Righting the Past

 

 

Righting the past

Sometime back there was a controversy regarding confederate statues in some states of USA. According to some people, they were erected to commemorate the valor, statesmanship and fighting spirit of historic personalities . They had fought to keep intact the federal structure. That is what they said. Internal civil war happened in USA for preserving the integrity of federal structure and not for preserving slavery.

For many others , particularly Afro Americans, it meant celebration of injustice, cruelty and justification of slavery. It was an affront to many to see the statues in public places and reminding them of their painful past and the bitter irony of perpetrators of cruelty and oppression on a pedestal looking down on them as it were.

The protesters wanted to destroy the statues ; the  moderates wanted  to put the statues inside a museum. There were some who  wanted  to maintain the status quo and said ‘ let history remain as it is ‘ and in some cases did not even agree that those historic personalities were bad. They were also worried that if the logic of removing these symbols gets stretched further , then it could mean many more monuments would be in danger. Some founding fathers of USA were slave owners and that had not bothered their ( founding fathers’ ) conscience at all. What do we do with their statues and monuments ?

From preamble to US constitution :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^{[note 1]} promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ;

It was obvious that ‘ ourselves ‘ did not include or was supposed to include slaves.

I try to translate or relocate the ideas to our context in India so that I can  ‘ feel  ‘ the issues better.

Imagine a statue of Gen Dyer overlooking Jalianwala bag.

One could say that there would be unanimity in removing it as it would find no admirers.

So would a bust of say, Churchill, in Raj Marg in New Delhi or in Calcutta.

( Churchill was an evil person in many respects. Look at some of his gems :

‘ I hate Indians .they are a  beastly people with a beastly religion ‘ ;

..he ‘ ought to be chain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back ‘

    ‘ he ‘ being Mahatma Gandhi.

‘ I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes ‘… ‘ it will create a lively terror ‘

 Bengal famine of 1942 was man made. A total of 3 million people died. British ruler , whoever it was, in Calcutta had the means to save them. When ships carrying food grains came to Calcutta, Churchill , over riding concerns of local British officials , had them diverted to Europe. When a note came from India for help as thousands were dying , he wrote in the margin  ‘ why hasn’t Gandhi  died  yet ?‘ )

In one poll , British voted Churchill as ‘ greatest Briton ever ‘ ( princess Diana was placed third ! )

Hitler’s statue anywhere would be simply anathema to everyone.

But not Mao, Stalin, Bush , Blair or Laden … I am sure there are many pockets in the world where they have their admirers.

Indira Gandhi’s  statue in Punjab , say in  Amritsar. Same fate, though there could be some protests.

No problems if her statue were in Chickamagaluru.

There is a ‘ stupa ‘ inside the ‘ holy ‘ Golden temple of Amritsar dedicated to ‘ Sant ‘ Binderanvale . In his ‘ glory ‘ days  he had huge arms and militants inside the temple . No one is concerned about it. Let it be.  He is a sant.

There is a memorial in Marina beach for recently convicted and dead Jayalalitha.  We walk by.

Lord Elgin in 1800 got a ‘ firman ‘ from Sultan of Ottoman empire to go to Greece to inspect, study, make sketches , excavate near Parthenon . He abused his permission and dismantled, removed half of Parthenon to England. This included artifacts, statues, doors, panels  ( Sultan cared less ) and this formed the Elgin gallery in British Museum. Greece on becoming free in 1830 started to demand the return of looted treasures . Britain has not agreed. Lord Elgin’s statue is in British Museum and many visitors  look at it with admiration. Greeks treat him as thief and plunderer. (We were in both the places and experienced it first hand ). More to the point , whose history should govern our actions ?

Taliban destroyed statues of Buddha built in 6 th century claiming it offends Islam. Of course there was world wide condemnation. I have no hesitation in condemning such brutal acts. Indians of all shades, left, centre and right were unanimous in this.

Some years earlier a mosque in Ayodhya (Babri Masjid ) was destroyed by a well prepared mob encouraged by many leaders of BJP and RSS. Volunteers came from all parts of India. I remember a PuC student from Hanumanthanagar who went to participate in the great event. Admittedly Babri Masjid is no Buddha Statue in beauty, architecture or historical importance. The point to be noted is that it was destroyed because it reminded some of us of the injustices of the past. The entire hysteria was quickly whipped up by a few committed leaders.

I felt similar emotions in Paris and in outskirts of Moscow. There is a magnificent victory gate in Paris commemorating Napoleon’s conquests.

 

 

In  the outskirts of Moscow, there is a memorial and a fresco depicting the valor and sacrifice of Russians in halting the army of Napoleon and humiliating him.

 

 

 

Again what do we do with such monuments ? Fortunately both countries are separated geographically and can live in their own worlds undisturbed .

When we were in Scotland, our guide talked about Norman invasion.  William the conqueror for others but we call him William the bastard, he said gleefully.

In Peru, our guide lamented the fact that Spanish invasion was so destructive. A few moments later pointing to some artifact he waxed eloquently on how Inca empire was built from one tribe over powering the others and establishing Inca empire covering Peru, Chile and other countries in South America.

 

Strange amalgamations happen. Spain invaded many South American countries in the first decade of 16 th century .The local population lost its power, religion , language and culture. Spanish were brutal. They forcefully converted the locals into Christianity. They also married local women. Over time many in the population were of mixed parentage. The sensitive ones, such as our guide in Peru, felt torn between the father’s side ( Spanish ) and mother’s side ( local ).On one hand they resented the loss of roots, felt subjugated and humiliated and on the other hand they spoke Spanish language , attended Christian churches , listened to greatness of Spain by their fathers and carried features of both sides. ‘ What can I do ? Whom do I resent ? ‘, one exclaimed.

To India the Muslims came in small numbers but settled down. Over time by force, coercion and by people’s opportunism many converted to Islam. They were not ‘ outsiders ‘ . They were our cousins. Now when we , majority Hindus, condemn Muslim invasion, conversions, destruction of temples we almost point towards the present day Muslims and hold them somehow responsible. We want them to repent, disown or condemn. Muslims, often uneducated, not accepted by majority, have only one bond with fellow Muslims  -- that of religion. They do not have any space to own, no culture to talk about, no achievements to feel proud of. Their contribution to literature, music, dance is minimal except when religion plays no role or an insignificant role. Compare  their involvement in Carnatik music vs Hindustani, contribution to literature in Kannada ( small ) vs in Malayalam ( much larger ). Both Hindus , by their exclusiveness and anger at the past  , and Muslims, by their rigidity, foolishness, lack of leadership, overwhelming and pernicious influence of Islam have created a chasm.

 

Dalits have a different problem. Hindus, not only ‘ upper ‘ castes but also other castes have treated Dalits inhumanly for several centuries , perhaps for more than 2000 years. We can find many references in Mahabharata , Manu Dharma Shastra and even in Vedas. We expect Dalits to respect and worship our gods, pray at our temples ( though not allowed inside ) , venerate Sanskrit ( they were not allowed to learn ) and take pride in our culture ( but make sure they don’t hear anyone reciting Vedas ; do not allow even a shadow of a Dalit to fall on a upper caste person ; however, all are equal in the eyes of God in our religion ). But , mind you , no social interactions. Menial jobs are ok. Definitely no marriages between us and them ( ‘ Shiva , ‘ Shiva ‘ ).

Dalits are worse off than Muslims. Dalits have no pride . What can they claim ? No kings, no gods, no musicians, no literary figures, no noble men, no icons and not even glorious myths .  We, non Dalits  , have robbed them of the past , robbed them of history . They have painful memory, full of anger and shame.

A curious thing happens when an infrequent social interaction happens. If a Hindu boy marries a Muslim girl there is resentment. If Hindu has a Muslim mistress it is ok. Same with Dalits. But reverse it and hell breaks out. A Brahmin girl (or for that matter any Hindu ) marrying a Muslim boy or a Dalit boy is unpardonable. At work is our male domination treating women as property . In our texts there are different types of punishment, what one gets in the next birth depending on various permutations and combinations of ‘ mixed ‘ interactions. As Amartya Sent says some where, a poor, Dalit , woman is the worst in India amongst all .

Now if there is a memorial to Manu ( of Manu dharma Shastra ) or Chanakya or for that matter for any Hindu God, Demi god, King or Noble man , one can easily see how and why a sensitive, well informed Dalit   would squirm.

In such situation how do we view symbols of past ?

So, some offends us all, some symbols offend only a section of the people, some symbols are supported by a section and hated by others. What do we do ? Who decides ?

In a democracy one could argue that if majority decide to take action it should be accepted. This sets a dangerous trend of ignoring the rest. For example it is not inconceivable for majority in India ( Hindus in this case ) to decide  ( an evil person can create a mass hysteria ) that all mosques should be brought down. Democracy has meaning only if minorities have rights that are protected. Going further , in local situations , Karnataka can refuse to release water to TN ( majority of Kannada speaking people would support ) , in Haryana majority could decide how women should behave in public etc. What happens to our constitution, our judiciary , our minorities.

There is another issue. When we think of statues, monuments, symbols of the past – leaders, events, myths – how far back should we go ?

One view is that if in ‘ living memory ‘ incidents have happened and principal actors had lived , then it is an  ‘ affront ‘ to put their figures in public or commemorate them by naming things ( gardens, Laboratories, , Universities etc ).

First , does ‘Living memory ‘ stretch to  100 years or 200 years or more ?

one ,two, several generations ?

Muslim rulers destroyed and looted temples and forcefully converted people to Islam , missionaries did it with money ; not all conversions were like that ; It happened 500 or 700 years back with Muslims. What can we do now ?

Dalits abused for two thousand years

 

Next,  what do we do when the past is not clear ?

No one is certain if Rani Padmavati story really happened .

Did Babar actually destroy the temple in Ayodhya ( he must have done many such heinous deeds elsewhere ), was the Hindu temple built on a destroyed Buddhist place of worship ? None of these can be answered with certainty let alone if this site was indeed the birth place of Rama.

Second , affront to whom ?

  The other aspect of the argument is that if the action / behavior of questionable characters  ( Babar, Manu, founding fathers of USA, slave traders of Britain , many of our gurus of past who supported untouchability etc. )  was according to norms of that age then it is ok. You can not and should not judge them by today’s yardsticks. Does it mean :

The founding fathers of USA were  fine.

Slave traders in Britain, colonial rulers supposedly bringing ‘ justice’, proper behavior, democracy, rule of law were commendable because at that time a few ( hundreds or thousands ) natives getting killed, raped, maimed was ok from larger point of view. There are many landmarks in Britain , chairs in universities and libraries, colleges bearing the names of people who prospered because of slave trade. In fact many middle class people happily prospered investing in businesses of slave trade.

Collateral damage was ok as USA and Britain felt in Iraq war. That translated into a few thousands of innocent men, women and children dying, millions losing their property and livelihood.

American massacre of local Indians, Australians wiping out aborigines , Spanish brutality in South America are all ok as the norms at that time never counted slaves, natives or any one looking different as human. All can be justified.

Now a personal introspection :

If I feel upset if a statue of Churchill or Dyer is put up, is it fair to object if a rightist Hindu is upset about a mosque on a destroyed ( real or imaginary ) temple ? 

Do I have a solution  ?

1.       Do not create new monuments , symbols without sufficient thought. In modern times particularly for us in India it is a waste of scarce resources. Gardens, parks, play grounds, institutions, scholarships, blood banks and welfare schemes are needed and they can carry the names of whomsoever we respect.

2.       Existing ones should be exhibited with appropriate comments. Whether it is the brutality of invader, ill treatment of people, cruelty , slavery all should find a place. If there is a mosque standing on a temple destroyed it should be mentioned.

3.       Teaching of history should be dispassionate, factual and with out close identification of ‘ us ‘ of present  with ‘ them ‘ of the past. If appropriate alternative view points should be brought to the attention of students. It should be like us studying European history. While we may have a point of view we normally don’t get passionately involved.

4.       Glorification of killings, looting, expansion , wars should be eschewed. Whether it is Raja Raja Chola conquering Sri Lanka and killing thousands or Ghazni or Zhageskhan  or Alexander ( why call them ‘ great ‘ ) killing people are all abhorrent.

5.       Does that apply to Rama or Yudhistira expanding his kingdom and killing all who opposed him in Rajasuya  Yaga  , Muslim rulers and invaders causing destruction, missionaries and their imperialist supporters wiping out cultures – all are abhorrent.

6.       School books should be thoroughly checked. ‘ Rajput pride ‘, ‘Tamil pride ‘ , ‘  Shivaji Maharaj  ki Jai ‘ have no place in history.

7.       Lastly we are not one story country. Our strength, beauty and reality is in diversity. Artificially creating one narrative across the country is plain stupidity and is being tried with ulterior motives. We are a multi colored carpet with enormously rich design. This should be imbibed in us.

               What do you think ?