The influence of
western discourses of rationalist-modernist idea in South Asian history created
a kind of history where the representation of some groups acquired all the
space. Most of the peripheral groups of South Asian society did not get
representation. The idea of colonial, nationalist and postcolonial schools of
interpretations of Indian history, however, diversified the interpretations of
historical facts. Colonial school of historiography started with the
preconceptions about the orient in European society and it created
‘stereotypes’ as the work of Max Muller on the linguistic similarity and the
migration of European into Indian subcontinent (Thapar 2000). There are two
sub-schools under this: Orientalist School of Historiography and Utilitarian
School of Historiography. The nationalist school came at the end of 19th
century for anti-colonial movements. This school used the concepts of Aryan
theory of invasion[1]
and ‘golden era of the Hindu civilisation’. The remoteness of golden history
was directly proportional to its use in imaginative reconstructions and
inversely proportional to factual proof. They were able to reject the colonial
theory of ‘oriental despotism[2]’
but they also agreed with imperialists largely on historical facts. It also gave rise to religious nationalism
based on Hindu and Muslim civilizational classifications. In the post-colonial
Historiography, there are two sub-schools: Marxist school and Subaltern School.
The subaltern
school of historiography came as a response to mainstream/dominant/elite
historiography. It started with the contestation of representation of peasant
struggles in South Asian history. The politics of social identity in dominant
historiography (colonial and nationalist) talked about peasant and tribal uprisings
as sporadic and irrational. Most of these histories were centred upon some
personality. Subaltern school contested this “blinkered historiography” and
said that historiography of Indian nationalism was dominated by “colonialist
elitism and bourgeoisie elitist nationalism” (Guha 2010: 1-3). They proposed
the view that elite historiography did not take into account the actions of
people taken on their own or independently of elite. The social identity of
various groups created in historiography talks about the role played by Indian
National Congress and other organisations in Indian national struggle. In
addition, Marxist history could not understand the place of ‘religious’ in
India’s political and social life (Chakrabarty 1995: 753). The dichotomy of
‘emotion’ and ‘reason’ provided hyper-rationalism in the analysis of Indian
historiography. In addition, the colonial historiography also produced an
intellectual landscape where missionary and others like Alexander Duff talked
about removal of essence of religion from the social to have rational view.
However, they never thought that these superstitious Indian never feel
embarrassed about the religion and superstition. Therefore, Marxists and
colonial historiography were not able to show the struggles of everyday life.
Dipesh
Chakrabarty (1995) in his work “Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism:
Some Recent Critiques of "Subaltern Studies"” talks about
Sumit Sarkar’s work on Swadeshi Movement.
Sarkar never thought about the question that whether a religious sensibility
could also use as a political structure and vocabulary as a means to an end
(religious) (754). From Atmiya Sabha to Dharma Sabha, religion came into the
public discourse and in swadeshi movement. However, the role of religion in
political was not seen. It was the product of the conception of modernity
accepted by the intellectuals in the country. The collection of essays,
published by Left Book Club, Modern Age and India (1950) talked about the
concept of secularism and modernity. They say that the concept of modernity,
apart from the differences produced by national boundaries and histories, is
universal in nature (Bhattacharya 1950: 242-243) and it emerged all over the
world from modern European history (Chakravarty 1950: 13). They, further, say
that the most glorious achievement of the spirit of modern age was its emancipation
from dogmas, superstition, which marked the ceaseless pursuit of scientific
knowledge in modern times (Sen 1950: 1). Science has tamed the forces of nature
and it was obliged to oppose the religion uncompromisingly. This model of
modernity did not see the conflicts in the nature of social identities based on
religion.
The religious
ideals were as underplayed in the Marxist writings; it was used extensively in
skewed forms in nationalist histories. Nationalist histories used the religious
identities as the central narrative and showed how glorious their past was. The
nationalist historians started depicting ancient kings and medieval Hindu
rulers of India to produce a history of glorious past. They talked about
Muslims but especially those Muslims who had served in the army of Hindu Kings
like the story of Muslims in the army of Marathas. The Hindu way of life was
glorified. This assertion of social identity in the History provided religious
organisations to propagate their ideas in the country. The Arya Samaj Movement,
started by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, used the history and propagated the ideas
of ‘back to Vedas’. The Arya Samaj provided Indian literate middle class a
sense of self-identity. The Suhddhi movement of the Arya Samaj also
led to communalisation of Punjab in 20th century (Jones 1968). The
use of social identity in the history paved the way for giving communal and
sectarian colour to Indian History. These histories were not representing the
facts holistically rather they were glorifying some religious history or the
history of some caste. However, these histories were drafted in a way to
include all classes and groups of the society.
Further, the
exclusion of some of the groups and communities from the history became an
established fashion of institutionalising history. The identity of Sinhalese of
Sri Lanka was given a new colour by the historians of the country. The mythic
origin of Sinhala and subsequent manufacturing of the history established a new
social order. The Sinhala identity of its present form came in the age of state
formation in Sri Lanka. There are many mythical stories about the inhabitants
of Jambudeep/Anuradhapuram/Sri Lanka[3].
At the time of establishment of Sinhalese identity, Sri Lankan society was
divided based on caste, class, clan etc. However, the state propagated an
ideology of unity i.e. providing sense of unity to the subjects (Gunawardane
1990).
In Sri Lankan
history, Sinhalese identity plays a central role in the formation of state
ideology and group consciousness. Group consciousness, like all ideologies, is
historically determined and historically limited. The use of social identity in
the history produces group consciousness. The term Sinhala in Sri Lankan
history is parallel to the use of term ‘race’ in European and American history.
However, they say that Sinhalese are the original rulers of Sri Lanka. But, the
term ‘race’ came in around 16th century AD. The racial history
divides Sri Lankan society in two parts; first Sinhala and the Second is Tamil.
Tamils are treated as migrants. However, the mention of Sinhala first appeared
in Dipavamsa, which is of 4th-5th
century AD. Other historical works like Samantapsadika,
Pranvitana and Mahavamsa have mention of Sinhala. These texts use this term for
the land, language but not for people of different origins.
The works of Sri
Lankan historians in late 18th century tried to bring all social
groups under Sinha group ideology. The social groups brought together by the
Sinhala consciousness does not appear to have coincided with the linguistic
grouping in the island or to have represented a single physical type. After 7th
century AD, the history got religious connotations (Gunawardana 1990: 62).
Gunawardane is seeing the successive changes in the social identity of Sinhala
and the seeds of politics of conflict in Sri Lanka. He is trying to relate past
with the present which Jean Paul-Nancy calls “historicism”. Historicism “is in
general the way of thinking that presupposes that history has already began,
and therefore it always merely continues”. Historicism presupposes history,
instead of taking it as what shall be thought. Davis Scott (1999) also takes
this idea further to see that history is not seen as what is self-evident
rather what shall be thought. This idea of history motivated South Asian
history to write Subaltern history.
If the history
is not seen in a discursive framework where critical analysis has no space then
it is used as a weapon to mobilise groups and communities against other groups.
The conception of ‘other’ also comes in the history, if the idea of history
writing is used for the manipulation of facts. The nationalist history of India
crated a discourse where identity of Muslim became ‘the other’ in nationalist
discourse. The coming of “two-nation theory” was the product of nationalist
discourse of historians and the Aligarh Movement[4]
started by Sir Saiyad Ahmad Khan. Further, the creation of nation-state based
on religion perpetuated the use of social identity in the history. The
partition of Indian sub-continent was based on “two nation theory” and
provinces of Muslim majority areas were carved out to create a new nation-state
Pakistan. In the textbooks of Pakistan, this conception if justified as they
see it the basis for the formation of Pakistan.
The focus on
identity in the history textbooks of Pakistan diminished the difference between
creative imagination and history (Jalal 1995: 16). All kinds of history are
seen as mere interpretations and one no more valid than other. If all kinds of creative imaginations are
seen as equal then “there is nothing to prevent the politics of identity from
engendering hatred towards internal and external ‘others’” (ibid 1996: 16).
This is true for most of the South Asian countries. The creation of the
category of ‘other’ in the history is prevalent in most of the South Asian
countries’ history textbooks. In India, the formulation of the concept of ‘dark
age’ for Muslim rule and making all rulers except Hindu rulers as an invader
became the root cause for the conflicts between communities at the time of
struggle for Indian independence. Sri Lanka has undergone civil war in recent
decades between Tamils and Sinhalese and it was perpetuated through the
historical creation of categories. In Nepal, the conflict for federal
constitution for Tarai and Parvat regions is the product of
discrimination in historiography of the nation and subsequent effect of it in
the psyche of people.
Social identity
in historiography, in these explanations, tries to create different types of
interpretations. However, the other groups also create their own history
glorifying their social identity. It gives rise to communalism in the country.
In the case of India, there is no difference between majority (Hindu)
communalism and minority (Muslim, Sikh, Christian) communalism. They are merely variants of the same communal
ideology and are equally dangerous (Chandra 2008: 608). However, while minority
communalism can end up in separatism (Partition of India, Khalistan movement
etc.), majority communalism can take the form of fascism. In democratic
framework, it is very easy for majority community to use the state powers to
spread different historical frameworks through state textbooks. The social
identity of various groups is appropriated by the state and is presented in a
way that lead to the development of conflicts among the populace.
In the aftermath
of Godhara riots[5],
the textbooks of Gujrat government, the history book dealing with 20th
century had no mention of Gandhi’s assassination. When there was a national
furore about it, they brought a new reprint of history book with the addition
of a bare sentence:
Gandhi’s efforts to
bring peace and harmony in society came to a sudden tragic end due to his
assassination by Nathuram Godse on January 30, 1948 in Delhi while Gandhiji was
on his way to attend a prayer meeting(Om 2004: 57).
There was no mention of the role of RSS[6],
and the Hindu Mahasabha and the link of Godse with these organisations and
particularly with Savarkar. Class IX book showed that the minorities are
foreigners (Chandra 2008: 619). The story of fascism and Nazism were brought in
the book but there was no mention of the evil effects of these ideologies. The
fabrication of history gives space to these forces to perpetuate their
ideologies.
Rammanohar Lohia
in his work “History writing” talks about the way in which historians presented
India (464). The history of past one thousand years of India was presented in
such a manner that “most Indians do not today know the difference between shame
and glory (Lohia 2011: 464). The ‘surrender’ in the war and the victory in the
war are no different for Indian history.
It is said that we conquered our conquerors by nativising them. The
Mughal historians has run down the immediate contender, who was the Afghan, and
the British historian has bathed Rajput and Afghan in glory, while running down
the immediate Mughal contender. In South Asian history, there have been
attempts of denying the existence of facts and glorifying social identities.
The conception of history was divided, by Hannah Arendt (1961), in two
categories—‘action’ and ‘fabrication’. Fabrication, which has definite
beginning and definite end, presents a coherent discourse. There is a nostalgia
among historians to use fabrication for writing history.
However, there
have been attempts by intellectuals in the field to counter false
representation, over representation and under representation of social identity
in the History. The Dalits were seen as mute spectators of the exploitation and
discriminations in the history of early and mid-20th century. Dalit
writers made attempts to start a new field of Dalit discourse in the country.
Now, there are plenty of Dalit literatures and scholars like Kancha Illaiyah,
Gopal Guru, Omprakash Valmiki and so on are presenting the pain, suffering and
epistemic violence through exclusion of Dalits in the society. Ompraksh
Valmiki’s work Joothan presents the
experience of Dalit in India and it tries to represent the voices of Dalit and
their political movement for emancipation. As discussed earlier, Subaltern School
presents a critique of enlightenment and says that in the attempt of producing
rational accounts, various categories of our society like religion; caste and
caste based discrimination etc. were neglected in history writing.
Therefore, the
contention and conflicts in the representation of social identity in history
writing have been a recurring theme in South Asian historiography. Colonial
history was more based on the texts of India and they represented an ideal type
of Indian society. The prejudice and stereotype was the product of this kind of
history. Nationalist histories divided society based on glorious past ruled by
Hindu Kings and the degradation in Indian culture after coming of Muslim
rulers. They presented ‘two nation’ in one country which further lead to the
communalisation of India’s struggle for independence and subsequent partition
of Indian subcontinent. Marxist historiography did not pay attention to many of
the experiences of Indian people, which provides them social identity like
religion. They neglected the identity provided by religion, which has potential
to convert them into ‘political’ as Dipesh Chakrabarty has shown in the case of
Swadeshi Movement. The legitimacy of state also lies in the idea of social
identity like why Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshi Bengali are different. If
history represents as equals then the legitimacy of modern nation-state will be
in danger. The idea of nation-state is based on the idea of difference. As,
Pakistan does everything to show that they are different from India. Therefore,
the identities are asserted in historiography because it will provide them
group consciousness.
[1] According
to this account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned
Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an
earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they
took most of what later became Hindu culture. This so-called pre-Aryan
civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been
called the "Indus valley culture" (as most of its
initial sites were on the Indus River).
[2]
Colonial discourse propagated the idea that colonized are not civilised to
rule. Therefore, it is not in the interest of colonizers that they rule over
India rather it is the colonizers duty to make colonized able to rule.
[3]
These are the various name of Sri Lanka in the Pali texts.
[4]
After the revolt of 1857, Sir Saiyad Ahmad Khan started Aligarh movement to
create better relationship between Muslims and British. The establishment of
Aligarh Muslim University was also part of this movement.
[5] In
2002, the Indian state Gujrat witnessed a communal riot between Hindu and
Muslims. It started after the burning of 70 people in a train at Godhara.
[6]
RSS or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a Hindu nationalist organisation in
India.
No comments:
Post a Comment