VAAR

RESPONSE PAPER 1

BY: MAIDA TAHIR

21110034

History, as has been portrayed in Shail Mayaram’s “Against History, Against State” is widely looked upon
for its claims of academic objectivity. As an academic discipline, History attempts to depict itself as a
factually correct measure of past events. However, Mayaram’s text analyses the role of this discipline in
the context of past events and their present perception, and provides a detailed criticism on the
limitations brought about by such an approach. History, according to the author, often tends to base
itself off of myth and is known for “creating its own fictions despite its claims to embody objectivity”.
This is further elaborated upon in the examples that the author presents, particularly those relating to
the Meos, and their attempts to fight the state narrative and the subsequent recording of what is now
known to be history.

The concept of history has always claimed objectivity and factualness, primarily due to the fact that the
contents of history itself have always been related to the conquests of the state. However, it is to be
noted that it is this very connection of history to the state that leads to a biased narrative. History that is
for the state will ultimately not recognize acts that oppose the state, as has been described in
Mayaram’s text regarding the struggles of the Meo Clan. This does ultimately result in the eradication of
substantial narratives and voices from state history, primarily because they do not fall in line with the
standard state narrative. Such voices, unfortunately, often end up including those who have been
oppressed, conquered, dispossessed, and victimized at the hands of the state itself. Those who have no
legal claim to the land of the state end up being excluded from the history of the state. It is such
practices that thus limit the role of history as an accurate, or even fair and just, retelling of past events.

Mayaram further criticizes the role of history as an objective source of the past by creating a direct
comparison with the concept of myth, which has been defined as an ideological system of studying the
more primitive and traditional societies and understanding experiences on a deeper, more complex
level. The basic criticism of using myth as a mode of understanding the past has been that it primarily
arises from folk politics and is thus difficult to critique within an objective academic setting. The text,
however, speaks of how myth has also been widely viewed as an alternative perspective that provides a
much deeper insight into historical thoughts, actions, and behavior than the academic discourse within
history as a discipline offers. In comparison to history, which has been overly glorified and thus
pardoned of its limitations and exclusion of significant voices of the past, myth has been largely
disregarded as imagination and is not noted for the academic critique it may possibly offer. Another
prospect mentioned is that of memory, particularly the concept of memory as a means of recording and
understanding the past. The text speaks of how memory and myth may have a relation in terms of the
perception of past events and how they can be understood, and states that to relate them implies that
myth is subject to the biasedness and politics that accompany remembrance. Both means, however, are
seen as less effective when compared to the standard narrative of recorded events that have come to be
known as state history. The text looks into how limiting it is to make use of history as the only means of
understanding past events, as it fails to take into account the actions and behaviors that can only be
recognized through remembrance.

Another significant critique raised regarding the history is related to the very means of recording and
passing down the telling of past events. The text speaks of both written and oral narratives, and openly
talks about how the written narrative has always been the precedent, and how oral history has
commonly been brushed away as inauthentic. The written narrative has always been preferred due to
the fact that writing has often been largely associated with knowledge, and more subsequently, power
and domination. The written narrative has been largely regarded as the primary source of history, to be
taken for its word. However, it is this very quality of the historical narrative that limits its own
authenticity. The oral tradition, as followed by many historical societies, including the Meo Clan, has
often been viewed as inauthentic, unsuitable, and too spontaneous to be considered knowledgeable
enough to transcribe well. It is due to this very issue that oral narratives are often excluded, if they
cannot somehow be converted into the written word. The primary critique that applies is regarding how
many unprivileged stories and narratives has this bias toward the written narrative led excluded. Those
who are dispossessed, oppressed, or unable to access the resources required to translate their voices
have been cut off from our history, which leaves our understanding of the past incomplete. This is
primarily seen in the example of the Meos, who have long struggled against the state with their oral,
memory-based traditions that do not believe in the power of the written text. Though not recognized as
the best way to present past events by historians, the written word, as believed by the Meos, takes
away from the imagination and authenticity of the oral narrative held together with memory. The
concept of remembrance allows for those voices to be heard that have not been able to make their way
to text, and thus allows for a greater, more rounded narrative. However, it must be noted that such
clans, though passionate about their memories and their struggles, have long since fought against the
state and have thus been some of the many voices that have remained in conflict with standard history,
a narrative that has failed to objectively portray the past.