There is an old adage in Bengali- Sin doesn’t even spare its father. Leaving the responsibility of admonishing the gender prejudice in the idiom to someone else, it is time perhaps to revisit the responsibility of truth and vice-versa.
Can my truth be loyal to yours? Can your truth be omnipresent? Can there be something between the lines? Am I being unnecessarily cynical by magnifying the ‘dubiousness’ of the lines? Or is it necessary to challenge a particular version of truth not for the heck of it, but to only skeptically materialise the pertinent and objective requirement?
The post colonial version of history has too many nationalistic tendencies which according to the Western pundits is based on wild imaginations. The concept of India was patronised by the British says the British. Is it megalomania, or an insecurity of judgement?
The different versions of historiography has different implications. Historical characters are often deified, often demonized based on political standpoints or ideological differences.
Bhagat Singh hurled bombs, because of which many books actually regard him as a terrorist. Though he accepted his revolutionarism as distinct from terrorism. Now can a freedom fighter, who is too a human being with his imperfections stubble over what constitutes permissible violence and what constitutes illegitimate, oppressive violence?
The view of history has been unchallenged for decades as we have been fed stale material authored by pale historians.There is also the school of thought of historians which egregiously blunders due to its conspicuous biases.
Can the Marxist school of history do away with dialectical materialism? Can Subaltern historiography ever give respect to the command of charismatic, famed or ill famed individuals disobeying its principle of making people aware of the contribution of an ordinary Hindu/Muslim instead of a Sher Shah or Ashoka?
The binding value of truth is relative, and dependent on your power to imbibe the virtues and vices of your choice. When a few months back a best selling author questioned whether chronicliasation was the only forlorn work of a historian, the otherwise communally polarised social media discussed the brains of the author for a change.
So who takes the responsibility and definition of the truth whose infidelity and elusiveness is worth persuing as a mechanism to objectify the boundless around us.
Is it ‘sinful’ to have a different version of truth. Or do all truths have grey shades with extremes only the refuge of a scoundrel?