Between ‘correct’ and ‘inclusive’ history

Forty five years after independence, the conflict between “shothik itihash” (correct history) and “shompurno itihash” (inclusive history) goes on. This is not an accident. Obviously history has become the great space where the national politics and identity is being fought over. Now, the Government of Bangladesh is planning to initiate a set of laws which will punish severely anyone who tries to “insult” the national history of 1971 or Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, though what constitutes insult is not well explained. It means history will no longer be a matter over which people will have the final say but bureaucrats and judges will. It will leave the shores of academic or popular research and enter the administrative domain. Every statement of experience could well be subjected to scrutiny and if found guilty, awarded punishment. This is unusual for a people whose history is actually barely known to most people. If anything, the term “national history” is something of an “intellectual challenge” since nobody says what “national history” is. Is it the history of the leading party and its leader or a leading general and his history? Is it about political history that is considered accurate by the political party only? What will be acceptable history? Is it making invisible any statements or research that may contest or even challenge the conventional and traditional notion of the Bengali in 1971? We don’t know yet but fair to assume that it will follow the ‘shothik” history tradition.

What is “shothick” AL and BNP history?

When I began working on the documents of 1971 project, I was approached by a decorated FF who told me that I should be clear about my role. “Your job is not to tell the truth but help rebuild Bangladesh. Let people read your history and let them feel proud. The country is more important than history.” This was said in 1978 and this is 2016, and I have found this statement to be the most illustrative of the “shothick” school of history. It lays down the purpose of history as understood by the “nation builders.” History is not about accuracy or facts but about increasing production and power and GDP etc. As a historian, I may not agree – no historian will- but its value as a state building and political tool is immense and obvious. But is there a problem in this approach? The problem is only one. Whose ‘shothik ‘history is this anyway? In simplified Bangladesh the conflict is not very subtle. It’s between the narrative promoted by the AL and the narrative promoted by the BNP. The recent rules and legislations are largely a reaction of the AL to the constant harping of the BNP about the number of Shaheeds and violated women in 1971. Khaleda keeps on saying that less than 3 million died, less than 2-300,00 women were violated and Zia declared independence.AL of course contests this as because the numbers were mentioned by Sheikh Mujib and he is by all accounts, barring pro-BNP ones, the father of the nation. Thus the contest is not about history but the legitimacy to claim power over history. BNP follows its own “shothink’ history and the AL has its own narrative. The fight is between two versions of “shothik” history. Basically it’s about the contest between two politics rather than two historical approaches. However, politics is not about to go away, so these two approaches will continue to hold sway and there is not much that can be done about it. Since the objective is not knowledge gathering but political chips, it will be here and continue to influence our historical culture. It’s up to individual historians now to decide where they wish to stand on this matter and if their pursuit will be guided by political/nation building or academic inclinations

What is inclusive history?

But what does inclusive history mean? Simply put, it includes all aspects of history and not just political history. It doesn’t ignore it but places it as part of many other historical streams, within and inside history. It means, in case of 1971, one can look not just at the politics of the national leadership but at the life at the people at the social, economic and cultural level. It deals with human history where politics is a part of many other realities. It includes all histories from the villages to the streets of an occupied Dhaka. It’s not the history of political parties but the history and life as it’s lived in 1971 by its people. This approach to history writing is not popular because the gains to be made from practising this approach are very little. Few want to know what a poor family ate in a hut somewhere or how the collapse of a market destroyed the micro economy of a distant land encircled by poverty and enemy in 1971 and not just their death, rape and revenge. It’s a painful process of recording the fears, hopes, anxieties and tears, courage and cowardice of a people full of unimportance. Cataloguing them is not thrilling but it comes from the idea that history must include every aspect of life. But inclusive history has a historic role which is, remembering everything as much as possible, as a matter of principle instead of choosing and selecting what is to be remembered. Political/ “shothick history” has no option other than to remember selectively since its purpose is to influence other outcomes than just remembering. Which is why, it’s only with this inclusive approach that the marginal members of society have a chance of finding their place in history. Politics is inevitably about choosing the right champion(s) but inclusive history makes no judgment on what is to be selected. It includes everything. It’s when we promise to remember everything, good and bad, that we can claim to be ready to build a history that is free from the ailment of bias and ignorance. That reflects best the all embracing spirit of 1971.

---

Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist, editor and writer. He has edited and co-authored a four-volume history of 1971, Bangladesh 1971