Therefore, when History makes a comeback, in the form of a pandemic stalling the world, locusts bringing back the spectre of famine or even the prospect of a real war between two nuclear armed rivals, it's somewhat disconcerting for us. Our lives have been pampered by peace and cocooned within a commercial society, so much so that our modern prophets can speak comfortably about the better angels of our nature. We have come to believe that the violent force of History belongs to the fringes - in Palestinian Refugee camps, at the barracks of Xinjiang, in the depths of Tora Bora or over the Sahelian expanses of Mali - and not within the scope of our neat, predictable lives. We are, therefore, shocked when it shows up mid-town. Our comfortable assumption that bad things happen to queer people is shattered; we, at different turns, discover our individual helpless 'minoritiness'. History knocks our door now and it reminds us of one of the most perceptive misquotations: There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.
What is a Historian to do at this moment of history? They may feel quite out of practise, as nothing of import hadn't crossed their desk for quite some time, and quite out of focus, as academic fashions and funding priorities driven them into the marginals and the specialities. With the forms of society settled, imagination firmly domesticated with mortgages and the hopes and visions of progress outsourced to tech billionaires, they never expected to be called upon again to big questions. At best a bestseller, at best a literary prize, at best an academic chair if they have done well: TV personality is as far their public engagement could have gone. But they are now waking up to History just like everyone else right now. It is like one of those terrifying dream moments when they feel naked in a public square, without their voice just as everyone turns to them for some answer. Of course, they have been in the news and their fortunes have ebbed and flowed with the rise and fall of one political sentiment or other; but they have totally forgotten about how to be in charge of the future. They are now called in, like the historians of an earlier, forgotten, generation, to tell the future and guide the public into it.
They may feel clumsy, they may feel totally inadequate, but there is no escape. That's what History does to its students - lock them in, demand of them a voice! It feels them with dread, with the knowledge of terrifying repeatability. And, yet, they can draw no comfort - or lessons - from the past of their profession, from a time when sage historians were looked up to and their words counted. They are dealing with a different reality altogether, with a storm-surge of conspiracy theories, with attention limited to 280 characters! No one cares for the truth, unattainable as it is, but they must come up with clear and unambiguous formula that solves everything and everyone can understand. They ought to, in other word, capture and tame History with a big H within the straitjacket of history with a small one.
Let's call this one-handed history! This new narrative leaves no space for anything being on the other hand. Anything equivocal will be mercilessly treated as a mistake and will be turned against the argument; the stewardship of the future will be stolen by those who would rather create history. The scholarly humility must give way to polemical hubris, methodical integrity must be sacrificed at the altar of intention. There is justification in carry this out in name of public education, to satisfy the demands of the role imposed upon the historian, for being the prophet that the people desired of them.
But there lies the historians' dilemma. Of everyone, they are the most acutely aware of the problems of prophecy. They should be awry of appropriating the visions of the future, of arrogating themselves beyond the analytical, into the normative. Reasonable doubt isn't a professional hazard for the historian, it's a rite of passage, fundamental to the scholarly claim of the trade. The abruptness of the moment of History is just what all those practitioners, who studied, doubted and debated, who gave the full measures of their devotion before us in the house of history, prepared us for. For all fragmentation of our experience, there is that central truth of experience that every historian will know - that History never ends, even if we fail to perceive it. Its dramatic moments are at once dramatic and only mere specks of the expanse of time, its purposeful designs only hold within themselves endless and unknowable complexities of interactivities of natural, social and personal world, of realities and ideas, of desires and dreams, of agencies and limitations. The Historians' job, even at this crucial hour, is not to reduce complexity and box it into easy capsules of history, but rather to devote themselves to the intricacies of our very existence. The historian's popular engagement, no doubt important, must rise above popular entertainment; that, and only that, would allow them to keep their tryst with destiny.
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
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
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
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
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
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,
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. Reli
India's employment data is sobering ( see here ). The pandemic has wrecked havoc and the structural problems of the economy - service sector dependence, uneven regional development and health and education challenges - are more evident than ever. Something needs to happen, and fast. To its credit, the government acknowledges the education challenge. Belatedly - it took more than 30 years - India has come up with a new National Education Policy. It is a comprehensive policy, which covers the whole spectrum of education and perhaps overcompensates the previous neglect by advocating radical change. As I commented elsewhere on this blog, it shows a curious mixture of aspirations, cultural revival and global competitiveness put under the same hood. However, despite its radical aspirations, the policy document often betrays same-old thinking. One of these is India's approach to foreign universities. The NEP makes the case for allowing foreign universities to set up operations in Ind
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
Italy recently apologised to Libya for its occupation of the country between 1911 and the Second Word War and offered an investment deal of $5 Billion over next 25 years towards reparation. This is largely symbolic, and investment deals could have been done without adding this moral halo . But the apology itself is an important step. The key question is one of principle, indeed. It is about whether the occupying countries do accept that their colonial exploits did enormous harm to the occupied, and whether they are ready to accept the responsibility. As the world becomes more sensitive towards the wrongness of occupation [even George Bush was heard saying that occupation of Georgia by Russia is unthinkable in the 21st century!!], and the world justice system gears up to try the leaders causing genocide and violence, paying for past crimes - including occupation - becomes ever more relevant and important. There are several issues which are still hotly debated - slavery, for example,
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.