I happen to see this video this
morning in which a British white man standing in front of Churchill’s statue admonishes
those who were tarnishing it by scribbling racist. He says if it wasn’t for Churchill
it would be Nazis ruling. This brings into light an important aspect related to
controlling the narration and presenting a benign patronizing history with chosen
protagonists as saviors without whom the world would be hell hole indeed bereft
of morals and that is: if history didn’t happen the way we think it did then we
were doomed. This ofcourse is problematic, and these are people appropriated by
the system to protect itself. Facts would help. Churchill was an unabashed racist. If
he was being ‘practical’ in the context of time then it is workable but if he is
being projected as carrier of high morals then he will be demolished and smithered
into pieces. Second fact is that he represented a colonial nation, necessarily
racist, despite the counter narrations as benign force of goodness occupying to
civilize people. Indeed native feudals in the occupied countries who benefited
from the exploitative arrangement and were conduit and facilitators created
narrations of colonial benevolence. Third fact is to demolish projection of
history into future. There is a devious attempt to seep in narration through fear
of unknown. This must be resisted. If Churchill wasn’t there somebody else would be there, and
that somebody else would be equally racist or may be not. If he or she wasn’t
racist and firmly took stand against colonialism then there is something to
admire. Further, what if Nazis won? It also is very much conceivable that as
they would have collapsed in their own weight or local would have arranged resistance
to weaken or that Nazis would have split in an ensuing fratricide or resistance within. Anything can
be speculated or even logically extended.
This dominant assertion of history
that without a chosen racist representing a colonial nation the world was doomed
is sickening, indeed laughable if it were not for the hold of the history that normalize
and valorize these. This victory of allies that is celebrated as historical victory
against forces of evil is also problematic. During 1940s US was viciously racist
nation where blacks had no rights while USSR was ruled by Stalin –a brutal dictator
known to have executed and incarcerated millions of people. Britain was to hold
colonies for few more decades. If it was question of defeating bigger evil this estimation of bigger is from the stand point of historical convenience.
Who decides what is the biggest threat? What is immediate is always the biggest
threat. For Indians it was colonizers (and native caste feudals stampeding
for power), for blacks in US it was white racist Americans, for exploited Russians it
was the state agencies controlled by dictator. Britain left Indian subcontinent
with arguably one of the worst human tragedies, millions were killed, maimed
and displaced. Most of the contemporary problems around the world can be traced
to colonialism. There are word defecators, gainfully recruited by feudal state
controlled by coterie who profited from colonialism, who despicably argue that if
colonialism wasn’t there India as country would be not be existing (there wouldn’t even
be administration, or hold your breath, railways!). It is possible India would
be smaller countries. So what is wrong? It is also possible that India would be
a much bigger country. So what is wrong? The point here is speculation cannot
be justification for past, nor can it be reason to allow the control of history.
What is much saddening is the settlers from erstwhile colonial nations in Britain
who are appropriated as representing the example of benign narration of history.
It also extends to contemporary set up to add inclusiveness and multicultural.
Colonizers have morphed into civilized
nations, and it is good to evolve, but this attempt at controlling history to
create narration of civilized into past will be resisted. Repressed histories
will find its way out. Scribbling of racist onto statue of racist is part of
that assertion. British PM (direct beneficiary of colonialism, and characteristically
represents all the entitled buffoonery) may spew his bile on this “subverted by
thuggery”. Ironical, the word thug got into English from Hindi. The word finds
its origin from “organized gang, professional robbers and murderers”. If history
was written to represent the truth then the word used would not be thuggery but
britishery. Subverted by britishery. That is how history is written.
The audacity to play high morals.
(Painting herein is Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus (1920) from where philosopher Walter Benjamin’s derived ‘angel of history’)
