Inglorious Past?

                    There is a sort of opinion in our society that we had a glorious past and the present social structure and social relations etc are in a decline.   This also leads to the dream for a future event of regaining the lost glory.

          People holding such opinion continue to enjoy the changes brought about by the progress of sicence and technology.  They see that upper class/caste men own commercial establishments, leather businesses and saloons that were a taboo for them 100 years ago.  They also see artists, musicians belonging to lower castes or untouchable castes achieving success and greatness. In short they see the social chanage brought about by economic progress. While practicing untouchability in their homes, people of higher castes/classes travel in buses, trains and eat food prepared in hotels that are now mostly manned by lower caste people. In theses days marriages between so called upper caste and lower caste people are not unthinkable.  These kinds of changes are happening because of economic progress and familiarity with ideas such as equality, justice and social change.  But we still continue to hold, propagate and fight for the dream of restoring the past which is considered glorious.

          It cannot be denied that our society had a glorious past.  Many of the achievements of our ancestors are unparalleled.  But there is another side to greatness that is inglorious, indefensible, and ignominous.   There needs to be a balanced view of our achivements and our failures with reference to the ideas of modernity. For example, untouchability was considered a norm in the past but it is unlawful and punishable by law now.  Another example is that women were confined to their homes in the past. Now these norms have changed. Changes have occurred because the practices of the past were considered obnoxious and unacceptable with reference to the concepts of modernity.

          The tendency to state that we are the greatest nation on earth is not wrong on the basis of our not practising humility.  It is wrong on the basis of logic of modernity.  Secondly, the yardsticks we use to claim our greatness are all old and designed by ourselves with reference to our past.  It is not reasonable for us to compare our own beliefs and culturual practices with that of others and impose our findings and claim that we are great.  As for facts, we have not only greatest traditions valued very high in the world but also have committed worst crimes in the name of our atrocious traditions. We are not the only civilization to do this.   Other civilizations are equally guilty of such barbarism.  We have and we follow, beliefs practices, customs that denigrate a section of the people who we define as ‘others’, the people who are marginalized by our prejudices on the basis of religion, race, colour or creed. 

          Even today there are people who believe in those worst prejudices and continue to propagate and practice them whenever they have opportunity.  They would also behave in a secular manner if their economic or other personal interests are at stakes.  The question whether these prejudices were justified in the past is not relevant.   The fact that these would be an impediment to our progress now, is required to be acknowledged.   One of the worst practices continues to be ‘Caste’.  All the intelligent people recognize it as a curse of indian society.  But the problem comes when we do not dissuade ourselves from practicing caste in myrad forms in our daily life.   The hard fact is that all men are born equal.   But we always compare ourselves to others to establish our superiority in one way or other. Caste is one way of doing this.  Modern age has added modern prejudices in addition to the old.  We have not even tolerated the concept that ‘one man has one value’.  Our past might have justified existence of caste and other similar beliefs and practices. Should we now in the name of restoring traditions justify, propogate the literature, theories and practices that existed in our ancient past?

          It is from this idea that our past has to be viewed.  Not in order to denigrate our past.  But to achieve greater happiness to greater numer of people while not causing physical or mental agony to others.   This does not mean that those who had claimed higher status would feel the ‘hurt’ for being treated as equal to others, who were not so treated in the past.  The principle of social equality should be a guide to all our interpretations of the ‘hurt’.

          Keeping this in view, we have to revisit our past with the tools that are available today.  This is not for the purposes of finding fault with one or another group.  If some wrong has been done in the past (history), we should be able to recognize and rectify if the same is continuing now for future welfare of our country.

         

          There may be objections on the grounds that the current concepts or equality cannot retrospectively be applied to our past.   Yes, it is agreed.   But without applying the current yardsticks we cannot find what is wrong with our society now, whether it is based on past norms or present requirements.  Without that we cannot dream about a future in which equality is practiced in all walks of social and political life.

          This is the basis on which the whole argument of ‘inglorious past’ is constructed.  In identifying what are the practices that need change, both theroritical and practical aspects of civilization are required to be considered.  For example, the therories of inequality as endorsed in our socalled ‘traditional texts, called shastras, have to be refuted. The tools of progress of society in enabling everyone to have benefits of technological advances is also considered.

          Summing up, there is a need for looking at the past from the prism of present in order to consider changes that are consistent with the values of human progress, freedom and equality.

         

          We are used to so much of modern godgets, instruments, in this era that we cannot even imagine how people who lived only 100 years ago could live without them.

          In most of the places in India there was no electricity a hundred years ago.  It means that there was darkness everywhere after sunset, whether it was a big town or a village.  Even in a few cities only a section of privileged had electricity connections.  Even men, leave aside women could not venture out during night time as a matter of routine.  They went out in the night only when it was absolutely necessary. They had to anticipate the consequences of going out in the darkness.   Even where there was a modicum of light it used to emanate ony from the candles or oil lamps fire flares that gave out only yellow dim lights with long shadows of objects surrounding those carrying them.  Darkness was not only physical it was a mental condition. Secondly, there were no match boxes and consequently, fire had to be kept alive continuously.  This could not be done in all households for it was a privilege.  I leave the rest to your imagination.  Most of the lower class people were illiterate to begin with.   Those who were literate enough to read could not read after 40 years of age because there were no facility of reading glasses.  Then there was the limitation of reading only in day light for those who could not afford lamps in their houses in the night.  As we see at each step there were constraints imposed by environment and bodily impediments.

          Education was not a priority, but people had to earn their livelihood by apprentiship to learn from their own families’ profession.  Opportunities for education were very limited and there was no scope for formal higher education to majority of the population.  Only a few men had crossed their own family professions pursued a different paths and professions.  Education was considered separate from other professions in that the definition of ‘education’ was limited to learning ancient shastras, that too mostly limited to the conduct of social rituals.  There was no education in the formal or theoritical sense about the professions.  IT was by practicing professions that those artisans learnt about their crafts. 

          In such conditions, millions of people were illiterate and lived at subsistence levels.  Famines and droughts, floods and shortages were frequent and could not be managed as the technology or expertise available was not adequate to address these issues.  The modes of transport were also very limited and travelling by the bullock cart or horse drawn cart was also a luxury available only for the rich. It might have taken more than a day for travelling 50 kms in such conditions. 

Thus materially, the past could never be better than the present in whatever way we look at it.   It is only in the dreams of those who want to impose their own views on the everchanging society that a past with constant values applicable forever could be resurrected. 

          As for the political conditions, never before in the history of mankind, there existed any form of, even a formal democracy as it is practiced in the democratic countries.  Participation of people at large, in the political processes or their involvement in economic or cultural policy making was unimaginable.  Only a consultation, that too with the elite of the society, if at all, was possible when the ruler was not totally autocratic. 

          Wars were conducted to enhance the income, glory and expansionary instincts of the ruler.  Wars were brutal power games, like as they are today.     People behaved like barbarians.  It is another matter that people still do. Life was not valued as it is today.  More people died of war, disease, and famine than today, more women died in childbirth than today.  Society has progressed as humankind questioned and scrutinized all the the practices for arriving at a better life.  It is known that even upto the first world war there was no concept of treatments for wounds which festered and people lived if they were lucky and mostly died because of gangarenes.    

          As regards greatness of our languages and cultures, it would not be an exageration to state that whatever we speak, whatever dress we wore or customs we follow and consider sacred now were not of very old origin. We have been changing our customs, languages so fast that we may not consciously remember any thing.  Changes have occurred over a long period that individuals could not realize that things are changing.  Now, changes are happening so fast that we are not able to absorb the changes as fast as they occur and we ruminate about the past.  Changes have become very ordinary in the course of our lives that we cannot avoid them even though we may grieve.  Television, Mobile phones, to speak of recent examples, have so much changed our behavior that we are no longer the same people who lived, say 50 years ago. 

          While enjoying the benefits of technology, gadgets etc if we claim that our past was better than the present, it would be pleasant to hear that, as it reinforces our prejudice, but the fact is that every minute our lives are changing faster than we reconcile.  This is the problem we cannot comprehend that we look to the past to continue our faiths, beliefs to have a modicum of stability.   If fact there is nothing called stability in human life, now. 

          The only matter that remains to be considered is whether we are fast enough to reconcile and reeducate our old brains about the new opportunities manage to live better than before.