Attempts to right wrongs of the past can’t do any good
PremiumThree questions must be asked. What constitutes a crime against society? Can descendants of perpetrators be held to account? And what is the historical accuracy of the allegations?
The subject of temple destruction, religious conversions and treatment of Hindus by Muslim rulers of India in the pre-colonial era is currently at the centre of public discourse. This is a highly emotive issue, understandably, one that can upend social harmony and disrupt economic growth, which is all the more reason for us to look at various facets of the problem in a dispassionate and rational manner.
There are three separate issues involved that need to be kept apart. First, what constitutes a crime against society? Second, can distant descendants of perpetrators be held to account? Third, what is the historical accuracy of the allegations?
To begin with, do we know if the perpetrator was really a perpetrator? Judging past actions by present sensibilities places us on a thin edge. Owning slaves was part of the economic system in the ante-bellum American South. The treatment of castes seen as outside the pale of the varna order in India was reprehensible, to say the least. Invaders proudly brought back plundered wealth and enslaved people from conquered territories. People were identified as ‘witches’ and burnt to death. Women were considered inferior and forced into confined forms of behaviour. North American native Indians scalped their enemies. Cannibalism was practised in some societies. The majority in those settings viewed these behaviours as appropriate at the time. As Audrey Truschke remarks in Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, for all the bigoted excesses that can be attributed to Aurangzeb, “Mughal rulers in general allowed their subjects great leeway—shockingly so compared to the draconian measures instituted by many European sovereigns of the era—to follow their own religious ideas and inclinations." It is presumptuous and arrogant on our part to label olden-day acts of vandalism as the work of evil perpetrators.
The second issue is who should be held to account. In most cases, no apology need be issued. However, let us for a moment keep the issue of changing sensibilities aside. Even where an apology, reparation or retribution is considered desirable, this should not transgress a foundational legal principle of democratic regimes based on fundamental rights that no one can be held guilty for what s/he did not do, let alone for the actions of supposed ancestors centuries ago. The right to equal treatment under the law cannot be taken away. History is irrelevant in constitutional democracies, as all constitutions mark a new beginning and are not based on selective accounting of the past.
We need a golden rule that apologies can be made only by perpetrators. Since guilt is not inherited, the question of apology after the perpetrator’s demise does not arise. If the individual was acting on behalf of the state, an apology could be made by the head of state. If the state has changed, there is no cause for apology. Italy’s present head of state, who had no role to play in the execution of Christ, has no reason to apologize for the sins of the Roman Empire. An apology for Nazi atrocities could only have been made by the Nazi state or its representative, and not by any successor German state that had no role to play. Indeed, the inequity of making the Weimar Republic and German people pay for the sins of their Kaiser through the Treaty of Versailles had facilitated the rise of Hitler.
The third issue is the accuracy of allegations. Much of the popular thinking on the subject is ultimately derived from the work of British imperial historians, such as Eliot and Dawson’s monumental 8-volume Indian history published some 150 years ago. These views promoted an imperial narrative based on a selective use of Persian sources. A wider and newer set of sources—including Sanskritic texts—has since become available, especially on Aurangzeb, who is not a remote figure in the distant past by the yardstick of historical time.
We must note that temple desecration in India by conquerors pre-dated the arrival of Muslim invaders. If remnants of temples have been found in mosques, so have remnants of Buddhist viharas in temples (as well as mosques). The works of Richard Eaton, Audrey Truschke and Herman Kulke are eye-openers in this regard.
Be that as it may, narratives about the past will always be contested because they are informed by current needs and debates. As the Italian historian Benedetto Croce put it, “All history is contemporary history." We should leave historians to their craft. Let professionals delve into, explain and interpret the past. Historical consciousness helps us understand who we are, how we got here, and perhaps also how to avoid past follies. It fulfils a felt need and that is why it is one of our oldest disciplines. But that is all there is to history. It should not be weaponized.
French historian March Bloch observed that the object of history is explain, not to judge. We need to be forward-looking and not rake up past wrongs if we want to stay on the path of progress. Attempts to right wrongs of the past cannot make the present better. These not only generate divides, rancour and hatred, but also distract us from our focus on extant wrongs. By and large, Indian Muslims today are more sinned against than sinning. That needs to be set right.
Likewise, in the US, both racial discrimination and poverty (which is not confined to African Americans) need to be addressed, but it is not incumbent on the present government in Washington to apologize for the sins of the Confederate States.
Alok Sheel is a retired Indian Administrative Service officer and former secretary, Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council