By Ananya S Guha
The ending of this year has not exactly been propitious. Apart from elections in Bihar which seemed a major focus of political parties, issues got tangled with politics. But that is India where politics is evinced everywhere from the home to the institution. But what was significant is how writers and intellectuals protested vehemently against a country they said was being obliterated. Its history, its polity, its society and above all its stolid pluralism which was the making of centuries- historical assonance, dissonance and then what they believe a flourishing cultural synthesis. This was being sullied by feverish attempts to re write history, change historical and cultural contexts, inheriting all these from Anglo interpretation of history and colonial texts. Not that this was new . Way back in the 1990s similar attempts were made and NCERT text books for school students were attempted to be revamped. Historians like Romila Thapar and Bipin Chandra were the culprits. Why? Because they were ‘ Marxist ‘ historians and such speciousl arguments continue till today and have climaxed into a Hindu orthodoxy versus a liberal force, which takes into account the historical shaping and moorings of a great country which gave birth to at least three religions, with two more seeking pastures here. The resultant mix – a cosmopolitan country with an inter-mix of race, religion and culture.
But wait what were and are these rationalists saying? They were saying as Romila Thapar pointed out that in whatever rule there was always a syncretistic flyover which was a watchdog to India’s cultural dimension, its progressive history and its attempts towards cultural assimilation, whether it be in the form of the flowering of the Urdu language, the Sufis or the Baul chant. Similarly extending this we can say that in North East and in South India, Christianity emerged as a major cultural voice to educate and take a kind of assimilative role further. So, although there was diversity, it was rich, despite diversity, there was assimilation, and that led to secularist ideals palpably designed by the founding fathers of the Constitution.
But the question is: why remake history? Why turn a blind eye to historical truths, imperatives and compulsions? The votaries of a one nation, one religion country have not seen the past, so they cannot simply understand the present or the future. They are befuddled as to how history works out as a phenomena over centuries, through interaction, dialogue, food habits, customs and even language. So when the writer protesters raised their voices they meant exactly this- read and you will find out, if a person is rationalistic and is against religious superstitions that does not by any means says that he does not love his religion or is anti- religion. What about Vidyasagar and Raja Ram Mohun Roy? Simply because the British patronized them, they are given a clean chit? The modern Kalburgis had to pay the price of confronting rabid fundamentalists.
The sad part about all this uproar was that there was no debate. Voices were suppressed or gagged and the Dadri incident was one horrific example of human atavism, which many people brushed off lightly. We should hang our heads in shame because this is not a shining example of a shining country. It is the worst form of aberrant behaviour. Even history will be ashamed to record it. And then so much irreverent and vitriolic fun was made of great intellectual stalwarts like Romila Thapar and other writers. Instead of being proud that she is one of the most eminent historians in the world today, we are abusive in extremely hurting tones. Shame on us!. And the same treatment was meted out to Nayantara Sehgal. But let this be a warning, you can invoke the past, but you can’t quarrel with history. History has its own logic, destiny and uprising. History can make and remake with the help of land and geography.
Let us hope that in 2016 our country’s leaders and all the powers that be understand this simple fact: tarnish history, obliterate it and you are not only not forgiven, but obliterated too. Don’t forget Bihar in a hurry! And yes the moral of the story- don’t for heaven’s sake mix religion with politics. They are nasty bedfellows.
The protests of the writers, artists and film makers is significant, in fact historical because they sensed the bludgeoning of freedom and the silencing of critics who were self critical of the country and society. A society which is not sufficiently self critical will invite inevitably its own sorrows and problems. What is felt is that ideology will boomerang in the most sordid of ways. The returning of awards can be debatable and questioned, but that is not the point, the point is that a collective point was made which shocked some, scared others and rendered many speechless especially the powers that be. Initially all kinds of unkind responses came which further heightened protests and cultural forums. Protest walks were made. The unfortunate aspect was that it was also mingled with the Dadri incident, the censure of historians such as Romila Thapar and their views. Kalburgi people say was a rationalist, he assailed superstitions and the caste movement, which once again seems to be gathering momentum in the wake of killing of Harijans. Again the movement towards reservation of jobs for the so called upper castes pitch-forked a highly democratic and pluralistic nation into a malaise. The writers and artists saw this as a threat to the integrity of the country, its historical nuances and the argument that was and is, India. Even more tragic is that internationally known people who brought laurels to the country were openly castigated and insulted. Facebookers and those on Twitter went on a rampage of malfeasance.
And then Bihar came. The election results proved unequivocally that the people of India were not going to tolerate such rabid nonsense irrespective of caste and religion. That was one historical turn of destiny, and of course the reactions were things such as a criminal and a looter has come back to stay. But that is politics; a game. You play, you abide by its ‘ rules ‘ however much you may not like it. I for one am sure that the writers and the artists who took all the risks at stake are not going to keep quiet.