Anything that has happened, cannot be changed (unless one is able to travel back in time. Even if one is, and modifies a past moment, there always is an older version of that particular moment. but Nevermind. That's off-topic). Anything that has happened has happened. Time moves only forward. And History is documentation of such past events. So it naturally follows that History too should always stay the same! But is it so?
The modifiability of History
Having said that History is largely subjective, it is prone to change as the people change. And never was the malleability of history observed as clearly as it can be today. When I was young, Gandhi was the most revered figure from the Indian Independence movement. In fact, the aura of Nehru and the name of Gandhi has been a powerful factor that the Congress party has used it for decades to find reverence and love in people's minds. The parties in opposition to Congress were not unaware of this and they have attacked these two figures, often with false accusations, to severe the strength of Congress. And this is just an example. The same strategy has been employed by congress themselves. Eg. the leaders from the same era who were publicly more inclined towards Hindu religion - like Sardar Patel, Savarkar, etc were not highlighted as that would have been beneficial for the opposition that was based on the ideology of Hindutva. Even in foreign countries, the projection of alternative or selective history for political purposes is common. Lincoln, being a republican and being among the most revered presidents of the USA, has been on the banner for the party for a long time. There were attempts by the party's arch-rival democrats to reduce his popularity for political gain.
Apart from politics, there can be other reasons for History being morphed or denied (see Historical Negationism). The Indo-Aryan migration was denied by many Hindus in India, as it was difficult for them to digest that the Hindu religion and Sanskrit language was a product of foreign.
Some also tend to highlight only a certain aspect of a historic event that suits them the best and ignore other undesirable aspects. Eg. The attackers of Nehru plainly ignore the achievements by the government of that time - rise in education, the foundation of advanced institutes and laboratories, assimilation of all provinces in the Indian republic, taking the democracy to every corner of India, and a whole set of other major achievements. The Nehruvian era is regarded as the foundation on which India progressed and built itself. But the attackers of Nehru hold on to and stick to the Indo-China war that was lost during the period. In the same way, Congress, when in power, has focused disproportionately on the Indian Independence movement which was led by Congress in the school textbooks. Having studied in a government school, I know that we were taught the same thing (Indian Independence Movement) thrice in our Middle and High school - in standard 5th, 8th, and 10th.
History is a powerful entity. People derive their identities, their origins, and their own story from these histories. It is only inevitable that some may use it as a medium to influence the masses. History, thus, does change with time for those who find it in the material that is brought or told to them. But for those who curiously dig deep, who are aware of such malleability of history, it is a way to know about oneself.
Opmerkingen