Skip to main content

Can History be Civilised?


English philosopher, C E M Joad, defined civilisation as thinking new thoughts, making new things, and obeying the rules for the smooth functioning of the society.  Yet we don’t find such people in our history books.  Our history books are filled with people who killed others, conquered their lands, and imposed themselves on other people. 

How many Indians have heard of Satyendranath Bose though there is a subatomic particle (Boson) named after him?  How many Indians are ready to recognise the name Ali Akbar Khan though he is known to the world as the Indian Johann Sebastian Bach?  Why does the genius of a Shakespeare get eclipsed by a Queen Elizabeth in history books though Shakespeare’s contribution to civilisation far outweighs that of the Queen? 

These are some of the many thoughts that crossed my mind as I read the very long article by A. G. Noorani, ‘India’s Sawdust Caesar,’ in the latest issue of Frontline.  “A year and a half after he became Prime Minister of India on May 26, 2014, the people of India have begun to discover that Narendra Damodardas Modi is a flawed character who has proved himself unfit to sit on the chair on which Jawaharlal Nehru once sat.”  That’s how the article begins. 

Nehru made significant contributions to civilisation.  Even if we ignore his contributions as a statesman, his writings will be enough to ensure a prominent place for Nehru in the history of India if history stops giving undue importance to killers and conquerors.  How will history remember Mr Modi?

Noorani quotes a cable sent by Michael S. Owen, the U.S. Consul General in Mumbai, in 2006 to his bosses in America: “In public appearances, Modi can be charming and likeable. By all accounts, however, he is an insular, distrustful person who rules with a small group of advisers. This inner circle acts as a buffer between the Chief Minister and his Cabinet and party. He reigns more by fear and intimidation than by inclusiveness and consensus, and is rude, condescending and often derogatory to even high-level party officials. He hoards power and often leaves his Ministers in the cold when making decisions that affect their portfolios.”

Source: Frontline
How will history books celebrate Modi?  It will depend on who writes the history, of course. 

Noorani cites instances that prove the little-mindedness of the Prime Minister.  For example, gifting a copy of the Gita to the Japanese Emperor, Modi said, “I do not know what will happen in India after this. There may be a TV debate on this. Our secular friends will create toofan [storm] that [sic] what does Modi think of himself. He has taken a Gita with him. That means he has made this one also communal.”  Modi was ridiculing his own country in another country. 

Another example: On September 23 in Dublin, Modi praised Indo-Irish students for reciting Sanskrit mantras, but in a manner that he can never shed: “It is a matter of happiness that they can do it in Ireland, but had this been done in India, it would have raised questions on secularism.” 

Which Prime Minister of a country, especially if he claims to be in love with the country and its culture as Modi does, will belittle his own country in a foreign country like this?

Yet how will this man go down in history books?  How much of his personality and its dark truths be buried, how much of the other side exaggerated? 

Why is history like this?

These are just some of the thoughts that crossed my mind.  I suppose there are no answers except that that is how history is.  If you want Bose and his boson, you should study science.  If you want Ustad Ali Akbar Khan, you should have music in your veins.  And if you want Shakespeare, be literate enough.   

But if history is what interests you, you will get marauders and conquerors.  History cannot be civilised, it seems.


PS.  Mr Modi is taken as an example here merely because it is an article about him that triggered these thoughts in me.  There are many, too many, leaders in the world today who can trigger the very same thoughts.  That’s precisely the question: why are leaders like this?

Labels

Labels:

Comments

  1. UnknownDecember 10, 2015 at 9:14 PM

    Something on my mind as well, had written a post this week on how history books present history with an example of Mughal history! The realm of the textbook is place of drama and war with every changing government, how modi gets written depends on as you say, who writes that portion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomichan MatheikalDecember 10, 2015 at 9:37 PM

      Suppose we change our approach to history and present scientists, philosophers, and so on to students in such a way that they learn to question, investigate and discover. Instead of mugging up boring facts about who killed whom!

      Delete
  2. Sneh AsnaniDecember 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM

    Well written and thought provoking..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Elsapaul84December 11, 2015 at 4:07 PM

    I am genuinely thankful to the holder of this web page who has shared this fantastic paragraph at here.

    custom essay writing service

    ReplyDelete
  4. sunaina sharmaDecember 11, 2015 at 5:36 PM

    Interesting article. History has been a complex subject that gives rise to debates because what one writes comes from his/her own 'situatedness' as well as 'affiliations. I think Gadamer had talked about 'understanding' it 'differently', and bringing one's own understanding to the historical text. I think history itself is a series of 'texts' that have been subjectively (masked objective) written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomichan MatheikalDecember 11, 2015 at 7:03 PM

      History can never be objective, in short :)

      The article I have cited above illustrates it eloquently. America had refused to grant visiting visa to Mr Modi in the aftermath of the 2002 riots. However, later it revoked the decision because the same Consul General mentioned in the article suggested it. And the reason? Modi's meteoric popularity! The Consul General was sure Mr Modi would rise to national politics and in all probability become the PM. Then, if America changed the decision after that, it would be accused of opportunism. Hence he advised the diplomatic action of revoking the decision earlier. A few years from now, most people will forget these details and historians will make a new history: that even America realised its error with respect to Modi and the riots. That's how history works. It is manufactured. Heroes do not make history, history makes heroes, as a historian said.

      Delete
  5. Datta GhoshDecember 11, 2015 at 10:01 PM

    Incidentally I knew all three, interestingly enough, I was always intrigued by history, but that did not yield any info. History as it goes is penned on corpses and other things that are not "civilized" why? because history was always written by the victors, who won a war and massacred. It is a great flaw in us to understate the good and magnify shady incidents as history

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomichan MatheikalDecember 12, 2015 at 8:25 AM

      History inevitably belongs to the victor. See how the Indian history is being rewritten or attempted to be by the present BJP regime. A lot of RSS people have been appointed to relevant positions so that the process will be subtle but effective.

      Delete
  6. Titas BiswasDecember 11, 2015 at 11:42 PM

    Leaders in the current world are hardly those who have been given that place by society,leaders are generally those narrow-minded people who are in that place today because 20,000 different methods were calculated before inculcating them in the "necessary" propaganda to earn the required profit.All of fundamentalism,hypocrisy,communal-ism are just the components of the entire process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomichan MatheikalDecember 12, 2015 at 8:26 AM

      That's interesting, Titas. 20,000 calculated strategies!

      Delete
  7. Manju PanchalJanuary 22, 2016 at 7:47 AM

    Well written article. Enjoyed reading it. Very thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

T he Sarayu carried more tears than water. Ayodhya was a sad kingdom. Dasaratha was a good king. He upheld dharma – justice and morality – as best as he could. The citizens were apparently happy. Then, one day, it all changed. One person is enough to change the destiny of a whole kingdom. Who was that one person? Some say it was Kaikeyi, one of the three official wives of Dasaratha. Some others say it was Manthara, Kaikeyi’s chief maid. Manthara was a hunchback. She was the caretaker of Kaikeyi right from the latter’s childhood; foster mother, so to say, because Kaikeyi had no mother. The absence of maternal influence can distort a girl child’s personality. With a foster mother like Manthara, the distortion can be really bad. Manthara was cunning, selfish, and morally ambiguous. A severe physical deformity can make one worse than all that. Manthara was as devious and manipulative as a woman could be in a men’s world. Add to that all the jealousy and ambition that insecure peo...
39 comments
Read more

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...
16 comments
Read more

Bharata: The Ascetic King

Bharata is disillusioned yet again. His brother, Rama the ideal man, Maryada Purushottam , is making yet another grotesque demand. Sita Devi has to prove her purity now, years after the Agni Pariksha she arranged for herself long ago in Lanka itself. Now, when she has been living for years far away from Rama with her two sons Luva and Kusha in the paternal care of no less a saint than Valmiki himself! What has happened to Rama? Bharata sits on the bank of the Sarayu with tears welling up in his eyes. Give me an answer, Sarayu, he said. Sarayu accepted Bharata’s tears too. She was used to absorbing tears. How many times has Rama come and sat upon this very same bank and wept too? Life is sorrow, Sarayu muttered to Bharata. Even if you are royal descendants of divinity itself. Rama had brought the children Luva and Kusha to Ayodhya on the day of the Ashvamedha Yagna which he was conducting in order to reaffirm his sovereignty and legitimacy over his kingdom. He didn’t know they w...
30 comments
Read more

Liberated

Fiction - parable Vijay was familiar enough with soil and the stones it turns up to realise that he had struck something rare.   It was a tiny stone, a pitch black speck not larger than the tip of his little finger. It turned up from the intestine of the earth while Vijay was digging a pit for the biogas plant. Anand, the scientist from the village, got the stone analysed in his lab and assured, “It is a rare object.   A compound of carbonic acid and magnesium.” Anand and his fellow scientists believed that it must be a fragment of a meteoroid that hit the earth millions of years ago.   “Very rare indeed,” concluded the scientist. Now, it’s plain commonsense that something that’s very rare indeed must be very valuable too. All the more so if it came from the heavens. So Vijay got the village goldsmith to set it on a gold ring.   Vijay wore the ring proudly on his ring finger. Nobody, in the village, however bothered to pay any homage to Vijay’s...
47 comments
Read more

Dharma and Destiny

  Illustration by Copilot Designer Unwavering adherence to dharma causes much suffering in the Ramayana . Dharma can mean duty, righteousness, and moral order. There are many characters in the Ramayana who stick to their dharma as best as they can and cause much pain to themselves as well as others. Dasharatha sees it as his duty as a ruler (raja-dharma) to uphold truth and justice and hence has to fulfil the promise he made to Kaikeyi and send Rama into exile in spite of the anguish it causes him and many others. Rama accepts the order following his dharma as an obedient son. Sita follows her dharma as a wife and enters the forest along with her husband. The brotherly dharma of Lakshmana makes him leave his own wife and escort Rama and Sita. It’s all not that simple, however. Which dharma makes Rama suspect Sita’s purity, later in Lanka? Which dharma makes him succumb to a societal expectation instead of upholding his personal integrity, still later in Ayodhya? “You were car...
28 comments
Read more