 |
Post Page Rank |
In our history text books we give a lot of importance to the freedom struggle and the patriots who fought against the British. And many a times most of the descriptions are emotional in nature. Does this present a problem ? Should history and emotions be mixed ?
History should be taught like mathematics. Provide simple facts are figures to the students. If there is a something thats is a controversy then let it remain a controversy. If there are 2 versions of a story then let the student decide which one has more probability of being the truth.
The following are some random questions that came to my mind while thinking about the history of India.
Should I consider Tippu Sultan an Indian and a patriot just because he fought the British. Should I forget the fact that he had attacked Kerala. For me he is just another King who wanted to expand his kingdom. There is no way Im gonna respect him.
The same applies to Chatrapathi Shivaji. Its sad to see ShivSena people in Kerala, while we dont have any Pazhassi Sena or Marthanda Sena here. Should we forget the fact that their counterparts wants to drive every non Maharashtrian out of Maharashtra.
Why are we not being taught the fact that India was united using force and there were a lot of struggles against the forced unification. Why are we not teaching the mistakes that our great leaders did, especially the ones we are taught to respect soo much. Eg :- Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi.
Did we had to fight the Bangladesh war, and earn another enemy ? Why did we spill the blood of our own soldiers for SriLanka, did we gain anything out of it, other than earn a few enemies.
Was Kashmir really a part of India ? Was it one of the big mistakes Nehru did ?
Who is our greatest enemy, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia ?
Why is Sir CP considered a bad person while every other stupid King in Kerala is given the image of a freedom fighter. He did more reform work in Kerala than 50 years of Independence.
And the list continues with lots of questions that I dont dare to ask.
|
|
|
|
 |
Related posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
21 comments ↓
You are rite..
If you read Sherlock Holmes, you ll know how the British elite and government treated their poor and middle class.
India was this whole nation of poor and middle class people, which logically turns out that they never discriminated against the Indians at all. It just was the way they treated pple who wer less fortunate anywhere in the World.
If India would have stuck on with the British by not demanding a free state, we would have been under the empire and would have seen as good a social and economic status as the British pple are now.. Or at least like that of New Zealand or Australia..
Kenney,
There is no emotional relationship with historical figures, i think.
History is not only the story of past things, but the story of the present in future also.
Consider the members in current politics or social activities. Do you have an emotional attachment with any of them. Some events might be there to be noted.
For example T.N.sheshan made the feeling that there is a post for Election Commision. He is know as the WAKE-UP ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA .
Refusal of sonia gadhi for the prime minister post of india etc are some memorable incidents. But they are not our heros or we are not their fans. What our future citizens think about V.S or A.K if there is no twisting in the facts of current stories
So, i second your opinion that history is just like mathematics. Provide simple facts and figures.
What is history?? …. its nothing but propaganda where the winners decide what the masses should and should not know. I believe every event in history has three perspectives- the winner’s perspective (which is what is forced into our throat), the loser’s perspective (which somehow gets lost) and finally the balanced perspective as seen from the eyes of a third person (which is what i believe should be actually ‘history’).
I wonder if Hitler had won the 2nd world war would we have not considered the Allied forces as the villains of the piece and hailed Hitler as the Hero ??
Here you are standing for CP. I think the British had done more reforms than CP . Would you prefer to live under the ruling of British in India?
@Sarath
Have you ever noticed that many are migrating to the UK ?
Think about the population of Inida with this count.
Ha ha ha.. do you think they will allow every Tom Dick and Harry there ?
Yes , you said it…they are considering us as “Dick and Harry”
Before oppressing someone please throughly understand the circumstances. Tipu Sulthan was a king at the time when more 300 kings were ruling India. He had made an attempt to unite all these countries but failed. Freedom struggles against the British should have been avoided if the people of India were comfortable with their ruling. same in the case of CP.
@Sarath
Let me rephrase your sentence
Tippu Sulthan made an attempt to expand his empire by attacking and conquering his neighbouring states.
Hello friends,
I feel that history always intrepreted in eyes of the historian….. its not a subject like maths etc, where 1+1=2 whether Kenny or me calculates….. For example, in my eyes, Sir C.P Ramaswam iyer was great and he was a legendary reformer…… Likewise I feel, the rule of H.H Maharaja Chitra Thirunal in Travancore was a golden period. But Kenny feels, that kings were stupid……. So its purely a subjective….. Hence this issue will always remain
@Arun
My point is that we need not interpret history and then teach it to students. Let them interpret the facts.
Instead of saying that CP was a Tyrant, lets say that his police oppressed any revolt against him. On the other hand lets teach them what he did to reform the state. Now let the students decide whether he was a tyrant or not.
Fully agree with you about the kings! They were selfish and did all they did for selfish reasons…. A concept called India a united county never existed. They just wanted to conquor the whole territorry for their own sake!
So mixing emotions is not an apt thing to do. Students should be given space and freedom to think and come to their on conclusions. Our history books on the other hand are imposing when it comes to ideas.
‘Kings’ In Kerala have done nothing specifically to the land other fight against each other. They never made extra efforts to keep out British or Portuguese and instead took their support to eliminate their enemies!
@ balu…..
With full respect to your viewpoints, may I say, I differ upon this matter…… Whether its kings or current politicians, I feel it makes no different….. If it was Chola Kings in Tamil Nadu past, today its Karunanidhi or whether it was Wodekar king of mysore in past, today its simply current Gowda dynasty….. The motives of Indian RULERS never changed…… Even in india, its never considered as one single unit called india even after 60 years…… Barring few states like Kerala or West bengal or Bihar, most of the people of India, like to call themselves either as Tamilians or Kannadigas or Marathis etc……. Why Shiva Sena is battling with JD over belgaum issue between Karnataka and Maharastra…… Is it similar to Marathi expansion of Shivaji into Mysore kingdom, 300 years back?
So I do feel there is no big difference old Maharajas and modern Leaders……..
Well Kings of Kerala have done more than many other kings in India…… Today whatever we boast, is efforts of Kerala Kings, whether literacy or women’s empowerment or health standards or transport etc……. Travancore’s annual revenue was 9 crore Rs in 1935 which has a value of today’s 1000 Crore….. And the public expenditure was around 11 crore……. The maharajas of travancore even donot have any diamond studded crowns, rather spend that money to bulid world class secretariat or assembly or election systems……… Today our leaders try to bulid their houses, what was meant to construct roads or bridges…..
It took more than 2 years to destroy Old Killipalam bridge bulid by Palace engineers in 1905, recently for the road expansion in trv, whereas modern alwaye bridge could be in ruins, even a earthquake of 4 richer scale hits…….. Which Industry we boast, other than those established by royal decrees, like FACT or TRAVANCORE RAYONS or TCC etc…..This shows how Kerala kings contributed rather than modern Leaders
@ kenny
Yes to some extent, its possible….. But again remember, you are telling HIS-story, its a story…… No story could be said in a netural part…… Do you see Mahabharat serial? Before the actual story, a kalapurshan appears, he is the narrator…… He says he sees all, speaks netural etc….. But still at many times, we feel whether kalapurshan is speaking for Pandavas or not………..
Stories are always like that…… when you say abt Sir CP, you cannot be a robot, not to have expression….. Whether it happens when preparing text or teaching….. At point, automatically one moves to one direction….. For example, if in your heart you are against Sir C.P’s moves, even when you teach a neutral textbook, automatically the tone gets agressive against the person……… It happens vice versa too………..
For example, communists label punnapara struggle as freedom struggle….. Congress label it as civilan riots…… The government of Travancore labeled it as armed agression against law and order…… How would you define it? Was it a riot or revolt or a freedom struggle?
If it was science, you could call undefined as phenomenons….. If its Maths, you can call it as undefined or infiniti…… What abt social science?
Thats what I said, its very subjective in nature
History is the story we want make our society believe about our past.Thats why those who want to change our nation are trying to change the content of history text books first.History can never be taught like maths because there is no “true” or “absolute” facts.All so called historical facts has many contradicting versions in most cases.
What historians generally do is they interpret them as their political stands. thats why dalits,marxists,hindutva vadis,nazists,imperialists and
all religions have their own version of history.
It is nearly impossible to be “honest” about history.
Because our time and other perceptions will always affect what we see as “true history”.
So its better to have a history that best suits our social needs…say what is need to teach tippu sultan converted hindus to islam or sivaji’s son was killed after his tongue was pulled out for refusing to cahnge his religion?
A nation lives because many “facts” are forgotten to make a different present.
@Dhanesh
If contradictions are there, then teach them also.
Also I dont agree to your statement of history suiting social needs. We should nevr hide facts, just because it hurts. We all should be mature enough to see it as a subject.
There is nothing wrong in teaching the bad sides of our great leaders. They are not super hereos, they are ordinary human beings.
Well said. You can also talk about Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Freedom fighter - but sided with Nazi and Japanese in WW2.
And from that point if we think further, who says Nazis and Japanese were such a bad people ? Its all an image that the world wanted us to see. It was a war, and in a war there are no laws.
There was this incident where a historian suggested that the existence of concentration camps were not so evident, and it could have been a propaganda. The US govt pressed charges against him fo having said that.
History has always been the story of the winner. The fact that History is not totally true or based on facts make it something that cannot be thought like Maths, in which every thing is based on constant values.
About teachers style of teaching - Lust like Arun pointed out - it is very subjective. But the least we can do is to report all the sides of the story - ie it was a freedom struggle, A revolt, A riot…
It is better to tell everything you know than to tell one side of the story. Cause when people find out about the other side - they will think that the history books lied to them knowingly, and they will develop a hatred towards the historians and the history books… (Just like what Kenney is doing right now…)
Dear kenneyji
No history books as far as academic reference is concerned, mentions that Nazism was bad or evil…. You can check NCERT’s History book for 9th and 10th….. They mentioned both good things of Hitler as he was the only german, who could reform the german society from extreme poverty and economic crisis from 1919 to a very highly advanced economy in 1939……. But the same hitler killed more than 10000 jews in the more gruesome means…… Naturally a reader or a teacher who teaches this 2 sentence, automatically gets negative impression abt Hitler……. so they teaches it in that style……..
Moreover many times, neutralism could create national problems or affect national interests………. How you define The protests made by Mahatma Gandhi from 1919 to 1947…… The britishers who were ruling India, called it as social distrubances or attempt to attack Crown…… Its an offence…….. Because legally there was a government who has authority to rule the country….. Its offence to ask the government to quit India…… Can we teach like this today in our Book? Instead we say the Britishers ruled the country without sanction of the public and the public wants to overthrow them under leadership of Gandhi…….. But this is ofcourse biased in your language, as if we have to neutral, we have tell British rule in India as Legal…… Then how will our national interest be protected
Will future generations blame gandhiji for overthrewing a legal government and it could even call for a overthrewing of democracy currently in India……….
HISTORY is always defined in eyes of a historian…… Neutrality is never a question here…….
Leave a Comment