While reading history, one of my simmering questions was what
exactly happened during some events in our history (especially our struggle for independence) and also I couldn't
fully accept that events were always planned out and happened
accordingly and discerned with absolute clarity, but this
was the view one got from reading most textbooks I was familiar with in school.
The uncertainty and suspense that was the order of the day is painted
over with glorious achievements and simplification of events with mere
irrefutable facts, dates, distances covered on foot and number of
protestors arrested.
The torment and questions that individuals faced, the uncertainty that gripped the nation, games of intrigue that were played and influences that some characters had in the course of events due to obsessions and idiosyncrasies and personal motives are all hidden when we read history in the larger context of mere happenings. There are records of how many soldiers were killed and by how many in each war, but we should be more interested in knowing why, which is rarely answered in our books except in bullet points, with an easily explained set of reasons, as if the actions of men can be explained ever in such simple terms. One glance back at our day will prove that we have taken numerous decisions without reason, many of them against reason and logic and many of them defying our own understanding of self. It is this inconsistency that history covers up with an objective rendering of events.
When I read "The Great Indian Novel", although a work of fiction, I was introduced to such an aspect of story-telling. Rather than just the 'hows', it also dwelt on the 'whys' in a subtle and funny way. I accept that it is a work of fiction because not even the movers of events of the time knew fully why they did it and what its outcomes would be, but the fact that they didn't always (perhaps only very rarely) comprehend events completely itself is never realised by us while studying history. Individuals portrayed as larger than life figures with honorific titles mean that their human aspect is not an angle explored by many, which in itself is not an issue because we do not concern ourselves with the lives of individuals but with events.
But this simplification of actions and subsequent beatification of individuals due to the result of actions and events they were part of has lead to the infallibility of the individual. We see personality cults regularly and politicians exploit it to perpetuate their hold on the people, for some of them cannot accept these leaders as humans who will be affected by old age and disease and vicissitudes of fate and temptation like every human being. Perhaps we would like to believe there are certain individuals who know things for certain, we would like to believe that there is someone in charge who is absolutely sure of what he is doing and what its effects will be, whereas the truth is, no one in this world is sure of anything except the breath we are taking at this moment, right now.
Perhaps our history books should be rewritten to present our great leaders and thinkers and scientists as humans, it might shatter a few idols, but it would also allow us to understand them better and we could use that to be better individuals ourselves. Perhaps we need to see them as ourselves and our fellow beings, understand that they had flaws and faced doubts and uncertainties like us, but also realise they are remembered for contributing to humanity with a life circumscribed by human-hood. It is possible for us to be the next Steve Jobs or Vishwanathan Anand or Dennis Ritchie or Vivekananda, we just need to understand that our limitations in one aspect does not have to stand in the hundreds of ways in which we can achieve success and happiness and contribute to humanity.
The torment and questions that individuals faced, the uncertainty that gripped the nation, games of intrigue that were played and influences that some characters had in the course of events due to obsessions and idiosyncrasies and personal motives are all hidden when we read history in the larger context of mere happenings. There are records of how many soldiers were killed and by how many in each war, but we should be more interested in knowing why, which is rarely answered in our books except in bullet points, with an easily explained set of reasons, as if the actions of men can be explained ever in such simple terms. One glance back at our day will prove that we have taken numerous decisions without reason, many of them against reason and logic and many of them defying our own understanding of self. It is this inconsistency that history covers up with an objective rendering of events.
When I read "The Great Indian Novel", although a work of fiction, I was introduced to such an aspect of story-telling. Rather than just the 'hows', it also dwelt on the 'whys' in a subtle and funny way. I accept that it is a work of fiction because not even the movers of events of the time knew fully why they did it and what its outcomes would be, but the fact that they didn't always (perhaps only very rarely) comprehend events completely itself is never realised by us while studying history. Individuals portrayed as larger than life figures with honorific titles mean that their human aspect is not an angle explored by many, which in itself is not an issue because we do not concern ourselves with the lives of individuals but with events.
But this simplification of actions and subsequent beatification of individuals due to the result of actions and events they were part of has lead to the infallibility of the individual. We see personality cults regularly and politicians exploit it to perpetuate their hold on the people, for some of them cannot accept these leaders as humans who will be affected by old age and disease and vicissitudes of fate and temptation like every human being. Perhaps we would like to believe there are certain individuals who know things for certain, we would like to believe that there is someone in charge who is absolutely sure of what he is doing and what its effects will be, whereas the truth is, no one in this world is sure of anything except the breath we are taking at this moment, right now.
Perhaps our history books should be rewritten to present our great leaders and thinkers and scientists as humans, it might shatter a few idols, but it would also allow us to understand them better and we could use that to be better individuals ourselves. Perhaps we need to see them as ourselves and our fellow beings, understand that they had flaws and faced doubts and uncertainties like us, but also realise they are remembered for contributing to humanity with a life circumscribed by human-hood. It is possible for us to be the next Steve Jobs or Vishwanathan Anand or Dennis Ritchie or Vivekananda, we just need to understand that our limitations in one aspect does not have to stand in the hundreds of ways in which we can achieve success and happiness and contribute to humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment