His-story Her-story

Don’t know why, from very young age, I did not like studying history; never paused at any time to think why I had an in-born aversion to history, so much so, when I wrote my first government examination, which included among other subjects history, I was frightened I might fail in history. But God saved me, and I passed with 57 marks out of 100, the least mark in any subject in that examination. And I made up my mind then that I would not venture into the study of history in future, and I had kept my word. I don’t feel drawn to the historical events that have shaped the present world or the nation.

I like story-telling, and had been fond of listening to, paraphrasing and adapting stories from my younger days, and it gives me great joy to weave a story, even if it is just a cock and bull story. While re-telling the story of someone else, I had tried to fabricate my own twists and turns, and that had made the story interesting; sometimes giving credit to some unknown author, I had presented my own story brilliantly and no one doubted the authenticity of the story. I know story-writing and story-telling are not the same thing; they are two different art forms.

By breaking up the word history, one gets the so-called HIS and STORY, and the modern day feminists seem to be arguing why it should be his story and not hers; but my concern is not the sex, whether it is male or female, but about story. History basically is a story told from a particular angle, sometimes from the angle of the victors and sometimes of the vanquished. But it is a story, and all stories have certain truth in them, though the per cent of truth may vary from person to person. History tells a series of stories, oriented towards a particular goal.

In the recent years I begin to understand that history is not a subject which is boring and meaningless; if studied with interest and inquisitiveness, we can gain a lot out of history. I do agree those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it, and if nations and the world at large keep repeating the same mistake committed for ages, it is because people do not take time to study their history, to mark the significant moments which have made their present. If only we look at history as objectively as it is, then much of the problems in the world may find adequate solution.

But can history be objective through and through? We human beings have our own perspectives and leanings, supported by our own ideologies and political and social class we belong to. History often turns out to be like ten blind men touching different parts of an elephant and concluding that elephant is an animal with that particular aspect they had touched and felt; seldom do we come across a narration of history which is all comprehensive, devoid of any subjective leanings. But is it impossible to write such a history? No, it all depends what is the purpose of my presentation of history; if I want to present the history as objectively as possible, then I would make sure that my subjective views are kept at bay. It is a task that I need to embark upon, before it is too late for me to even think of entering into the limitless ocean of history, entwined with time and space.