Why are we scared of history?

We all know at least one person who is scared of mathematics. The numbers are their worst enemies and even calculators do not turn out to be of much help. But recently there is emerging a section of people who are scared of history. Especially if they are told that what they believed to be true, is not really true. They will get angry. Accuse the others of distortion. Find reasons to trash the counter view. And above all demonise the ones who come up with alternate history.

Most of the anger and disregard for the alternate history is not based on facts. In most of the cases, if not all, the anger stems only because the “new facts” go against what we were taught at school. Or what is widely accepted as truth. Combine it with the personal hatred to a certain ideology and the entire effort of uncovering new facts is branded as politically motivated.

I am Tipu from TV.
For the authentic version please read books
Picture courtesy: Google search

A recent instance where people got very upset with history was the decision to celebrate “Tipu Jayanti” by the Karnataka government. While the Congress government projected Tipu as a “freedom fighter” and hence justified the celebrations. The BJP, on the other hand, said Tipu was actually a tyrant and a religious fanatic hence he should not be celebrated.

If one really wants to get into the details of what really Tipu did during his days, one has to read, a lot. This is obviously a tedious task. So people take to the easy way. They just see who is saying what, with complete disregard to fact, and take sides. If one hates Modi then Tipu was a hero. If one hates Congress then Tipu was a tyrant. It is that simple. Facts have no meaning.

But how did this come about? Well it is not surprising that it has. For a very long time we were fed with history, which was liberally coated with ideology. Starting from our ancient history to years leading up to independence, we have read what a handful of people thought was right for us. For a really nuanced reading on how our history has been adapted, manipulated and changed, one can read “Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their line, Their fraud” by Arun Shourie.

For long we have been fed a filtered out version of history, which suited the establishment. From vehemently supporting the Aryan Invasion Theory to painting a false picture of “Mahatma” Gandhi, it was all done to align the establishment thought with the popular narrative. Though the Aryan Invasion Theory has long been discarded and was replaced with “Aryan Migration Theory” (which also remains controversial), the Mahatma is still the father of the nation. There are many uncomfortable instances from his days in South Africa and later in India. If one really gets to read about them, Gandhi would become a fit case to be tried for domestic violence and abetting man slaughter. But that is a different story.

Back to history. There was a particular interest in canonizing the Mughals by historians. The Indian historians have done it and so have foreign historians. It is because of these efforts that today we fondly remember the Mughal rule as the “golden age” of India. The moment an alternate fact comes to light, we flare up and denounce the messenger as, a “Sanghi”, “fascist”, “nationalist”, “ultra nationalist”, etc. again without any regard to the facts presented. How can we forget the noise created when the name of Aurangzeb Road was changed.

But why are people so upset at someone coming up with a set of historical facts that challenge the status quo? Isn’t that what scholarship is all about? New discoveries, findings and updating our understanding of the past? A simple explanation can be traced to how people read such new facts.

The alternate history of Tipu or that of Aurangzeb, are being seen as anti-Muslim. The narrative being built is that, criticising the Mughals or any of the Muslim rulers from history is an excuse to criticize the entire Muslim community. You can read such instances here and here. Naturally, such reports make people think.

What we do not understand is that what someone did in the middle ages has nothing to do with what is happening today. We as individuals understand that we cannot and should not punish the family, for a criminal act committed by a family member.

Here we are talking about things done hundreds of years ago. How can the Muslims today be held responsible for what Aurangzeb or Tipu did all those years ago? Should be hold responsible the entire Austrian population for the birth of Adolf Hitler? Or for ever be in debt to the Americans for giving us Lincoln? 

History needs a dispassionate mind and a holistic approach for us to understand it. We should not see the acts of medieval and ancient personalities with the lenses of 21st century values. Every single historical figure, from Buddha to the Mahatma, is bound to fail such a test. History should be read and studied as it was. Not as we want it to be.  

Why Women and gender issues activism is becoming farcical

How important are the issues related to woman and gender? Most of us would agree that they are extremely important, since they form almost half of the population. Should we then give priority in dealing with them? Again, most of us would agree to give it a top priority.

India has dedicated a ministry for Women and Child Development with a vision, which states. “Empowered women living with dignity and contributing as equal partners in development in an environment free from violence and discrimination. And, well nurtured children with full opportunities for growth and development in a safe and protective environment.”

Like all the government bodies this ministry is also a bureaucratic machinery, where the wheels of progress turn very slowly. In most of the countries, where it is allowed, a vibrant civil society acts as the conscience keeper of the government. They push, protest and collaborate with the government to ensure the wheels of progress are well oiled and turn at a faster rate.

Various NGOs, international organisations, UN sanctioned organisations and student movements collectively form the civil society that the common woman looks up to. But there is something very disturbing that is emerging in the recent America born and globally dispersed social movements. These movements, mostly organised and controlled on social media, threaten to undo all the good work the civil society has achieved so far.

In the name of social justice and gender equality the social media movement are becoming funnier by the day. From movie reviews to global surveys we have some outrageous things thrown at us as facts. Then there is the trend of innovative hashtags. On the internet, there is no dearth of content to get outraged. Activists get outraged over a film and pour their anger masquerading as a review. In their world there is no scope of artistic freedom of a director, or that of a consenting adult woman who has portrayed the character. They just want to outrage.

The civil society also gangs up against the very women they claim to protect. We saw this happen in the recent events of Supreme Court’s ruling on triple Talaq. Ms. Indu Agnihotri, director of “Centre for Women’s Development Studies”, wrote in Left leaning The Wire on how the BJP government’s interest in abolishing Triple Talaq is more of a political tool than anything else. She is less bothered about the inhuman practice of a unilateral, instant divorce but is casting doubts at the intent of the government. One can assume that for women who suffer such barbarity, it does not really matter who is assisting them.

How can illiterate women know what they want?
Picture courtesy: Google

The case of Flavia Agnes, a women’s right worker and a founding director of Majlis (an NGO). She even submitted a “model nikahnama” to the Supreme Court, which would apparently prevent the cases of Triple Talaq. She believes that interfering in minority affairs is not a good thing and a simple two page nikahnama can stop the problems Muslim women face.

Recently the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charity arm of Thomson Reuters, carried out their annual poll on “world’s most dangerous megacities for women”. A credible name like Thomson Reuters is expected to carry out a thorough job. They chose 19 megacities (as listed by the UN). One would imagine that they would have done some field work, identified the population and the sample size and interviewed women. But all they did was call up 20 “experts” from these cities and take their word for granted. You can read the methodology here. Here the statistics do not matter because for some strange reason the 20 “experts” are the oracles who know everything. The assumptions and beliefs of these experts became data and the results were published. An actual survey/poll would have given a similar result but publishing results based on mere conjecture is taking a serious issue to ludicrous levels.

There are many other instances where one finds that these so called feminist and gender activists are less concerned about the actual issues and are more inclined to grab attention. Why else would these activists indulge in opposing the very values they claim to fight for? 

What we need today is social and financial inclusion of women in our society. We may march down the Rajpath, holding candles, but real women empowerment will not happen unless they are financially independent and at least have access to formal banking. What we need today are organisations that can help women in rural areas to ensure institutional child delivery and immunisation. We need to ensure that all girls have access to schools and proper sanitation facilities. We need people and organisations who can do these dull, tiring and thankless jobs.