Rahul Savarkar

A great advantage of history for politicians is that most of the participants are dead, and while immortal as symbols, can speak only through the tongues of present day interpreters.

There are two components central to the rhetorical construction of nationhood: identity and history. Both are highly interrelated in that one arguably cannot be invoked without the other in defining a nation and its people. History provides understandings about boundaries, content, and prototypes of the national category and therefore is an essential ingredient in the construction of nationhood and national identity. This is because history can be descriptive in that it can provide a people with an understanding of their origins and identity.

On the other hand, through the use of selective account of past events and concentrated efforts to utilise this as a cohesive mobilising factor, history can be prescriptive by instilling a frame of reference for the future. The descriptive and prescriptive elements of history are embodied in historical charters, or foundational myths, that serve as warrants for social and political arrangements in the present and future. While there generally tends to be consensus about the episodes, events, and figures that are important in the history of a nation, their meaning and relevance for present states of affairs are often contested.

This allows politicians to represent the historical trajectory of a nation and its people in a story-like structure that legitimises lessons for the present and future by establishing temporal continuity with its past. Like the boundaries, content, and prototypes of social categories, historical charters can be invoked to legitimise, i.e., confirm, the validity of the agendas mobilised by politicians.

British India was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Secular (?) India. The partition witnessed large scale mass migration of 12-14 million people; the killing of over one million people; sexual abuse of an estimated 100,000 women, and serves as a powerful illustration of the devastating consequences that the production and contestation of nationhood can have for human life.

As a logical consequence of the fact that Pakistan had been founded as a Muslim nation, the partition came to vindicate the view that India was a Hindu nation for Hindu nationalists. The Indian Identity, “Who is an Indian?” is being mobilised through History but even the History is being mobilised through identity.

---------------------- 

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.

To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.