A week ago I was traveling and after boarding the Delhi metro, which is always a frustrating experience least to be said, I bumped into this guy who started saying things to me (not talking as I did not want to be the part of his conversation but was rather forced into one). And considering I had to time to kill, I did not disappoint him. He talked at length about India, its' 'problems' of unemployment, corruption, trains being late, the whole nine yards and then he said something about the 'national movement' during the British Raj, which was just a starting point of a rhetorical opinion on the so called 'Modern Indian history', which kinda struck me. He knew, at least he believed he knew, what he was talking about. He knew the dates, the big ones that are necessary to cram for the normal 10th standard test i.e. the mutiny (or the revolt?) formation of the congress, non-cooperation movement, you know the ones. But what was fascinating was the construction or the idea that he had in his mind regarding the overall story connecting these dotes, if I may, in the overall grand narrative that is 'Modern Indian' history. The idea or the construct in his mind was a typical 'nationalist' notion of Indian history which we are 'taught' (or rather spoon fed in our elementary schooling) in which the big bad British enslaved us poor Indians which exploited us, then a response came in the form of Congress which engaged in constant struggle along with some revolutionary, brave, self-sacrificing 'heroes' that gave their lives for this nation and ultimately freedom came but with partition (because of 'Gandhi', as least that's the stranger in the metro told me, I have no idea why he thought or believed that. I tried to tell him something about Jinnah or British's (in)famous 'divide and policy' but his convictions could not be moved). This idea of 'history' of India was firmly rooted in his brain and anything against this notion was pure blasphemy!
Now, this notion or idea of Indian history is what we can call is 'popular history'. In normal understanding, 'popular history' is the prevailing notion or idea of a shared common past which is disseminated for wide readership and understanding through various means (in most cases schools, which not only propagate notions of 'popular history' but also the grander scheme of 'popular culture') , is highly selective in nature as it has a tendency to gloss over striking details and crucially does not have a scholarly basis. And the reason why its aimed at wide readership is to generate overall consensus among the people over it's nation's history which is further reinforced in the society by social interactions, films (which propagate this idea), literature, arts et al. Hence, termed popular history i.e. it is the one which most people of a country are popularised with. Another key aspect of 'popular history' is that people tend to make extreme generalisations, as they have little knowledge about the details regarding history. And these 'generalisations' play a huge role in subverting actual detailed history.
Now, we have to ask ourselves some very important questions pertaining to this 'popular' history of India. First, who are the players who have constructed this history. Next we have to ask, why did they engage in this exercise? Another important aspect which needs to be analysed is the implication of such notion of history which like a specter haunts or manipulates our lives without us even knowing. This entry in this blog will just try to do that. It's an exercise various scholars have already engaged with and have indeed come up with detailed analysis which is worth reading. This entry is a theoretical engagement with the subject, an attempt to be precise and any inputs will be much appreciated.
In order to deconstruct this notion and analyse the process of writing such 'histories' we have to remind ourselves with some basic notions about history. First of all, history is subjective. There is of course an objective base of sorts in history i.e. the sources, the archaeological sites, findings, literature texts et al are all there. But the interpretations differ within historians across time (and maybe even space). For e.g. a marxian historian will present a certain history from a different perspective than a classical historian. Second, I feel history is never the whole truth. The only thing 'true' about history is what you have seen in your life through your own eyes and sometimes that too can be deceptive and have multiple meanings or have multiple perspective seen from different vantage points. So how do we know how much percentage of truth is there in a certain story. In my understanding the percentages/degrees of truth or fact lies in the commonalities of the various viewpoints. From there we can make more than an assertion that a particular event did actually happen as various witnesses have seen or heard or written about it, even if some of the accounts may be extremely exaggerated. Another point we should keep in mind with regards to history is that the interpretations of history changes across generations. For e.g. suppose a 18th century historian when talking about the causes of decline or fall of any great empire will most probably give military reasons but if we jump into 19th century and with the advent of marxism, the historian has new tools to analyse past events so now the historian, from a marxist lens, might give economic reasons by saying that there came a change in the overall mode of production hence the overall structure also changed. So as new tools of investigation and analysis are formulated (and reformulated) history will keep on changing, the events will remain the same but interpretations will change.
Now, let me turn to the key questions regarding 'popular' history. The first one I'll try to tackle is 'who or which agency is 'writing' or 'propagating' this particular history. Now this I must admit is tricky. There are multiple agencies at work I believe. Its' the power structures at various levels in the society that interplay with each other to cultivate (if I can call it that) such 'popular history'. These power structures are present everywhere from institutions of the state and at the level of civil society as well. Such institutions establish the legitimacy of such history. The instruments of legitimacy and hegemony include religious institutions, educational system, the media or put it in the words of Gramsci "the ethical content of the state" (Antonio Garmsci, Sixth Notebook). This legitimised history forms the basis of basic understanding of a 'common, shared and national history'.
Moving on to the question of 'Why'. Why a certain history is propagated, legitimised and made popular, while other 'histories' (which are actual researched histories) are glossed over. One reason I believe is to manufacture support among the public for the overall structure of the society. By being selective in their history, the agencies drive home an agenda which is able to maintain the sanctity of the whole society. If people believe in (without asking) the sanctity of a particular history or culture they would gladly accept it and make it their own. And when they adopt and make it their own, they tend to get defensive or rather arrogant about it. They'd not only stop questioning the basis of such history but rather may end up giving up their lives for this 'history'. It is fascinating to know that many people do end up dying for false causes perpetuated by such 'false' histories. I'm not saying 'my history' is right and 'their history is wrong', I'm just asking people to use their faculty to engage critically with each history or in fact everything that they see in this world.
Implications of this are huge if one thinks about it. Indoctrination of such notions of history leads to uncritical thinking among the people. The less people think critically the more they start to generalise about things, most importantly history and events. Such beliefs may even lead to uncritical fundamentalism and even 'brainwashing' of the people. The fact that certain groups in the society (not naming any names here) formed on the basis of such history and further spread their propaganda by spreading hatred among the communities is pretty much there to see in the Indian society. Even more troubling is when gullible people fall into their imagined notions of this history, which often ends up influencing their lives subliminally.
What can one do in the times of multiple histories? Well first of all as Marx has said, 'Doubt everything', especially in the age of 'instant information'. Second, critically engage with information that you may have encountered, online or offline. Third, read a lot! And read across perspectives and not stick to one perspective, it is always better for one to know what the major arguments or evidences are from major perspectives, then alone can one have a sound understanding of the past, the present and help shape a better future.
Now, this notion or idea of Indian history is what we can call is 'popular history'. In normal understanding, 'popular history' is the prevailing notion or idea of a shared common past which is disseminated for wide readership and understanding through various means (in most cases schools, which not only propagate notions of 'popular history' but also the grander scheme of 'popular culture') , is highly selective in nature as it has a tendency to gloss over striking details and crucially does not have a scholarly basis. And the reason why its aimed at wide readership is to generate overall consensus among the people over it's nation's history which is further reinforced in the society by social interactions, films (which propagate this idea), literature, arts et al. Hence, termed popular history i.e. it is the one which most people of a country are popularised with. Another key aspect of 'popular history' is that people tend to make extreme generalisations, as they have little knowledge about the details regarding history. And these 'generalisations' play a huge role in subverting actual detailed history.
Now, we have to ask ourselves some very important questions pertaining to this 'popular' history of India. First, who are the players who have constructed this history. Next we have to ask, why did they engage in this exercise? Another important aspect which needs to be analysed is the implication of such notion of history which like a specter haunts or manipulates our lives without us even knowing. This entry in this blog will just try to do that. It's an exercise various scholars have already engaged with and have indeed come up with detailed analysis which is worth reading. This entry is a theoretical engagement with the subject, an attempt to be precise and any inputs will be much appreciated.
In order to deconstruct this notion and analyse the process of writing such 'histories' we have to remind ourselves with some basic notions about history. First of all, history is subjective. There is of course an objective base of sorts in history i.e. the sources, the archaeological sites, findings, literature texts et al are all there. But the interpretations differ within historians across time (and maybe even space). For e.g. a marxian historian will present a certain history from a different perspective than a classical historian. Second, I feel history is never the whole truth. The only thing 'true' about history is what you have seen in your life through your own eyes and sometimes that too can be deceptive and have multiple meanings or have multiple perspective seen from different vantage points. So how do we know how much percentage of truth is there in a certain story. In my understanding the percentages/degrees of truth or fact lies in the commonalities of the various viewpoints. From there we can make more than an assertion that a particular event did actually happen as various witnesses have seen or heard or written about it, even if some of the accounts may be extremely exaggerated. Another point we should keep in mind with regards to history is that the interpretations of history changes across generations. For e.g. suppose a 18th century historian when talking about the causes of decline or fall of any great empire will most probably give military reasons but if we jump into 19th century and with the advent of marxism, the historian has new tools to analyse past events so now the historian, from a marxist lens, might give economic reasons by saying that there came a change in the overall mode of production hence the overall structure also changed. So as new tools of investigation and analysis are formulated (and reformulated) history will keep on changing, the events will remain the same but interpretations will change.
Now, let me turn to the key questions regarding 'popular' history. The first one I'll try to tackle is 'who or which agency is 'writing' or 'propagating' this particular history. Now this I must admit is tricky. There are multiple agencies at work I believe. Its' the power structures at various levels in the society that interplay with each other to cultivate (if I can call it that) such 'popular history'. These power structures are present everywhere from institutions of the state and at the level of civil society as well. Such institutions establish the legitimacy of such history. The instruments of legitimacy and hegemony include religious institutions, educational system, the media or put it in the words of Gramsci "the ethical content of the state" (Antonio Garmsci, Sixth Notebook). This legitimised history forms the basis of basic understanding of a 'common, shared and national history'.
Moving on to the question of 'Why'. Why a certain history is propagated, legitimised and made popular, while other 'histories' (which are actual researched histories) are glossed over. One reason I believe is to manufacture support among the public for the overall structure of the society. By being selective in their history, the agencies drive home an agenda which is able to maintain the sanctity of the whole society. If people believe in (without asking) the sanctity of a particular history or culture they would gladly accept it and make it their own. And when they adopt and make it their own, they tend to get defensive or rather arrogant about it. They'd not only stop questioning the basis of such history but rather may end up giving up their lives for this 'history'. It is fascinating to know that many people do end up dying for false causes perpetuated by such 'false' histories. I'm not saying 'my history' is right and 'their history is wrong', I'm just asking people to use their faculty to engage critically with each history or in fact everything that they see in this world.
Implications of this are huge if one thinks about it. Indoctrination of such notions of history leads to uncritical thinking among the people. The less people think critically the more they start to generalise about things, most importantly history and events. Such beliefs may even lead to uncritical fundamentalism and even 'brainwashing' of the people. The fact that certain groups in the society (not naming any names here) formed on the basis of such history and further spread their propaganda by spreading hatred among the communities is pretty much there to see in the Indian society. Even more troubling is when gullible people fall into their imagined notions of this history, which often ends up influencing their lives subliminally.
What can one do in the times of multiple histories? Well first of all as Marx has said, 'Doubt everything', especially in the age of 'instant information'. Second, critically engage with information that you may have encountered, online or offline. Third, read a lot! And read across perspectives and not stick to one perspective, it is always better for one to know what the major arguments or evidences are from major perspectives, then alone can one have a sound understanding of the past, the present and help shape a better future.
7 comments:
Very good post
From the perspective of a person who can said to be somewhat ignorant about the "past", this article makes me think about the popular notions, not just the history, but so many other things that we 'accept without questioning'; the things we have forgotten to recall but they nevertheless play an important role in the development of our present; and the extent to which we, as a society, have become accustomed to relying on half-truths.
"Facts can obscure the truth" - and for most of us the focus has only been the spoon-fed facts, the "popular beliefs", since the search for truth requires taking a plunge into the deep ocean of knowledge, which to us seems too much of an effort.
Now, one cannot be aware of everything yet we can at least try to be more aware of the "truths" that concern us. Learn, unlearn and relearn. This is the lesson that I take away from your post, An-and! :)
Keep spilling your thoughts!
There has to be something common in masses...thus popular history.yes everything is multidimensional says science and I am a firm believer that opinion is when we keep few constants and then say ok this is what I think...also one thing I have understood that all have a mindset .we tend to see any issue in our set perspective..for example if I m an atheist i will see every happening and will try to derive conclusion that ok it is God wish but if I am someone who sees thing rationally I will pull matter rationally...nice post..it evokes mind n makes me think :)
There has to be something common in masses...thus popular history.yes everything is multidimensional says science and I am a firm believer that opinion is when we keep few constants and then say ok this is what I think...also one thing I have understood that all have a mindset .we tend to see any issue in our set perspective..for example if I m an atheist i will see every happening and will try to derive conclusion that ok it is God wish but if I am someone who sees thing rationally I will pull matter rationally...nice post..it evokes mind n makes me think :)
No matter what one will always have a perspective derived from the surroundings that one is influenced by. Your blog will make the reader think about the limits of one's surroundings. What is however is troubling is that most of the people do not have access and vision to see beyond a certain point. They will accept what makes sense to them. Histories are constructed and they are constructed with a purpose. You asked a very appropriate question - whose history is it anyway?
I face this with people all the time. Not only do people refuse to hear any other opinion, they will start refuting other arguements with being affiliated to a particular political party. It's sad really, what history has been reduced to.
Needs to b more precise ... Nice one again Anand! 👍
Post a Comment