“A country without a memory…â€
On facebook last week a reader, in response to my recent series on the Taj, asked, “Kyun Gadhe Murde Ukhadane main time waste kar rahe ho…?â€. That comment set me thinking. The phrase “Gadhe Murdeâ€Â had hit the nail on the head. It summarised the way most Indians feel about history. “History is boring; It merely digs up the past; It is unnecessary; It serves little purposeâ€. No wonder, few Indians have a strong sense of history. And the more “educated†you are, the less acquainted you are likely to be, not just with history but also the rich traditions of the past.  One of the most common refrain in my discussions with youngsters is, “We are not interested in what happened in the past. We want to focus on the future!â€. Unsurprisingly, History is one of the least popular subject in our colleges and universities. Anyone who claims to have a genuine interest in history is seen as pretentious and boring; sometimes both.
Does history really matter? It apparently has little relevance in our daily life. You may struggle in the real-world if you have not studied elementary maths but a lack of awareness about history is unlikely to hold you back in most careers. But matter it does. A lot actually.  It matters because of the glimpses it offers of a heritage and a culture. It matters because it helps us understand the evolution of societies, of communities and nations. It matters because it helps us realise the mistakes – and learn from them. It matters because it helps us prepare for the future.
Unfamiliarity with history can lead to not just ignorance but a deeply flawed and embarrassing view of the past, often marked by self-loathing. It can also manifest in a scornful disdain of traditions and heritage. The utter devaluation of an age-old language Sanskrit – a language that was almost chosen to be the national language, but lost  by a single vote – is symptomatic of this disdain of the past and of history. An immensely valuable link to our past, the language of the Itihas-s and Purana-s, is no longer easily accessible, thanks to a deep distrust of the past. The effects of utter lack of understanding of the historical past & the scornful disdain it induces, can be debilitating – especially when they manifest themselves in our leaders. India’s first Prime Minister is a case in point. As the redoubtable Arun Shourie wrote, “Pandit Nehru is the most vivid example of the type. He was the truest of nationalists. His sacrifices for our independence compare with those of anyone else. But he had little acquaintance with our tradition –  his descriptions of it, even when they seek to laud it, do not go deeper than the superficial cliche: one has only to read his account of even a relatively straightforward text such as the Gita alongside that of Sri Aurobindo or Gandhiji or Vinoba to see the chasm”.
History matters. More than you think. And while historical narratives can be distorted to imbibe a sense of false pride among people (remember the false narrative of “Aryans†and the misappropriation of the Swastika by the Nazis in the 20th century?), they can equally be twisted to make a community feel wretched & worthless. As amateur historian Dr Prodosh Aich has written in his book, “Lies with Long Legsâ€, “We are, what we know. And we only know what we have been told“.
History matters because it is evocative. It can inspire powerful emotions and trigger events that can have profound and lasting impact. Both the “World Wars†had their roots in history. The most dreaded terrorist group in the world today, the Islamic State draws its inspiration from history.  Numerous geo-political flashpoints in the world have their seeds in history.  History shapes our world-view and how we interpret and react to contemporary events. No wonder the “teaching of history†is often a subject of controversy.
History can be a powerful nourishment to help establish the identity – of a community, a society and a nation. Indeed, a deep understanding and awareness of history, is key to maintaining a sense of identity. Without such a collective memory, a society is “..as rootless and adrift as an individual with amnesia“. Â This sense of “being adrift” is beautifully captured by VS Naipaul in this haunting passage:
At dinner that evening, high up in one of those towers, a journalist touched the subject of identity. “Indianâ€Â was a word that was now without meaning, he said. He himself, he was in his thirties, of the post-Independence generation, no longer knew who he was. He no longer knew the Hindu gods. His grandmother, visiting Khajuraho or some other famous temple, would immediately be in tune with what she saw; she wouldn’t need to be told about the significance of the carvings. He was like a tourist; he saw only an architectural monument. He had lost the key to a whole world of belief and feeling, and was cut off from his past.
The past matters. History matters. “Gadhe Murde†matter. It is important to resurrect these ghosts.  Remember Santayana? “A country without a memory is a country of madmen“.
On Aurangzeb, Kashi Vishwanath, Lies and Half-Truths
De-falsify India’s History by Dr Subramanian Swamy
Forgetting History: Delhi’s “Iron Pillarâ€Â
Max Mueller & Correcting History: One Step at a Time
* The image is that of the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque that was built from parts taken by destroying  27 Hindu and Jain temples that stood in the complex.
Additional References
History hijacked by perverse politics of bogus secularism
How the Empire has been taught in British Schools
How history was made up at Nalanda
The Litmus Test of Whether Your History is Secular
Objective Whitewash for Objective History (PART I of II) !
and finally an interesting nugget:
The New Yorker piece is peppered with anecdotes on Samir Jain narrated by media professionals and Times staffers.
# Namita Gokhale recounts sitting next to Samir Jain at a dinner. Jain tells Gokhale, ‘I think history doesn’t exist and if I were Prime Minister I would ban the study of history.’ When Gokhale responds that she would give him two tight slaps and a kick and if he didn’t remember, she would agree there was no history, Samir slips away and ignores her the rest of the evening. [source]
Our history is written mostly by leftist, nehruvian, pseudo secular historians. Their narratives don’t interest us. Indians are conservatives in heart. Also, people would like to read neutral commentary. That is non-existent in Indian history. There are few books or published research papers on indian history by right wing intellectuals. This is because the socialist government of last 5 decades didn’t support it. The British too were anti right wing by nature. Our intellectual space is dominated by left wing people. So, Indians have access to one side of the view. We expect the new government to change this by promoting right wing researchers. For this, we needed a learnt senior leader to head the Human Resource Developement Ministry. Please write on this issue on your blog. The government has a ear for people of your stature.
There are several reasons why there has been a coordinated attempt to silence and arase the true historical perspective. The main one would be that people, especially the Hindus, find it too painful and embarrassing to recount recent historical facts. The other reasons are obviously the left wing and pro minoroties agenda.
A person who cannot remember his own history would be classed as having a serious medical condition called dementia. There is no such terminology for a similar medical condition of a whole nation, but one could call it ‘ national dementia’. When this policy has been systematically and actively promoted, it is akin to promoting national dementia in the young and reasonable well people of the country. What an outrage!
One of the ‘treatments’ for dementia is actively recalling and reminiscing the past by those who can remember it.
History of a country constitutes its long-term memory. Just as a person’s effectiveness gets eroded without long-term memory, a nation’s effectiveness is also compromised if its people are not aware of their history. In fact, neither individuals nor organizations (including nations) can make any real progress without learning lessons from their past experiences. But, for that, the ‘memory’ has to be truthful and not biased.
Of course some people – and even societies – may not be too bothered about “learning lessons, etc.” Such attitude could be due to lethargy, ignorance, or apathy born out of the never-ending daily pressure of making both the ends meet. It may also have something to do with the diminution of self-image that an individual – the basic unit of any society – feels in the face of unprecedented growth of power of institutions and organizations, including the government.
Overall, I believe that in today’s age of relentless onslaught of information (and misinformation), it is vitally important to make the individual and his/ her local community feel truly empowered. In a world obsessed with bigger and bigger things, it is time we took a deep, hard look at the concept of “small is beautiful”!
I think this quote from The Iron Cage of Rashid Khalidi will shut up most of these arrogant youngsters.
“If you dont write your histories, othes might write you out of it.”
Hi Shantanu,
All this time I believed Taj Mahal to be the creation of Shahjahan and after reading your related posts on the topic,I am willing to give credence to the alternative story.
At what point do I start believing in history as it is presented to me?
Should I challenge all the “facts” presented to me in school when I was growing up, should I tell my kids that the history they learn in school is only one side of the story and to find the other side of the story, they have to research more.
If at all, one is successful in finding multiple versions of “history”‘, you would have to decide which version is authentic and then which one you would believe in.
What will that tell the child? Is it akin to telling someone, Santa Claus exists only for them to realise when they are slightly older that there is no Santa Claus ?
I don’t disagree with what you say but at the same time, at what point would you draw a line and say what is written and consumed is the truth?
The most common use of history is to not let wounds heal. The consequences are for all of us to see.
S
Given what has been written, can the author explain how is it that the Hindu civilisation is the oldest civilisation in the world?
And while he is at it, can he also tell how is it that the number of people accepting the basic principle of Hinduism (namely pluralism) is increasing day by day?
Namaste.
Ashok Chowgule,
Goa, India.
It has to be asked whether the writing of history as we understand it in the West ever existed with Hindus in the way it is with the West and Islam. History if it can be so called starts and ends with the religious scriptures which have been doctored no end to suit the fashion of the times. There has been no space in the cosmic space for any praise to a mere mortal no matter how great his impact and importance. In modern times it is the worthless phony Brahmin Nehru family that has provided the pantheon of gods to be worshipped. The real heroes like Sardar Patel, Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji are priced at a discount. The Hindu reverence for caste organisation has coloured their world view as to make the common narrative of historical truths an impossible pipe dream. As soon as the left, dynasty, Hinduism has quite easily facilitated their worldview as essential truths. Whether the faults of Hinduism can be remedied by the intervention of the state or beyond saving we can only know once the project is undertaken.
Dear All, thanks for your comments…Quick responses below…
@Uttam (#1): You have summarised the issue well..I don’t know how much the govet will isten to me but I can certainly try…Thanks!
@ SUdha (#2)I Liked this statement, “One of the ‘treatments’ for dementia is actively recalling and reminiscing the past by those who can remember it.”! I think it is our duty as adults to make sure that the young in our family grwo with a stronger sense of history than we had..that is the only way they will not “forget” – and be able to separate the chaff from the wheat, so to speak..
@Hari (#3)Agree with this: “In fact, neither individuals nor organizations (including nations) can make any real progress without learning lessons from their past experiences. But, for that, the ‘memory’ has to be truthful and not biased.“..
Unfortunately, we have very few accounts that are based on verifiable facts, hence unbiased (partly it is the nature of the subject, partly a neglext on the part of the powers that be)
@Ashish (#4): Excellent Quote!
@Rex (#5): To answer your Q, you should never blindly believe anything. Be ready to question and change/challenge your own assumptions.
I think you should tell your kids that the history they learn is only one of several interpretations. You should expose them to alternative interpretations and inculclate in them a desire to question and think for themselves..
That would be great start..
@Ashok-ji (#6): I think you misunderstood..My article is mainly about how the subject has been neglected in the traditional academic setting..Thankfully, most of us have read/heard and know about the epics, so there is a sense of historical continuity – however the “knowledge” most of us have is superficial (esp. the urban educated elite) and while we do have a stronger sense of culture (“Sanskruti”), it cannot really substitute for a historical narrative (I feel).
@Khandu (#7): Largely agree with your comment…and yes, only time will tell whether our efforts have made any difference. Thanks
In UK, a lot of ambitious young students opt for history. Scan the background of top people in the corporate world and you will find a significant number with a formal background in history. In India, the career path of top students still is medicine, Engg/IT majors.
The question is whether a venture capitalist should take up history as a subject in his/her late life or whether he/she should start a venture that promotes/supports the youth who take up history at school/university levels. I guess the answer should be easy.
Finally, this is for Khandu(#7). Please stop the idealistic masochism (finding faults with Indian society and social structure). Caste was not exclusive to Indian society. Duckduckgo or bing a little bit and find out more about the divisions other societies had before writing about Indian society. The study of history must begin with one’s own training, not by pointing fingers at others.
This is a nice write-up brother. There is a need for the statesmen of this great nation to look into the question “Whether our children are learning the correct history?”
We didn’t have proper tools to write our history until British came; they wrote our history; however we cannot expect it to portray the richness of our tradition, culture or the greatness of our predecessors. Further there have been attempts to intentionally tamper with our history by the English as is evident from the fact that towards the end of 19th century one of the members of their parliament suggested that Indians be made to think that they are inferior in order to break their confidence as means to fully conquer India.
Then there is the current problem of lack of interest. As you said I didn’t pay any attention to History while in school; however learning a lot now through surfing and also reading whatever text I come across. The importance of history is not stressed by parents/teachers as they themselves donot know it.
Let’s hope things do take a turn for the good and contribute in whatever little way we can.
Just as an addendum to my response above to Khandu #7, here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia page.
If you get the sense that there is a conscious attempt to downplay these caste differences, I can promise you that you won’t be the only one who got that sense. (By the way, there have been some excellent economic thinkers in ancient China. Those who have studied ancient Chinese thinking about economics would have studied these divisions as a matter of course).
The four occupations or “four categories of the people”[1] (simplified Chinese: 士农工商; traditional Chinese: 士農工商 ) was a hierarchic social class structure developed in ancient China by either Confucian or Legalist scholars as far back as the late Zhou Dynasty and is considered a central part of the Fengjian social structure (c. 1046–256 BCE).[2] In descending order, these were the shi (gentry scholars), the nong (peasant farmers), the gong (artisans and craftsmen), and the shang (merchants and traders).[2] These broad categories were more an idealization than a practical reality. This was due to commercialization of Chinese society in the Song and Ming periods, blurring the lines between these four hierarchic social distinctions. The system also did not figure in all other social groups present in premodern Chinese society. The definition of the identity of the shi class changed over time as well, from an ancient warrior caste, to an aristocratic scholarly elite, and finally to a bureaucratic scholarly elite with less emphasis on archaic noble lineage. There was also a gradual fusion of the wealthy merchant and landholding gentry classes, culminating in the late Ming Dynasty.
Hi Shantanu,
As requested, copying my comments here:
I find that this article discusses history very generally and as a fixed entity.
The challenge with history – whether as an academic discipline or a unifying narrative – is that so much of it depends on interpretation and the likelihood is that multiple interpretations will be valid in any particular case. In a country the size of India it is unsurprising there are multiple narratives, so the fact there is no single unifying “national history†or collective memory may be as much a result of this as of the lack of interest in history you discuss. It is this issue which makes the debate around history textbooks so difficult to resolve – is it possible to have a “neutral†interpretation available to all?
There is also some mixing up with discussions of history that might be better articulated in relation to religious or cultural traditions. It is worth being clear about which you are referring to in a discussion like this. For example, in order for the journalist to understand the carvings on the temple mentioned in the VS Naipaul quote you used, a historical understanding alone would not be sufficient.
I look forward to hearing your response on this.
Hey shantanu, did u dilete my comments?
@yupp (#13): I have not seen you here before so welcome to the blog..
I did delete several of your comments.
Pl read my comments policy if you have not done so already.
Comments that have sweeping generalisations, erroneous facts, border-line abuse or do not make sense (in my opinion) – or those that do not add value to the discussion – will be deleted without notice. Thanks.