04-30-2007, 11:13 AM
Who writes our story?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We depend upon the curiosities of foreigners to keep the story alive. <span style='color:red'>One of the greatest storytelling nations has stopped producing stories about its own past, forgetting that ideological battles over history can never be a substitute for enticing narratives.</span> William Dalrympleâs masterly The Last Mughal subtly undercuts the significance of this event for Indians: its wonderful recovery of a time when nation state ideologies had not congealed our identities, also glosses over the hierarchies colonialism produced. 1857 has the power to move because, it is, above all else a darn good story. Too bad, there is simply no contemporary Indian narrative of the event of any power.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was an interview Dalrymple had done in one of the magazines and one thing that stood out clearly was the fact that
(a) avalibilty of local narratives
(b) the depth of details available regarding the 'narrative' by common folks during that era and
(b) how inadequately our own historians have spent any time if any reading it.
Dalrymple not only acknowldeges it, but higlights this issue.
The narratives included letters from soliders to their beloveds, complaints by common folks to emperor, some letter to editorial kind of materials, chronicles of how recent convert who were left hanging dry by their white 'soul savers' etc.
<b>All this narrative does exist.</b> but only sells if a foreigner to come to India, gets access to this research material and writes the bestseller.
Why our own govt for past 50 years have failed miserably getting such narrative out too has been cataloged nicely in 'Eminent Historian' book, but that's matter for the 'politics of history' thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We depend upon the curiosities of foreigners to keep the story alive. <span style='color:red'>One of the greatest storytelling nations has stopped producing stories about its own past, forgetting that ideological battles over history can never be a substitute for enticing narratives.</span> William Dalrympleâs masterly The Last Mughal subtly undercuts the significance of this event for Indians: its wonderful recovery of a time when nation state ideologies had not congealed our identities, also glosses over the hierarchies colonialism produced. 1857 has the power to move because, it is, above all else a darn good story. Too bad, there is simply no contemporary Indian narrative of the event of any power.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was an interview Dalrymple had done in one of the magazines and one thing that stood out clearly was the fact that
(a) avalibilty of local narratives
(b) the depth of details available regarding the 'narrative' by common folks during that era and
(b) how inadequately our own historians have spent any time if any reading it.
Dalrymple not only acknowldeges it, but higlights this issue.
The narratives included letters from soliders to their beloveds, complaints by common folks to emperor, some letter to editorial kind of materials, chronicles of how recent convert who were left hanging dry by their white 'soul savers' etc.
<b>All this narrative does exist.</b> but only sells if a foreigner to come to India, gets access to this research material and writes the bestseller.
Why our own govt for past 50 years have failed miserably getting such narrative out too has been cataloged nicely in 'Eminent Historian' book, but that's matter for the 'politics of history' thread.