Alternative history is usually treated as nonsense or worse - by historians! Justifiably so, as there is so much falsification of history already. At a time of battle against the alternative facts, it is best to stand guard against the intrusion of even the slightest hint of imaginary history-making.
What-ifs have no space in real life. History has happened, irreversibly so it seems, and there is no point going back on what could have happened. But, in that very statement itself, there is a hint why alternative historical imaginary may be useful. History may have happened, but it was no way inevitable: Speculations of alternative history guards against the tendency of treating history as it happened as inevitable; emphasising the contingency leads to an escape from teleology trap.
So, that was my indulgence on a World Cup free day: What if the British did never rule India? Sure, they did rule India, for about 190 years starting the triumph in Bengal, and now we see that obvious - the greatest industrial nation in history has had to win! And, thereon, a straight logical step to the superior character of the Anglo-Saxon race, the world-conquering power of science - no less a speculation after all!
As I delved more into the what-ifs, it opened up two different sets of ideas, contingencies and possibilities. Contingencies, why the East India Company could capture power as they did, point to factors that contributed to the change, the space for what-ifs, and possibilities appear thereof.
In the Eighteenth century, the British were one, and not the preeminent one, power in India. It is the disarray of the Mughal empire, after the death of Aurangzeb, that created various smaller principalities: Without the musical chair at the Peacock Throne, before the Throne itself was carried away by Nadir Shah as a booty, there would have been a different history of India. And, indeed, one can go back further : Aurangzeb was a severe and successful emperor, but he started as a mere pretender to the throne of his father, the great Shahjahan, eventually winning battles against his brothers - the cerebral Darah Shokoh, the hedonist Sujah and the loyal Murad - and imprisoning his father and the sisters. That poisoned legacy carried on: While the five great Mughal emperors ruled India for about 180 years, the next 50 years would see no less than nine emperors, three of whom would be murdered and three deposed. Primogeniture could have changed Indian history perhaps.
Britain, at a comparable point in its history, was consolidating, rather than fragmenting. Scotland was securely attached, and highlander energies were, after some trouble, were safely channelled into fighting overseas wars. Also, the waning of the French threat, after the seven years war in mid-eighteenth century helped greatly. And, in an immensely fortuitous turn of events, this is the precise time when the Marathas, who had become the pre-eminent power in India turning the Mughal emperor into their vassal in all but name, would have the run-in with Ahmad Shah Durrani and be defeated in the Third battle of Panipat. Like the previous two occasions, this battle of Panipat would change Indian history again, and over the next hundred years, the English would defeat the weakened and divided Marathas again and again, finally taking over the power in Delhi in 1857.
If one looks at the history of British India this way - and indeed, this is just one way of looking at it - it suddenly opens up a few questions that are never asked. Instead of treating the battle of Plassey as the pivot point of Indian history, as is usually done, what if one indulges in the possibility of a Maratha victory in Panipat? Indeed, one could wish away Panipat altogether, but, even in the land of alternative history, it is best to assume that two rising powers, Marathas reaching out westward and the Afghans aching to go south were to come to blows at some point. A victory in Panipat would have seen off the challenges for a generation, and also would have integrated the Sikh principality, which will grow in the power vacuum after the defeat of the Marathas, into the Maratha India.
There is a fiction in the British historiography that the British power created the united, modern India. In fact, Lord Dalhousie can indeed be credited with the political unification of India in the Nineteenth century: But he was not, as the story is told, replacing the Mughal Empire, which was foreign in origin and culture, and was in a hundred year decline. He was effectively finishing off the jobs that his predecessors started by replacing the Marathas. The alternative story of India could have been a Maratha ruled one, which would have reconfigured not just Indian polity but also its culture. In fact, this is the narrative that underpins the political ideology of Hindu nationalism today, though the approach is not one of historical analysis but one that liberally fabricates myths.
And, in this, one must read the warning of History: As the alternative history highlights the contingencies, it also reveals the reality of why that did not happen. I am no expert of Maratha history - sadly - but the tale of Third Battle of Panipat is well-known: It is the majoritarianism of the Marathas, that led to the division of the ranks; the inward-looking approaches and personality cult limited innovation and popular participation. Indeed, Marathas were not just battling the Afghan invaders, but also the forces of Awadh, a principality nominally under the Mughal emperor, the chief sponsor of Marathas in the battle. These are lessons one can do with even in today's India. Indulging in alternative history should not be about living in a fantasy land: It should be looking at reality through the prism of contingencies, not to repeat past mistakes but to appreciate missed opportunities.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Religi
This post is a reaction to Aatish Taseer's evocative obituary of secular India in the Atlantic ( read here ). While I agree with it mostly - and share the reservations about the direction and the future of India - I differ with the author on one key aspect: I do not agree with his portrayal of a resurgent Bharat eating up a secular India. In fact, I believe while Mr Taseer regrets the Indian elite's loss of connection with the realities of day to day life of the country, his very presentation of Bharat and India as oppositional entities stems from that incomprehension. While I understand that he is only using these categories as RSS uses them - to effectively other the English-speaking elites and non-Hindus - I believe it is a mistake to describe the profound changes in contemporary India as the ascendance of Bharat. I grew up in Bharat. I never learnt English until late in life, when I started working. My growing-up world was one of small-town India, vernacu
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen was gui
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was, as
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A lot of conversations about Kolkata is about its past; I want to talk about its future. Most conversations about Kolkata is about its decline - its golden moments and how times changed; I want to talk about its rise, how its best may lie ahead and how we can change the times. In place of pessimism, I seek optimism; instead of inertia, I am looking for imagination. It is not about catching up, I am arguing; it is about making a new path altogether. It had, indeed it had, a glorious past: One of the first Asian cities to reach a million population, the Capital of British India, the cradle of an Enlightened Age and a new politics of Cosmopolitanism. And, it had stumbled - losing the hinterland that supplied its Jute factories, overwhelmed by the refugees that came after the partition, devoid of its professional class who chose to emigrate - the City's commercial and professional culture evaporated in a generation, and it transformed into a corrupt and inefficien
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.