Kutuhalaśālā: The History Society, JMI organized
a lecture on "Reading The Archive" delivered by
Akash Jain (PhD Scholar, JMI)
To this particular talk, I made three interventions. Two were in the form of questions, and the other included my argument followed by a question. These interventions majorly came from the suggested reading and the talk only. (The following questions were supposed to be asked of the speaker during the interactive session, but the same could not be raised due to paucity of time. The speaker provided the answers later, which I have considered important to attach in this blog.)
(1)
Rahul Khandelwal: There are many scholars who are quoted in the paper and who have talked about the relationship between power and archive. For instance, Michel Rolph explains how Western historiography has silenced the Haitian Revolution and asserts that power shapes history. Similarly, Thomas Richards made an argument highlighting the close relationship between knowledge and power. Here, 'Knowledge' means imperial archive and 'Power' means Victorian empire. Ann Stoler also talks about how the colonial state controlled the colonial archives and produced fashioned histories. From these instances, we can understand and infer the close relations between the colonial state and the colonial archive. Taking this relationship between power and archive as a theoretical model, can we consider that there was a similar kind of control over knowledge by the state (or more specifically, control over history writing and archive) during early or medieval India?
Akash Jain: The Colonial Knowledge Production in India is unique in many ways. The instruments that were used by the Imperial state were numerous such as Census, Anthropometric studies, Photography, Biometric data, and also Indology (including Philology). The state during early and/or Medieval times of the subcontinent also tried to collect information about the subjects but they didn't not have a variety of instruments. The Imperial state was trying to cover each aspect of the Indian society while collecting knowledge and making an order out of that knowledge. Archiving is not something which is a modern phenomenon or process but the ways of Archiving have changed a lot. Archiving during the Colonial period was systematic and consisted of various aspects. With regard to the history writing, one can argue that the court historians during Early and Medieval times were influenced by the concerns of the state and the ruler. In that sense, the state did control some of the aspects of history writing and Archiving. Although there are instances when history writing is also being practiced outside the official circles and is helpful in the critique of official perspectives. The extent of the obsession with history writing and Archiving was different in different periods of time. The influence and consequences of Archiving and control over knowledge during the colonial period are more visible to us. These consequences were varied and long term.
(2)
Rahul Khandelwal: After reading the introduction to Chapter 3 of "Archives and Access," it seems to me that a kind of theoretical framework of 'Power and Knowledge' of Michel Foucault has been employed here while analysing the relationship between the State and the Archive.
At the same time, I was thinking about the question that is often posed in terms of reliable and non-reliable sources within the tradition of positivist history where excessive importance has been given to the so-called "reliable sources" which is critiqued by Neeladri Bhattacharya by arguing that positivists have ignored the fact that all sources are shaped by the contexts of their origin and all sources have a politics of their own. Prof. Bhattacharya further argues that the language of historians is still embedded within the positivist thinking, though we have been struggling against that tradition for so long.
Taking forward the argument of Prof. Bhattacharya and try to link it with what we are discussing; I cautiously propose that yes, historians obsess about the archive (which, notably, is the opening line of Chapter 3), and further I argue that they are embedded in it while overlooking the involved politics. This leads me to ask: why is this the case? Also, do you find a connection between the positivists' obsession with the primary sources and post-colonial historians' obsession with the archive? Both overlook the contexts and involved politics.
Akash Jain: It is plausible to argue that some of the historians representing distinct historiographical schools have overlooked the involved power dynamics in the Archiving process to a large extent but in the last 3-4 decades such a limitation has been taken care of by the new historiographical schools. The methods developed by the scholars of Subaltern and post-colonial schools are very useful to understand and analyse the involved politics/influence of power in the Archiving process and also history writing. Scholars representing the post-colonial schools are more informed and concerned about the context, meaning and representations in the archival material when compared to the Positivist Historians. It is clearly reflected in their methods such as 'Reading the Archive against the grain.'
(3)
Rahul Khandelwal: As you have argued that certain viewpoints have their own politics, my question to you is that when we try to dismiss someone else’s perspective by saying that their viewpoint has its own politics, why do we forget that the perspective we prioritize might also be the result of a certain kind of politics? How do you see this?
Akash Jain: I think pointing out the politics involved in someone's arguments is not dismissing the argument completely but it is the responsibility of a theorist or a Historian to reveal the hidden aspects of the viewpoints. Trying to understand and analyse something is not equal to supporting or dismissing a viewpoint. Similarly, the perspective we prioritise should be discussed with all its aspects, including the politics involved, if any. Those who fail to realise that their arguments may also be a result of a certain kind of politics are not conscious enough of their evolution as a scholar. A scholar should always explain the rationale of using a theoretical framework while making arguments.
___________________
20.11.2025
Rahul Khandelwal
No comments:
Post a Comment