B.H. LIDDEL Hart in his book Why Don’t We Learn from History? narrates an event that occurred in 1918.

He writes about a French general who came to a certain army corps headquarter and “there majestically dictated orders giving the line on which the troops would stand that night and start their counterattack [sic] in the morning”. After reading these instructions with some perplexity the corps commander exclaimed: “But the line is behind the German front and you lost it yesterday.” Thereupon the great commander remarked with a knowing smile: “C’est pour l’histoire!” (This is for history!) When Churchill’s book World Crisis was published after the First World War, Balfour, then foreign minister of Britain, observed in his review of the book that Churchill had written a good book for himself but had chosen the wrong title.
These remarks lead us to ask the question: why do people write memoirs? Perhaps to project their own personality and earn a venerable place in history for themselves. Maybe they want to help readers discover such aspects of history which were not generally known publicly. By recording them these writers attempt to complete what they see as unfinished history. Or they do not want to tell the truth but wish to distort or hide facts in order to straighten their own dishonourable records.
If one reads these memoirs, it becomes evident that some writers intentionally try to hide facts, especially if they were participants in some act of conspiracy, fraud, or corruption. By writing their memoirs, they absolve themselves of all crimes and attempt to prove their innocence.
When individuals start to write memoirs they keep in mind how people judge an event and what opinion they have formed about it. If the author had played an active role in the event, he tries to project himself as honest and a man of integrity by presenting the account in a way that justifies his actions. In rare cases he apologises for his mistakes or mis deeds. After writing their memoirs, some believe that they have not only corrected the past but have improved it to the satisfaction of the people. Therefore, their main motive behind memoir-writing is to reconstruct the past from a specific perspective in order to make other people believe that truth lies only in their version of history.
Different types of people write memoirs. They are often poets, writers, artists, musicians, politicians, bureaucrats, generals and rulers. Sometimes common people also narrate the experiences of their lives in the form of memoirs. The difference is that when politicians, generals and rulers write their memoirs, their motive is to highlight their achievements and eulogise their role in history. They look at the historical process from their personal point of view. That is why there is too much subjectivity in their writing which is interspersed with attempts at personal glorification.
What their narration lacks is an analysis of the impact of social, cultural and political forces on the making and shaping of their personalities. Small wonder that doubts are expressed about the veracity of their narration. Distortions and falsification usually mar their presentation of historical events. They always put themselves at the centre of all happenings and assume that everything revolves around them.
It is a generally accepted fact — confirmed by historians and psychologists — that the memory of an individual deteriorates with age. Sometimes one remembers remote details but forgets the most important happenings in one’s life. When he talks or writes about his past, he bases his narration on his memory. As such it becomes difficult for readers to verify events which the author describes without any evidence or source. The irony is that if his description is not challenged, it is often adopted as a part of history.
This raises a question: can we construct the past from memoirs and autobiographies? One school of historians argues that the history of an individual reflects his time, his society, the milieu that he has lived in and the rituals and customs that he adopts and practices. Therefore memoirs should be regarded as an important source of history. Moreover, the past is constructed to fulfil the requirements of the present. Therefore it changes with time. Under these circumstances, memoirs help historians construct a selected past which suits their own times.
Another group of historians rejects memoirs as a source of history because of their subjectivity. Their point of view is that the evidence in memoirs should be accepted only if it is corroborated by other sources.

Dawn Newspaper 23rd July 2008