Search This Blog

Friday, June 3, 2011

A nation without history




As a kid, I was not fond of history. But then, if I think back at the text of the history books those days, it was perhaps to be expected. The history books were boring, and basically comprised of dates when rulers ascended the throne, won or lost wars, or kicked the bucket. Life apparently did not have mentionable events those days, except for rulers coming and going.






But, it should not have been like that. Life was most certainly not drab, without dynamism and air brushed in a uniform shade of gray.




And today, while I read history of items that take my fancy, I realize how little there is to read, about the history of India, of Bengal, and of our past, in language and format that makes it interesting not only to learn, but to debate and discuss.




Take the life and times of Kalidasa, one of the greatest literary genius of the Sanskrit era. What was it like to live in those times, both in cities and serve the king’s court, or to live in the forest and collect honey ? How did the economy work ? What were the social movements shaping up? Was the divide between the Hindu and Muslims already deep ? Was there even a recognizable divide ?




Or, let us say the events leading to the discovery of Harappa and Mahenjodaro by Rakhaldas Bannerjee. Who was the monk that lead Bannerjee in 1922 to the site. Why did he (the monk) suspect that it was a Budhhist Stupa. What else did Rakhaladas Bannerjee discover ? How did the discovery of Mohenjodaro play out in the next few years with the traditional understanding of Indian history ?




Or, how about the arrival of the French at the Bay of Bengal. There are references in records of frenchmen (ref : Three Frenchmen in Bengal/ The Commercial Ruin of the French Settlements in 1757). According to records kept by these gentlemen, the French established a presence, a French version of the East India Company, separate from the Dutch and the English versions, in the 1660s, and Emperor Aurangzeb ceded, or handed over, the territory around todays Chandannagar, near the river Hoogly, to France as early as 1688. I wonder why the indian part of the deed and the deal is not a subject well known in Bengal and why this is not a topic of discussion that I can see on the paper or see on the TV, even on a history channel. What prompted Aurangzeb to hand over Candannagar to France ? How did he dare do that without the knowledge or involvement of anybody living in or around the place ? What did Aurangzeb get in return ?




I wish questions like these are debated, discussed and analyzed, so we can have as much grasp on our own history, where we came from and how. It might help us get a better grip on our own past, and perhaps help us conceptualize the future. Any case, it is information that appears relevant enough to have merited national attention at some level.




I find it easier to dig history of other nations, but not of our own. Why not ?




History of Hinduism




Take the way Hinduism evolved and sprouted a multiplicity of Gods. That wasn’t how it started. The evolution of the faith based practices themselves have historical links, and discussing these would help place the so called faith or religion in its proper perspective. Look at it this way - Hindu is not even a word coined by folks practicing the so called religion. Its a name given by Persians and most likely was related to a river, which is no more in India, rather than any religion. Look at it another way - there are folks vegetarian, because they claim they are Hindu. Then there are folks that eat meat, because they claim they are Hindu. There are a huge number of folks that do not eat beef, because they are Hindu. There are also folks that do eat beef, because they claim they are Hindu. There were old sages in mythology, that readily ate everything, including horses and beef, and they were the pioneers that created Hinduism as we know it today.




So …. The evolution of religious practices, and how much of these practices have anything to do with religion per se, and how much local custom of the time and place that is made to appear as if it is linked to religion - are subjects that should have been part of history and part of a social discourse and study.

No comments: