We all have a shared history. The problem is that we tend to remember it differently. History inspires a lot of passion because it strikes at the heart of how we perceive ourselves. We all like to see ourselves and our nation as having been a force for (perhaps ultimate) good. In this regard, colonialism inspires a lot of passion. The thing is that there are many factors which together affect both the happening and outcome of any historical event. To separate one strand from all rest is to view history in monochrome instead of technicolor.
Take colonialism as an example. I wrote in an earlier post (Perspectives on History - Part I) that the same historical event will be viewed and remembered differently by the participants. Their perspectives will be different along with the lessons regarding themselves that they draw. Colonialism shows this to an high degree. Was the impact of colonialism on the conquered peoples positive or negative? Arguments can be drawn for both sides. Consider India. It was ruled by the British for almost 150 years first through a proxy - the East India Company and then directly. Did India benefit? This question and questions like this for other parts of the world draw rather polarized responses. On the positive side, the British introduced modern physical infrastructure like railways and later roads and electricity. They built an excellent irrigation system that brought large areas of new land under cultivation. They imposed law and order on what had previously been lawless areas. They introduced a bureaucracy generally considered to be incorruptible. They left behind traditions of parliamentary democracy. Both India and Pakistan have benefited from exposure to English which has become a global language. On the other hand, they destroyed India's textile industry so that the British one could benefit. The physical infrastructure they did build was done so keeping in mind the Empire's needs. The needs of the people were not a paramount consideration. Indians were allowed into the higher levels of government very grudgingly and only after strong popular pressure. Even then the needs of the Empire took precedence. For example, the Government of India declared war on Japan and Germany without consulting any Indian politician. The bureaucracy they introduced was paternalistic and patronizing. This bureaucracy considered that it knew best what was good for the people under its control. So which view is correct? The answer is it depends. For a truer, more complete picture, all these different factors need to be kept in mind.
History is too rich a tapestry to be watered down. Doing so results in a far poorer understanding of where we come from. As a result we will not understand our present and will fail to understand the course of our future.
No comments:
Post a Comment