Book launch event of Gyanendra Pandey's Men at Home: Imagining Liberation in Colonial and Postcolonial Indi

Book launch of 'Men at Home' in New Delhi. From left to right: Gyanendra Pandey, Mallarika Sinha Roy, Projit B. Mukharji, Mridula Garg. (Photo source: The Wire)

"𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 '𝑳𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒔,' 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 '𝑷𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔,' 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 '𝑯𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓.' 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 '𝑯𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓' 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒆. 𝑩𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐. 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕. 𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔; 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒑𝒂𝒚 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒗𝒆. 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏. 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒐, 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒐𝒌 𝑰 𝒔𝒂𝒚, 𝒍𝒆𝒕'𝒔 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌. 𝑴𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒍𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚—𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒔, 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 ('𝒃𝒂𝒅𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒈'), 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒔, 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔. 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒍𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚. 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒅𝒂𝒚? 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒔 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆? 𝑸𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒘𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅- 𝒊𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆. 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚? 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒐, 𝑰 𝒂𝒔𝒌, 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒕? 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝑰 𝒔𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒅𝒂𝒚 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒘𝒆 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆," this is what Prof. Gyanendra Pandey said in his final argument while closing the speech at the book launch event.

Men at Home is a book about masculinity and conjugality, as well as it is a book about Indian modernity, nationalism, and society, as seen from the location of men inside the home. Pandey investigates how men across the subcontinent negotiate marriage, intimacy, and conjugality, and focuses on the implications of their ambiguous commitment to this critical part of their lives. The book has also underscored the inextricable intertwining of “World Historical” time, the time of the future, and “everyday” time, the time of the here and now. Perhaps it invites us thereby to reflect a little more carefully on what is classified as “necessary” (the thunder and lightning of “World Historical” events?) and what as “contingent” (the matter of survival and reproduction of the species, of companionship and care, and the accompanying drudgery of everyday domestic life?).

Mallarika Sinha Roy (Centre for Women's Studies, JNU), one of the panellists at the event, tells that Men at Home is an extraordinary book about ordinary life of ordinary people. The book lists men and women who have done quite a few amazing things in their lives. From the creation of the Indian modern through snapshots of family life and domesticity to the architectural speciality of being at home, it grows through the pages as practices of duty, dignity and discipline interlaced with the ways in which 20th century South Asian men thought about inhabiting domesticity, performed it, imagined it and wrote about it. Both caste and gender make Pandey's explorations into performing the selfhood of men richly textured. The ideation of home as a sanctuary from complexities of the public is more prevalent in elite aristocratic mansions or modest middle-class homes, while the working class basti or the Dalit huts in villages spilled into neighbourhoods in a much more obvious self-evident way.

A detail from the photograph of a wedding photo taken outside a police officer’s family home in northern India, December 1935, which is featured on the cover of the book 'Men at Home'. (Picture source: The Wire)

The distinction between ghar and bahir, the home and the world, the inner sanctum and the outside world, reflect the way the Indian modern evolved through its predecessor, the Indian feudal. And Pandey describes the 20th century modernity as feudal without feudalism. The obstinate residue of feudalism has been roundly criticized. The ideals of equal opportunity, dignity for all, independence and freedom of thought have been cited again and again as the bedrock of modern civilization. And yet, to quote from the book, the old regime lives on in the new or at any rate claims to. But it is important to recognise the fact that during the 20th century colonial India, the intelligentsia and political leaders including Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Mohammad Ali Jauhar and others were receiving the modern ideas with a critical outlook.

Roy further admits that she hugely enjoyed reading through the performance of intimacies as narrated by Pandey's protagonists and the way he analyses them. Learning about Dhanpatarai Premchand's domestic life as someone who regularly helped at the kitchen, helped with child-rearing, but also kept a secret romantic affair from his beloved second wife is quite incredible. In the same way, the author of 'Ghumakkar Shastra,' Rahul Sankrityayan, whom I have known since childhood as the author of 'From Volga to Ganga,' admitted publicly in his dedication of his book 'Kanaila ki Katha' to Ram Dulari Devi, whom he had abandoned thoughtlessly, ruining her entire life.

Gyanendra Pandey is a historian and a founding member of the Subaltern Studies project.

Gyanendra Pandey (Historian) also emphasizes upon the significance of the vernacular literature and argues that there is a huge corpus of Indian writings in Hindi, in Punjabi, in Urdu, in Marathi which refers to the home and it's not being investigated because the home is associated with women and children. There's been absolutely phenomenally good works on this particular theme but it does not center the man in the home. He further argues that, "𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑰 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 (𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆 19𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒓 𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒚 20𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒚, 𝒕𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆) 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒚 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒎𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕, 𝒎𝒚 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚. 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒎 (𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒈𝒊𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍) 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒘𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕."

Ashok Vajpeyi (Poet, critic, essayist, translator), another panellist, adds that such historiography is an important counterpoint to the historical euphoria that we have in the first place. Even in the historical writing, such themes have not been addressed or explored. He reads an excerpt from the book—What is surprising is that there is an almost camaraderie across religions, across communities, across social hierarchy of absence. The history of men in South Asian homes builds on an abundant, expanding, and still underutilized archive of autobiographies and memoirs, ethnographic accounts and fiction, detailing and commenting on the life in intimate space of family and home. The diverse histories illuminate something of the desired, expected, anticipated. In a word, lived experience of men and women in the modern Indian home and family. They capture something of the feel of marriage, intimacy, and togetherness, including the effects of the humiliating and constant assertion of gender, caste, and class power in domestic interactions. What surfaces once more is the modern middle-class male fantasy of a categorical division between the home and the world, the private realm of the family, and the public realm of world history.

Mridula Garg (Distinguished writer), another panellist, argues that Men at Home would as well be titled Women at Work. She traces the seeds of this in the Mahabharata itself. When Bhishma gave an unethical but judicially proper, correct, valid reply to Draupadi's futile or illegitimate wedding. Her question is famous. She asked, 'Did Dharmaraj use her as a wager? Before he waged and lost himself on the gambling board or was it afterwards?' Actually, whatever she asked or did not ask, that is the question we are all still asking. Do we have intrinsic value or do you have value only as maker or worker in a home? Fortunately, the women in Gyanendra's book are also asking the same question. She also criticizes the author by saying that he himself appears to be quite patriarchal when he chooses his protagonists as the latter has majorly chosen men. She raises and adds important questions—Did the women sacrifice their careers and passions to be prominently housewives and mothers and be acceptable in the canvas of patriarchy of their own choice and free will or was it the compulsion to fit into the pattern of that patriarchy? And argues that the interesting thing is that all these women, wives of eminent people wrote voluminous autobiographies, which featured mostly their husbands. It was only Kausalya Baisantri, in whose autobiography her husband played no part at all.

In the end, she quotes from the book where the author says, "In the end, what the women might have said is: Educators, educate yourselves— about the people, animals, and lives around you, and most of all about yourselves. For the thing men did not question at all, in their lives and activities in the domestic arena or the wider public domain, was their right to wander at will and thus fulfil their natural talents. They hardly pondered the historically produced self- image of men as necessarily complex, thinking, many- sided, and independent human beings: so self- evident, so natural that it remains pervasive, even though it is widely challenged today. The belief depended, critically, on the assumption that the “self- made man” is beholden to no one outside himself, least of all to wives and other “minor dependents” in an only- occasionally- visible domestic world. To investigate that image might have been a step too far, too risky for men — and for some women, too risky for society as they knew it."

Projit B. Mukharji (Department of History, Ashoka University), shares his apprehensions that much of the recent works on history are based almost completely on English language sources and argues that by marshalling both biographies and fiction, Pandey shows us how much we historians can learn by delving into those ignored treasures. Generally speaking, pan-Indian histories are easier to write when we write with the archive of the colonial state or the post-colonial state. By contrast, when we get into the rough and tumble of everyday life worlds, myriad differences of language, religion, caste and class serve to usually render the historical scale more specific. The use of the sources by the author made him raise some questions—in this kind of fluid movement from Upper Hindustan to Western India mostly, are all the homes the same? Is a Bengali home exactly the same as a home in the Punjab or a home in Maharashtra? Are there differences? Indeed, differences of caste and class are often explicitly talked about in the book but both these registers of difference too were articulated in ways that did not ground them in the region or the community per se. Another such register of difference that Prof. Banerjee acknowledged was of age. Questions of authority, as Pandey often fully acknowledges in the book, frequently operate at the intersection of gender, age, community, caste, etc. The book repeatedly shows us that even a woman who otherwise is quite disadvantaged as she grows older comes to acquire more power in the household. But the book left wondering about what exactly is age and how does it actually work to anchor domestic power. Ishita Pandey's recent book Sex, Law, and the Politics of Age does a wonderful job in teaching us that age is not a natural category. It is constituted at the intersections of cultural practices, knowledge regimes, and legal instruments. So, Projit raised questions that what age are these individuals writing their biographies? How does the actual age at which these are happening matter? And how do we understand age, ageing, and its intersection and its anchoring of domestic power were things that I wanted to know a little more, or I craved a little more of.

Prof. Gyanendra answered the questions raised by Projit and said that it's very important to note that, because statist histories are what we have been stuck with forever. And the question is how we write micro-histories and yet recognize that the micro-histories matter. Micro-histories will be specific, there's no question. But you will never be able to write a micro-history or a bunch of micro-histories, as in this case, with all the requirements as it were.

Men at Home is not a history of nation, state, and institutional politics—the well-established subjects of World History—viewed from an unusual vantage point. It is better seen as a history of ordinary life among ordinary people (with both phrases appearing under the sign of a question mark), told from the location of the home—or what I shall for convenience, in the interest of flexibility and in recognition of its uncertain boundaries, simply call domestic space in modern South Asia. If the changed perspective and object of inquiry say something about the limits of World History, or of what a richer world history might be—a history of how people lived, and what it felt like to live in their times and conditions—that is a welcome bonus.

 

Orient BlackSwan organized the launch of the book Men at Home: Imagining Liberation in Colonial and Postcolonial India by Gyanendra Pandey. The programme features a discussion with the author, chaired by Mallarika Sinha Roy, with panelists Ashok Vajpeyi, Mridula Garg, and Projit B. Mukharji. It was held on Friday, 12 December at the India International Centre, New Delhi.

Rahul Khandelwal and Maaz Rashid are PhD Research Scholars in the Department of History and Culture at Jamia Millia Islamia.

Q&A with Akash Jain

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 

'सवाल-जवाब' प्रो. पुरुषोत्तम अग्रवाल के साथ

A memory: One with the Professor.

I got an opportunity to talk with Prof. Purushottam Agrawal during an interactive session after the lecture. Here's a portion of the Q&A session in the form of my questions followed by insightful answers given by sir.

(1)

राहुल खंडेलवाल: धर्म और विवेक के हवाले से एक प्रश्न। एक तरफ़ हम देखते है कि गांधी एक धार्मिक व्यक्ति थे और दूसरी तरफ हम गांधी के उस पहलू को भी देखते है जिसमें हम याद करते है उस किस्से को जब उनसे पूछा जाता है कि “Where is your highest seat of authority?” And to this particular question, Gandhiji puts his hand on his chest and says it lies here. Here, Gandhi talks about the significance of one’s own ‘vivek.’ While saying this and considering the popular understanding of ‘dharma’ as such (whose English translation is religion), I find a sort of contradiction here.

मैं ये पूछना चाहता हूँ कि गांधीजी का ये कहना किस पर निर्भर करता है? क्या ये इस बात पर निर्भर करता है कि आपके लिए धर्म (as such) का क्या अर्थ हैं और आपका ख़ुद का (व्यक्तिगत तौर पर) किस धर्म (‘religion’ in general) से संबंध हैं?

प्रो. पुरुषोत्तम अग्रवाल: ‘धर्म’ और ‘ईश्वर में विश्वास’ का कोई अनिवार्य संबंध नहीं है। भारतीय परंपरा में कम से कम दो धर्म ऐसे है जो ईश्वर पर विश्वास नहीं करते—बौद्ध और जैन। लेकिन दोनों का अपना धार्मिक धर्मशास्त्र है, धार्मिक तंत्र–मंत्र है, रीति–रिवाज़ है और पाखंड भी है जैसा कि किसी भी संगठित धर्म में समय के साथ जुड़ जाता है। तो ऐसा नहीं है कि अगर आप धर्म को मानते हैं तो इश्वर को मानेंगे ही मानेंगे या इश्वर को मानते हैं तो धर्म को मानेंगे। गांधी जी ये मानते थे कि सभी धर्म ईश्वर के भेजे हुए है, ईश्वरीय है, प्रकटीकरण है। लेकिन इश्वर की वाणी उन तक आती है दोहरे फिल्टर के बाद [एक फिल्टर है—अवतार का, पैगंबर का, मसीहा का (गीता के संदर्भ में कृष्ण, कुरान के संदर्भ में मोहम्मद और बाइबल के संदर्भ में ईसा का), दूसरा फिल्टर व्याख्याकार लगाते है क्योंकि हर धर्म में अवतार, पैगंबर या ईसा के बाद कई तरह की व्याख्याएं होती है]। इसीलिए किसी भी धर्मशास्त्र में ईश्वर की वाणी हमें शुद्ध रूप से प्राप्त नहीं होती, छन कर प्राप्त होती है। सभी धर्म इश्वर प्रेरित है लेकिन सभी धर्म इस तरह फिल्टर्ड है।

दूसरा यह कि दुनिया में इतने धर्म इसलिए हैं क्योंकि सभी धर्म अपूर्ण हैं (imperfect है)। इसलिए पर्फेक्शन हमें खोजना होगा और पर्फेक्शन खोजने के लिए हमें विवेक का निर्माण करना होगा (उस पर भरोसा करना होगा) और विवेक किससे बनेगा? केवल मेरी परंपरा से नहीं बनेगा। गाँधी जी की अपनी परंपरा वैष्णव परंपरा थी, उनकी माता की तरफ़ से जैन परंपरा थी और प्रणामी संप्रदाएं से भी वे प्रभावित थी। गांधीजी की इस्लामी परंपरा और ईसाई परंपरा नहीं थी लेकिन वे सबसे प्रेरणा लेते थे। तो कोई कंट्राडिक्शन नहीं है इसमें। जब गाँधी कहते हैं कि मैं किसी भी धर्म को, किसी भी धर्मादेश को नैतिक मूल्यांकन के बाद ही स्वीकार करूंगा और उसका प्रतिमान उन्होंने घोषित कर रखा था ईशावास्योपनिषद का पहला मंत्र—

“तेनत्येक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृध: कस्य स्विद्धनम॥”

दुनिया में जो कुछ है सब तुम्हारा है पर केवल तुम्हारा नहीं है। इसलिए उसका उपभोग करो और दूसरों का ख़्याल रखों। उन्हें एतराज भी नहीं था कि आप ईश्वर को नहीं मानते। उन्होंने ईश्वर विरोधियों के विरुद्ध कोई लंबे-चौड़े लेख नहीं लिखे थे, कुछ जगहों पर नास्तिकता पर टिप्पणियां की है। आप मेरी पुस्तक में देखेंगे कि गांधीजी के जीवन का सबसे शानदार संवादों में से एक संवाद उनका एक नास्तिक के साथ हुआ संवाद है (जो घोषित रूप से ईश्वर के अस्तित्व में विश्वास नहीं करते थे) और बाद में गांधीजी और उनके बीच में काफी रोचक संबंध विकसित हुए। ‘आस्था’ by definition तथ्य के परे होती है, इसलिए हम उसे क्यों साबित करें।

SAHMAT Public Lecture Series organized a lecture on the topic

“Gandhi’s Last Fast” delivered by Prof. Purushottam Agrawal on 03.01.2025

(2)

राहुल खंडेलवाल: नैतिकता और उसमें आए हुए बदलावों का भी अपना इतिहास हो सकता है। नैतिकता में जो बदलाव आते है, सकारात्मक या नकारात्मक (भाव के रूप में एक उदाहरण आपने भी रेखांकित किया कि जब व्यक्ति ज़िम्मेदारी लेना छोड़ देता है और दूसरा, जिसे व्यक्तिगत रूप से मनुष्यों के सबसे बड़े दुर्गुणों में से एक को आप मानते है—कृतघ्नता)—क्या इसका कारण ऐतिहासिक कारकों (historical forces) में आए हुए बदलावों पर निर्भर करता है या इसका संबंध वैयक्तिक तौर पर मानवीय प्रवृत्तियों से भी है?

प्रो. पुरुषोत्तम अग्रवाल: निश्चित रूप से नैतिकता ऐतिहासिक रूप से बदलती है। नैतिकता में शब्द वही रहते हैं, अर्थ बदल जाते हैं। ग्रीक फिलोसॉफिकल ट्रेडिशन में गुलामों का होना जस्टिस का खंडन नहीं है, औरतों में अक्ल नहीं होती—यह मान्यता उन्हें जस्टिस के विरुद्ध नहीं लगती है। तो शब्द वही है ‘जस्टिस’ लेकिन अर्थ आप देखिए। तो आप अगर पूरी मानवीय चिंतन परंपरा को देखें—ग्रीक, भारत, बेबीलोन, चीन या कहीं भी—तो नैतिकता भौतिक स्थितियों में बदलाव के कारण बदलती है। नैतिकता भी बदलती है और आपका मन भी बदलता है। अब इस बात को बकायदा रिकॉगनाइज किया जाने लगा है कि आई.टी. रिवोल्यूशन से पहले भी समाज में मानसिक व्याधियाँ थी लेकिन आई.टी. रिवोल्यूशन के बाद मानसिक व्याधियों में तेज़ी से वृद्धि हुई हैं और आई.टी. रिवोल्यूशन एक भौतिक परिवर्तन है। किसी भी बात पर विचार करने से पहले (चाहे नैतिकता पर करें या मनोविज्ञान पर), भौतिक संदर्भों (material context) को आप इग्नोर नहीं कर सकते। You cannot afford to ignore the evolution in terms of material and historical forces.

(3)

Due to the paucity of time, I could not ask this question which I am mentioning here:

राहुल खंडेलवाल: ऐतिहासिक कारक बदलते हुए समय के साथ बदलते है। किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा जाने, अनजाने, या प्राकृतिक रूप से इजात किया गया दर्शन भी इसी पर एक सीमा तक निर्भर करता है। किसी ख़ास दौर में पैदा हुए दर्शन (गांधीजी को ध्यान में रखते हुए) को हम किसी दूसरे समय (अपने मौजूदा समय) में किस हद तक लागू कर सकते है?

दूसरा, आपने कहा कि विवेक को बनाने के लिए आंतरिक नैतिक मूल्यों के अलावा भी हमें समग्रता में (जिसमें सिर्फ़ किसी एक राष्ट्र की सीमाएं नहीं होंगी) और इतिहास, दोनों से मदद लेने की ज़रूरत है। इसी से जुड़ता हुआ प्रश्न जो मैं कई बार सोचता हूँ कि अपने समय और संबंधित संदर्भों में तैयार किए गए विवेक के आधार पर किसी दूसरे समय और उसमें मौजूद मनुष्यों के कृत्यों का मूल्यांकन करना कितना हद तक उचित है? चीनी लेखक, इतिहासकार और दार्शनिक लू ज़िक़िआन का कहना है कि इतिहास के किसी दौर को समझने के लिए ख़ुद को उस काल में—तत्कालीन गुण और दोष के साथ—पिक्चराइज करिए और तब फैसला लीजिए कि क्या करना है।

Note: हमेशा की तरह हासिल के रूप में लेक्चर से निकली कोई सीख या पाठ:

“Follow your ‘vivek.’ Follow only your conscience.”

—Prof. Purushottam Agrawal

___________________

03.01.2026

Rahul Khandelwal

Reframing Rīti Kāl: Towards a Vernacular Archives, Recovering Historical and Contextual Understanding Beyond Eurocentric Aesthetic Frameworks

Rīti literature was categorized and labelled as erotic and degenerated in terms of poetics and condemnable by the initial historians of Hindi literature, which was challenged by scholars like Allison Busch in her book “Poetry of Kings,” published in 2011, who argued otherwise about this literature. Vani Prakashan recently published the Hindi translation of Allison’s book under the title "केसव सुनहु प्रबीन: मुगलकालीन हिंदी साहत्यिक परिवेश." Reyazul Haque has done the Hindi translation, and Dalpat Rajpurohit has written its introduction. The inaugural program of the book launch was conducted by Vani Prakashan at the India International Centre, New Delhi, on 30-07-2025.

Allison’s study tells us about the importance of vernacular literature and regional archival sources for historiography, an alternative methodology to be adopted for the critical analysis and better understanding of rīti literature instead of relying on Western models and methodology derived from Romanticism and Victorian aesthetics. Furthermore, this book points out what and how our approach to history should be.

Purushottam Agrawal (retired professor of Hindi, Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi), one of panellists of this event, remarks that everyone talks about the vernacular, but what is our attitude toward it even today? The situation remains the same as it was before. One cannot understand the past and present of Hindustan until one listens to and respects those who do not speak or write in Sanskrit or English. Highlighting the dismissive attitude toward Ramchandra Shukla and other scholars, Prof. Agrawal sarcastically remarks that nowadays, you cannot earn the label of progressive without calling such scholars as Brahmanical. It is important that instead of outright rejecting the work of our ancestors, we evaluate their works with respect and critical attitude. Kavita Ke Naye Pratiman, written by Namvar Singh, was not only written to establish Nayi Kavita but is also a book about the literary and cultural debates happening in the twentieth century. Yet, we do not acknowledge such books.

Tanuja Kothiyal (Professor of History, Ambedkar University, New Delhi), another panellist present at the event, recounts the time of the 1980s-90s, when the idea of region and regionalism started emerging in the history-writing, and such historiographical trends emerged and became prominent in CHS (Centre for Historical Studies), JNU, then as well. However, even until that time, regions were regarded as subcategories of the empire. And many scholars were encountering themselves with such questions as what builds regions actually—is it area or is it language? Regional sources were not even considered as a source to write Empire Histories. And there were assumptions that the empire reaches regions, but regions don’t reach the empire, and in this approach lies a methodological problem.

(Tanuja Kothiyal speaking at the book launch event.)

Prof. Kothiyal further argues that regional archival sources change our perspective with regard to the historiography. Recently, we have seen among the scholars a shift in taking a central point of history writing, moving from "empire centric" to "regional centric." Such changes in the historical trends bring to light the fact that things need to be seen with respect to the relationship between region and empire, apart from judging them only through religious binaries. Empires appear distinct when viewed through the lens of regional archives. Such approaches offer new tools and methods along with adding new perspectives to look at systems.

The new historiographical trends in history writing focus on regional archives. These regional archival sources give us the idea of how regions affected the Mughal empire. The exchange of ideas between regions and empires is not a one-way process. The imperial court poetry affected the regions, but sometimes regional poets also affected the Mughal court. By regionalizing history, we will see the results of the transfer of ideas and languages in a more transparent way. Although, it is well established in academia that by focusing on regions, we will be able to see a more nuanced picture of the Mughal Empire. So, when Mughals started to have matrimonial relations with the Rajputs, it was not only Mughals affecting various Rajput features, but the Rajput code of honour also affected the Mughals. So, for example, in "The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor” (a translation of Baburnama done by W.M. Thackston), we see Babur describing in great detail the ladies associated with him by name and mentioning their conduct. He is talking about the parties and imperial feasts in which Mughal women were involved. Therefore, the Mughal ladies were playing a crucial role in the Mughal empire.

But when Akbar consolidated the Mughal empire, we see in Akbar Nama (“The Akbarnama of Abu-l-Fazl,” a translation by H. Beveridge) that Mughal ladies were mentioned through their titles. It is also because of the institutionalization of the empire. So, in various domains, the Rajputs’ codes of conduct and honour were affecting the Mughals. These features were the results of alliances established between Mughals and Rajputs.

By reaching out to regional poetries in Braj Bhasha, we should be able to see the nuanced and much more informed picture about the Mughal Empire. Regional poetry will be giving a perspective about the contemporary thinking processes. Sanskrit and Persian sources are important, but these sources will give an elite picture of the empire. In history, considering the multiple sources is very useful for historians. By comparing the regional sources with Persian court poetry and prose, we will be able to gain more insights about the medieval period in India. Rīti Kāl poetry became a source of understanding of India’s medieval past. The colonial historiography is obsessed with the elite sources, and the historiography shaped by their ideas has neglected the archival sources in the regions. Now it is fully established in academia that regional poetries and prose will provide a more balanced and nuanced picture of understanding the centre and regional binaries. Without understanding regions and centres as equally important and both affecting each other, sometimes overlapping, our understanding will be superficial. The evolution of history writing is an ongoing process that incorporates emerging historiographical tools and methods, providing us with various perspectives for analysing texts. Our attitude should not be dismissive of archival sources in vernacular languages as sources in these languages speak more about the common people and their behaviour. In medieval India, various vernacular languages gained ground and particularly during the eighteenth century, vernacular languages produced a significant amount of literature.

By reaching out to vernacular sources not only of the past but also of the present, we will have a more nuanced picture of Indian history, politics, and culture. These sources need to be studied in totality as it will provide us a comprehensive outlook of our present and future. History students should not ignore the insights coming from local languages. The works being done in Urdu, Hindi, and other Indian languages will give us a comprehensive and clear understanding of society, polity, and culture. Academic works should take into account all these sources in local and vernacular languages. By considering these sources, we will enrich our understanding of India’s past as well as present.

(Dalpat Rajpurohit speaking at the event.)

Sudhish Pachauri (retired professor of Hindi, University of Delhi), another panelist, critiques the methodology used so far to assess the literature of this period and argues that the methodology for assessing the Rīti Kāl of the 16th to 18th centuries was developed in the West, and its aesthetic sense was shaped by Western models—Romanticism and Victorian aesthetics. In this context, Dalpat Rajpurohit (Assistant Professor at University of Texas, Austin USA), present at the event, raises an important question before us: If we read rīti literature using those Western parameters, then what are the reasons that such parameters could not be developed on our soil? And this question is equally relevant for the academic world and intelligentsia here in India. The devaluation of the Rīti Kāl was a result of the Western understanding of this literature and developing a proper understanding is only possible when this literature is read through the standards set by the poets and their poetry of that period itself.

The insights given by Busch in her study bring the disciplines of history and literature closer in the sense that both can learn a lot from each other. This perspective reminds us of an argument made by Kesavan Veluthat in his recent book titled “Clio Revisits Calliope: A Historian’s Excursion to the Kavya Literature” (2025), where he argues that Clio, the muse of history, and Calliope, the muse of epic poetry, are not antagonistic to one another. They complement each other. A sense of history is essential in appreciating poetry; so also, a literary sensibility is a desideratum in understanding the past.

(From left to right: Aditi Maheshwari, Abhay Kumar Dubey, Tanuja Kothiyal, Dalpat Rajpurohit, Purushottam Agrawal, Sudhish Pachauri, Arun Maheshwari)

In her study, Busch challenges the common assumption of considering Persian as the sole language of high literary and political expression in Mughal India. She argues that other vernacular literary cultures coexisted and interacted with high-culture literary traditions rather than being subordinate to them. Brajbhasha, being a part of vernacular literary culture, was also a prominent language, particularly in the courts of Rajput kings, and it played a crucial role in articulating royal authority, and the poetry compiled in Brajbhasha was a form of political expression and not merely devotional or romantic. Prof. Kothiyal substantiated this argument through her insights, as she states that the period of the 15th–18th centuries is the period when art and literature were getting patronage from Mughal courts. At this time Brajbhasha was at its zenith, though it was not a court language. The literature written in Braj Bhasha does not limit itself only to beauty. The literature written in it is neither the literature of praise nor of opposition; Brajbhasha used to adapt itself to every kind of register. We could have made Braj anywhere. Prof. Sudhish Pachauri also cites an example of Keshavdas's Jahangir Jas Chandrika which is not merely a eulogy of Jahangir's glory; an important aspect of the work is that it also highlights a profound debate between purushartha and submission to fate, in which Jahangir symbolizes purushartha and the governed populace represents submission to fate.

Prof. Agrawal remembers and praises Allison Busch approach of engaging in a dialogue with both Indian and non-Indian intellectual traditions— as she does not dismiss either of them. He recalls, "She once delivered a lecture at the IIC, which was published in the IIC Journal. One quote from that lecture, which I have not been able to forget to this day, is when she said, "Hindus were also writing histories, but they were doing it in Hindi." In this context, Chhatraprakash, composed by the poet Laal, is a living example—not merely a literary work but also a historical text. Citing Allison Busch, Prof. Agrawal raises a question: What historical circumstances cause some cultures to preserve their literary traditions while others forget them? He further quotes Gayatri Spivak that— 'Postcolonial intellectuals only respond.' And to some extent, this quote is absolutely correct. However, in this context, we must never forget that India, Africa, and other colonies have suffered colonization that Britain, France, and other European countries did not experience. Colonization itself has changed the fate of history.

We can understand the shared interactions between languages by examining Sheldon Pollock's argument in his essay, "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular" (1998), where he states that literary cultures have historically shifted from using cosmopolitan languages—such as Sanskrit in India, Latin in Europe, or Classical Arabic in the Islamic world—to vernacular languages, the everyday tongues of regional populations (the argument is paraphrased). And in the same essay, Pollock talks about a paradox that vernacular literary cultures often arose not in opposition to cosmopolitanism, but through and with its support. Rajpurohit makes us cautious that we should not forget that the western literary culture was developed after having interactions and dialogues with other literary cultures including Japanese, Russian, Italian, French and so on like Keshavadasa interacted with Sanskrit.

We often see different languages antagonistic to each other, create strict compartmentalization between them, and overlook the shared relationship between two or more languages recorded in their historical evolution. What we don’t often see and overlook are the political motivations behind these developments, and we unwittingly become targets of such agendas by involving ourselves in the manufactured conspiracies designed to create divisiveness among various groups living in a society. This is what the involved politics in these processes want.

This could also be understood through highlights made by Busch, as she shows in her study how Brajbhasha poets drew from the Sanskrit alankara-shastra (rhetorical theory) and rasa theory, as a result of which they created a poetic discourse that extended the classical tradition into the vernacular domain. With time, Rīti literature was transformed and ultimately marginalized by colonials and early nationalists. There was an obsession in the minds of nationalists with the idea of creating a new national identity, which at the same time marginalized the local languages. Even with this new print language, certain parts of literature were given more attention, and some portions were neglected completely. During these times even Hindi literary historiography relegated Brajbhasha rīti to “medieval decadence,” while valorizing bhakti literature as Hindi’s redeemable tradition.

Prof. Agrawal makes an important argument that the problem with colonial intellectuals was that the concepts they were constructing about Indian society and history did not align with the knowledge present here. Before the British period, any sense of all-India identity was not acknowledged by the colonialists, even though the literature in Sanskrit and other regional languages, as well as folk memories, may not have envisioned political unity but certainly contained memories of dialogue and conflict between various regions. All of this resulted from the colonialists' insensitive attitude and their inability to understand the sensibilities of Indian society. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the concept of the nation-state developed in Europe—which was based on one religion, one language, and one race—cannot be applied to the Indian context. Based on experience, the leadership here expanded this concept in a unique way. From intellectuals to politicians, they imagined an Indian nation founded on the coexistence and dialogue of multiple languages, religions, and cultures (Imagining the Nation). Prof. Agrawal ended his talk with these words— Itihas se mukti asambhav hai. We must have a sense of history. Rajpurohit reminds Pollock’s argument that he once stated that decolonization cannot truly happen until we understand what Indian literary and intellectual traditions were like before the colonial period. Busch critiques such presentist biases and stresses engaging with pre-colonial archives, reassessing India’s early modern literary heritage through the lens of postcolonial and intellectual history for understanding social, political, and literary dynamics of Mughal-era India.

Through her book, Allison Busch outlines what vocabulary, standards, and concepts are necessary to read and understand the Rīti Kāl. Allison Busch's work is a great service to us, and especially to the Hindi literary world, argued by Prof. Pachauri. Her central argument was that the Rīti Kāl should be understood through its own elements, rather than through models derived from Romanticism and Victorian aesthetics—a point we took far too long to grasp. At the same time, this book also points toward how our perspective on history should be shaped.

Rahul Khandelwal and Maaz Rashid are PhD Research Scholars in the Department of History and Culture at Jamia Millia Islamia.

December

City lights filter through the windows

you hide them with the curtains

as if your escape becomes solace in the arms.

Every year,

December not only brings our memories,

but your fragrance also

proving our immortal existence.

___________________

07.12.2025

Rahul Khandelwal

दुःख और डर

"प्रिय निर्मल वर्मा,

ऐसा नहीं है कि दुःख में डर नहीं होता या सिर्फ़ सुख ही डर से घिरा होता है। कई बार पीड़ाएँ और दुःख के समय हमारे अंश की ऐसी छायाएँ उभर आती हैं जिनकी जड़ें हमारे भीतर खोजने पर भी नहीं मिलतीं। इंसान चीख सकता है कि उसे उसका अपना साथ कैसे एक मुजरिम जान पड़ रहा है, लेकिन समय के उस अंतराल में ये सब व्यर्थ है। ऐसे में उन छायाओं का होना और अपनी असल छायाओं की तलाश में तड़पना भी डर को जन्म देता है। हम यकीन नहीं कर पाते कि हमारे वे हिस्से हमसे अलग कैसे हुए।

अपने सबसे प्रिय को मृत्यु से लड़ता देख मन के घोर अंधेरे में पीड़ाएँ भाप की तरह ऊपर उठ आती हैं। तब न चाहते हुए भी डर का प्रकोप आपके काँपते हुए हाथों को त्वरित ही वंदना के लिए जोड़ने पर मजबूर कर देता है—यह जानते हुए भी कि मृत्यु जीवन का पहला और अंतिम सत्य है।

मैंने दुःख और डर को साथ निवास करते देखा है।"

___________________

06-12-2025

Rahul Khandelwal 

Reflections.

"Do we really design our questions on our own, or do the artificial lights around us mechanize the process? Such silent forces overshadow the deeper, real, and perennial questions which we don't ask."

Sometimes we don't want to miss the chance.

"Everyone has their own framework for judging the truth and protecting their interests. The problem arises when intolerance prevents people from listening to others. We may have disagreements, but some people still make sure that these differences do not make them intolerant."

___________________

29-11-2025

Rahul Khandelwal 

External and innate factors of an individual build up one's consciousness. It might appear to many as a poetic or literary phrase, and you may ask me why I am saying this. While history requires evidence to establish causality within a framework of rationality and reasons; many times, it often lacks tangible evidence to support one's arguments. You may disagree with me, but I insist that this lack of evidence to support one's argument doesn't make it unqualified. To clarify my point, I further argue that during a relationship, you unknowingly start developing certain elements that shape your 'idea of existence and consciousness'—to some extent, if not wholly—which in turn further develops your 'idea of self.'

The process of deceiving someone may have repercussions, including not only the end of one's life but also the destruction of one's 'definition of self,' which one unintentionally and naturally forms during a relationship with the other person who deceives the former. You cannot always witness this silent process, just as you cannot always produce tangible evidences to support your argument.

___________________

14-11-2025

Rahul Khandelwal