of historical debate may become moribund or even dead, due to changed circumstances. Moreover, agreement about future objectives, and the will to achieve them help in creating the mood and inclination to agree to differ about the past without any bitterness. Again, numerous observers, with very varying backgrounds, often do come to agreed conclusions about the past, provided they are gifted with historical empathy. The reason is that critical reflection upon basic concepts and values and awareness of their growth in history lead to a more comprehensive and balanced understanding of how their different versions are shaped by situational factors. This promotes a deeper insight into their essence or basic function in human life, as well as the inner ‘feel’ of the movement and continuity of history.