Is remembering the selective remnants of the time passed, which has become a part of history now, justifiable? Memories associated with states and humans (both being complex entities and having complexities, intricacies, and contradictions in their nature) of any time period or of any phase might comprise good, bad, memorable, and unmemorable components. The question arises here: Why do we see such tendencies in humans with regard to the memories that they do want to protect the cherished portions but adopt ignorant behaviour towards those portions of the past that they consider not to be remembered? Is it because “some memories not to be remembered” have a relation with the benefits enjoyed by the ones who are involved in the process of erasing the remnants of the same? Why is there so much fear towards the same? Paulo Coelho writes, “Forgive but do not forget, or you will be hurt again. Forgiving changes the perspectives. Forgetting loses the lesson.” But sometimes the state structures and their machinery want you to forget the remnants of the past that are not in consonance with the ideologies upon which the same structure of the state stands. Humans in general and the state in particular persistently try to erase the memories that are inconsistent with its ideas, that do not serve their existing sustenance with ease, and that do not provide any benefits to them. The idea and the logic behind commemorating the historical events is not to relive those moments again; one cannot do that; rather, the idea behind the process of commemoration is to tell yourself and others the right and wrongdoings that occurred in the past, to remember and pay homage to the ones who paid the price, to remind the generations to come about the reminiscences of those times, and, most importantly, the last but not the least, to learn the lessons extracted after a critical analysis from such histories.
Click an image to view it at full size.
Abhinavagupta (living in the 10th-11th century CE) quotes, “नहि एक हि दृष्टया सम्यंगम् निवर्णनम् निर्वहति,” meaning—“because the complete description is not possible from any one point of view.” But do we really understand this? I doubt. Yes, I do have a doubt about that. We are living in those times where each and every one believes in their own views and truths existing within the boundaries created by themselves as the complete description, and one doesn’t want to witness and have a dialogue with the other prevailing views. Rigveda 1.89.1 reads, “आनो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वत:” meaning—“Let noble thoughts come to us from every side and all directions.” If I may take some liberty while interpreting the latter verse differently from that of its literal meaning, then in such a case I would say that you should try to seek the truth and validate its veracity from various sources and not confine yourself enough that you give your adherence to only one aspect or perspective of the case. But the question remains: do you really want to see and believe only that aspect of truth and knowledge that suits you and your ideas, that provides you some benefits because of the favorable prevailing conditions, or do you wish to learn from other sources and the lessons imbibed in the ancient scriptures, traditions, philosophies, and ideas about which many philosophers and thinkers argued? You may misunderstand what my emphasis is if you perceive my arguments as imposing on you; whatever I’ve said above, the crux of the matter is that the process of learning includes continuous critical engagements with the help of dialogues, arguments and counterarguments, agreements, and disagreements with the sources we have. Also, I want to clarify the point behind citing such sources is not to get the legitimacy from the same (which we don’t do as we are not liable to the ideas written in these scriptures, and the same are not the sources of the legitimacy) as we are living in a democratic country that runs through its own constitution and laws but to learn from the lessons of the past.
It is cold in Delhi these days. Five years have passed since the 2019 Jamia Millia Islamia attack happened, which you can read about in detail. On the 15th of December this year, the university students wanted to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the event, which the administration of the university didn’t allow and closed the libraries, canteens, and main campus of the university in the name of maintenance. This reminds me of what Chomsky argues: that power structures thrive on silence and conformity. The first step towards change is the courage to question even when surrounded by complacency, but the sad reality is many don’t, and that demands a separate detailed study to understand the nuances involved in such processes. But what remains disturbing for me is the fact that students were not allowed to keep their memories to be remembered; they were not allowed to commemorate a historical event that many of them witnessed personally. Are we surrounded by a state machinery that doesn’t want to keep all the aspects of the truth but only that aspect of the truth that they like to keep? If it is the case, then what about the other truths, the other untold stories and histories? Aren’t they part of the whole picture, or is Foucault true here? (As he argues that power is strong, this is because it produces effects at the level of desire and also at the level of knowledge. Far from preventing knowledge, power produces it. Truth isn’t outside power or lacking in power ... Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. ‘Truth’ is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it.) Will you be able to call the picture as true, impartial, perfect, and accurate, provided by power?
The written sources and the material remains belonging to a time period never tell you about the mental traumas and psychological sufferings of humans, but we are trained subconsciously enough to overlook such evidence because they are unwritten ones, and we are used to claiming the final truth ignorant towards such sources, as these are not part of the normativity.
No comments:
Post a Comment