Fwd: [Ind-Arch] Conversations about history

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded message ----------Ram Varmha Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:50 AM[ind-Arch] Conversations about history

IndiaArchaeology

 

 

 

 

 

As if in response to some of the arguments on this site lately on writing or re-writing Indian History, there was this essay on the subject by Ms. Thapar, in The Hindu. Strange coincidence, I think!Ram

Conversations about

history

KALPANA SHARMA

As the media

representations of the Mumbai terror attacks demonstrated, we can't do

justice to contemporary events unless we understand our own history

better. Renowned historian and winner of the prestigious Kluge Prize in

2008, Romila Thapar says heritage is too important a matter to be left

to those with partisan political agendas. Excerpts from a conversation…

What worries me much more is the way in which the ideology of

Hindutva has inveigled much of the middle class into accepting the idea

that we should be only a Hindu country. This is essentially an

unthinking acceptance of an ideology that claims to provide an easy

answer to a complex problem…

Photo: R. Ragu

 

Interpreting the past: Prof. Romila Thapar.

Eminent historian Romila Thapar, Professor Emeritus at the

Jawaharlal Nehru University, was awarded the prestigious Kluge Prize in

2008 along with the Irish historian Peter Brown, who teaches at

Princeton University. The Kluge award is often referred to as the

American Nobel Prize, as it covers the human sciences for which there

are no Nobel awards. In an interview, shortly after she returned from

the United States after receiving the award, Prof. Thapar spoke about

the importance of history teaching, the need for autonomous institutes

to govern textbooks and historical research and the media's

interpretation of contemporary developments. Excerpts from the

conversation:

In a talk you gave in 2002, you said, "To comprehend the present

and move towards the future requires an understanding of the past, an

understanding that is sensitive, analytical and open to critical

enquiry". In the light of November 26, 2008 terror attack on Mumbai and

the criticism of the media's reporting of the event, what do you as a

historian feel about media interpretation of such events and the

absence of context in reporting?

As a historian I am and have been deeply disturbed — and I'm not

alone in this — by the reaction to such incidents. Indian identity at

the popular level is increasingly being narrowed to the perceptions of

what is called the majority community. This is ironic because among

historians the perspective has widened out. This is in part due to the

expansion of sources for constructing history. In archaeology for

instance, various sciences are giving us dimensions of knowledge that

are new, such as the data on environmental factors affecting history.

Our attitudes to texts have changed. We now ask incisive questions

about the author, and why the text is written the way it is and what is

the intention of the patron? One looks beyond the statements for deeper

historical understanding. This has led to new perspectives on the past

in terms of both evidence and the manner in which it is analysed.

So while the historian is opening up the past, its popular

representation is narrowing it down. The kinds of linkages that are

made with the past in popular outlets tend to marginalise many

communities and cultures that make up Indian society. These linkages

frequently draw from political agendas. Inevitably one begins to ask

whether or to what degree that which we've been writing, and speaking

about in the past 30 to 40 years, have at all affected people's

perceptions — perceptions of our past, our identities, and the values

that we hold as important in our lives? Possibly we have been too

passive in our response to aggressive political actions. And we have

failed to be sufficiently critical of the way the media plays with

political agendas in representing what it calls "culture and history".

These are themes that need much more open discussion.

We have not internalised our history in the sense that for most

people seeing the historical aspect of the world around us is still an

experience of the extraneous. Historical analysis is really about an

entire society with an accounting of different levels and the way in

which they are inter-related, the way in which they disintegrate or

integrate and how these relationships have changed over time. We assume

a kind of static past, which is of course the behest of colonial

scholarship. This is being questioned by historians who are trying to

understand the dynamics of different periods and communities but

somehow this questioning doesn't seem to seep into popular agencies

like the media.

How much of media projection and the political discourse, which

fails to locate events against history, is because of the way

generations of Indians, including the post-Independence generation,

have been taught history?

It has a lot to do with it. One of the biggest problems with the way

in which popular representations of the past are accepted without

questioning has to do precisely with the way history is taught. Not

just history. Our attitude to knowledge is generally still dated. A

student is told, "Here is a body of knowledge, learn it and memorise it

". The notion that a body of knowledge implicitly means that the person

who is approaching it has to question it and understand it and maybe

develop it further — that is not something that is implicit in our

educational methods. The purpose of education is increasingly, with

rare exceptions, a competition involving numbers in an exam which

determine the next step. This is not what education should be about.

 

 

 

 

When we first established the Centre for Historical Studies at

Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1971, it was suggested to us that our

courses and syllabi should preferably not be a mere repetition of what

was being taught in other universities. We were asked to think of new

ways of projecting history, where our courses would reflect

inter-disciplinary methods of investigating the past.

My 20 years in JNU were intellectually among the most enriching in

my life because we had a really good bunch of students who came because

they felt that since the courses were different, the enquiries would be

different. If one can take credit for anything at all it is for those

students who are now teaching history and conducting historical

research themselves. They are doing it because it is both an

intellectual exploration as well as something that is providing

insights into the society in which we live. It is through this way of

looking at the past that students become curious about the world that

surrounds them. If enquiry can be built into a subject it ceases to be

just having to learn the same old dreary information and it takes on

the challenge of finding out about other aspects — about objects,

events, people, behaviour patterns, personalities, policies — a whole

gamut of perspectives on what makes a society, who makes it and who

governs it.

What can be done so that the teaching of history does not get swayed each time there's a change of government?

This is something about which I wrote at length in The Hindu soon

after the UPA government came to power. I argued that a body like the

NCERT, which is producing what are called model textbooks, should be

made autonomous from government because there was a danger that each

time the government changes, the NCERT will be required to rewrite the

textbooks — and not just in history but in politics, human geography,

sociology and science as well. We came pretty close to that with Vedic

mathematics. There should be independent bodies of specialists in each

subject that vet all prescribed textbooks so that there is always a

sieve through which any textbook has to pass and that it conforms to at

least a minimum standard. This doesn't exist at the moment. The

academic quality of textbooks differs from one kind of school to

another to a third.

When you proposed this to the UPA, what was the reaction?

Virtually no reaction. A few teachers responded positively since

changing textbooks can be a serious problem for teaching in school. A

few others said it would be difficult administratively although the

idea was well taken. At the end of the day one feels almost as if one

is talking to a wall when one refers to a problem that we have lived

with for the last half century, and suggests ways of solving the

problem, but there is silence. Perhaps there is a hesitation to take

away government patronage — of any government. Patronage today has

become sacrosanct. At another level privately published textbooks are

often money-spinners and would not like to be vetted. The ideological

motivation in some textbooks, especially in the social sciences, is

crucial in schools with a political agenda, often run by so-called

"cultural organisations".

But education per se remains a low priority for almost any government.

The notion of quality in education is directed to post-graduate

education and to the IITs, the IIMs and such like. But many of us feel

that the foundation of primary and secondary schools has still to be

established and nurtured. I suspect that nothing is done about the

foundation because political parties fear an educated electorate that

can ask questions. It would then not be swayed by mass meetings and

would make vote-banks irrelevant. The moment people ask questions and

relate the present to the past and have a project for the future, it

becomes a different electorate. I don't think it is just an oversight

that governments and politicians pay so little attention to education.

My second contention is that there is a need to put much more into

training teachers. In today's world, a teacher has to be technically

proficient in the subject. Gone are the days when a broad-based liberal

education sufficed. Subjects have become specialised. Teachers have to

know how to handle this new knowledge. This means a larger outlay on

training teachers and on their salaries and in return taking them

seriously and demanding that they be responsible.

You had spoken of what you called the "blight" of reducing Indian

culture to a single identity, in the period leading up to the

destruction of the Babri Masjid. Do you feel that this type of ideology

has been somewhat diluted today because of other political

developments, or do you think we still face the danger of this "blight"

returning and attempting to project Indian culture in a monochromatic

way?

There are two aspects to this question. One is the political aspect,

the use of the Hindutva ideology to garner votes. We saw this displayed

in the political mobilisation around the Ram Janmabhoomi movement

leading up to the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Echoes of this were

audible in the debate on the Sethu Samudram. And if groups tied to

Hindutva politics find that they are having problems with electoral

support, it may be raked up again. That's one aspect that may at the

moment be somewhat diluted, but it's unpredictable.

What worries me much more is the way in which the ideology of

Hindutva has inveigled much of the middle class into accepting the idea

that we should be only a Hindu country. This is essentially an

unthinking acceptance of an ideology that claims to provide an easy

answer to a complex problem, namely the modernisation of a society that

has always had multiple communities, and it is based on questionable

and erroneous premises rather than what one expects in this day and

age, namely at least a minimum of logical and rational thinking about

the problem. The attitude of treating members of other religious

communities as the "Other", as the ones who are alien, and who will

never be part of "us", that is something that I find unacceptable as it

goes against the grain of the concept of being Indian. It is also

unacceptable because it is historically untenable. Where education has

not succeeded perhaps civil society will be the agency to oppose this

attitude. But if it isn't opposed it will encourage the kind of

politics that can take us to the edge of fascism.

Finally come to your award. You've turned down so many but this Kluge award is different.

The only awards that I've turned down are state awards from

governments. Indian society has yet to respect the academic. It seems

to me that one of the ways of creating respect is to give priority to

recognition from one's peers in a profession and this will require a

distancing from government patronage. I have accepted awards from

historical associations in India including the Indian History Congress

and the Asiatic Society of Calcutta without a moment's hesitation

because this was a gesture from my fellow professionals.

The Kluge award, like the Nobel Prize, draws from a private

donation. John Kluge made his money in media and movies and decided

that he would use it encourage human sciences and humanities. These are

not covered by the Nobel Prize. He located a research centre in the

Library of Congress, so as to attract the best scholars to one of the

leading libraries in the world. Subsequent to that, he established the

Kluge Prize. The selection involves a rigorous process of academic

assessment. Nominations are processed through a series of evaluations

by scholars in a particular field — in my case it was Ancient History

and Indology. The Council of Scholars attached to the Kluge research

centre advises in the choice. The rigour of the academic evaluation

makes it a coveted Prize.http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/index.htm

 

 

-- Should you find yourself the victim of other people's bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them!