The circus has begun again. It is barely two weeks since the Congress-led government has taken over the reins and we already have our eminent HRD Minister, Arjun Singh trumpeting his announcement of (re)rewriting history text books which have allegedly become saffronized. Of course, the fact that our very secular Marxist gang lend their gleeful support makes matters worse better for the Art of History (Re)Writing.

Allow me a small digression.

History writing is supposed to be objective; it is supposed to be an unbiased reporting of facts and events as they happened, and it is not the historian’s job to analyse. The analysis is to be left to the reviewers and other experts who read these books authored by historians. However, we see that history–especially in the 20th century–has now become a powerful tool to control political and/or social discourse. It is here that history has turned into an art. More appropriately, the art of twisting writing/reporting historical facts to suit ideology. Hitler’s interpretation of Germans as pure-blooded Aryans is a good trend setter for this art. The merit therefore, of this art lies in the ability of the artist to paint his/her country’s history using ideological lenses.

Following this approach, history writing then becomes a vehicle for propaganda–good or evil–both are dangerous. It has typically been the fashion to write the history of a country using narratives that help imbibe in the students/readers a sense of pride about their country. If the true history of the US is written, it will be a matter of shame, not pride, for the descendants of the “original” Americans (meaning, colonizers/European settlers/immigrants). The “original” Americans are the “natives,” the “Red Indians,” who were massacred by the thousands by these immigrants who have now appropriated their land. I’m not being sentimental/emotional here; it is a well-known historical fact that modern America was built on the graves of these natives who led simple lives, lived in harmony with nature and wanted no war. Did the great colonizers, in their hour of power and glory heed the “natives’” plea?

With this background, I’d like to examine history writing in the Indian context.

The Days of Yonder

India, thousands of years ago, was blessed with a natural fortress: the Himalayas, and the seas, which helped her remain aloof from invaders and evolve her own culture, a direct product of her philosophy of the Upanishads. Among other aspects, this philosophy gave birth to a well-entrenched thought that mortal life was but a drop that dissolves in the ocean of Eternity. This caused the focus to shift from lives of individuals to the Ultimate Truth. In summary, this means: the life of an individual is not worth recording, but what and how he/she served society in terms of seeking and spreading the Absolute Truth.

Here I feel, lies the genesis of Indians’ notorious failure in recording history.

Classical Indian history (if I may say so) is but a loosely kept record of the achievements of celebrated sages, kings, poets and other artists. Often, the history of even eminent men are woven with tales of divinity/superhumanness. This in turn opens the door for interpretations of all sorts. We really don’t know much about Kalidasa, for example, except for the widely-known story that he was a dullard who became a poet par excellence after meditating on Goddess Kali. Now, the fact that he had a mortal vision of the Goddess is hard to believe in this age. However, this aspect is a powerful weapon for skeptics and people motivated otherwise to go so far as to deny that Kalidasa existed.

The Fallout

Because we didn’t pay attention to recording our nation’s history, the fallout has been enormous in terms of damage done to the Indian psyche, particularly after the advent of the British. The British used their own lenses to construct Indian history to achieve among others, these objectives:

1. Maintain their hold over India
2. Make Indians feel ashamed of their culture/heritage
3. As a result of #2, become “English in manners and thought but Indian in skin colour.”

Eurocentric views used in contemporary Indian (and other nations’) history is its contemporary manifestation. What this does–and continues to do–is, it robs the “natives” their sense of self-worth/identity.

Now, when the British began imposing their interpretation of Indian history on Indians, we had but little say in the matter for protest was silenced by violent methods. However, it is astonishing that we continued the same interpretation post-independence. In retrospect, it is not so astonishing because:

• We had already created a generation that felt proud to be associated with the culture of the West, which had accepted their interpretation of our life/society uncritically/slavishly. In other words, we had a breed of house-niggers–sons and daughters of Indian magistrates/clerks/bureaucrats that had earlier served under the British.
• We had extended state patronage to denigrate our hoary culture–to the Marxists. The architect of this patronage was Pandit Nehru who thought that India was a “new country, waiting to be born.” This was the beginning of the real damage from which it may take decades to recover, if at all.

Continued in Part 2

Tags: Commentary, History