Today I
read this story on the Facebook about how a joke on Sardars actually
hides not something funny, but a serious story about how a Sikh Guru
sacrificed his life to save Hindu women from Mughal rulers, and the
Hindu community from enforced conversion. So, the words that are
used today to taunt Sardars actually symbolise their
bravery, not their foolishness.
I didn't
know how to react to the story. I have always found it quite
insensitive of people to enjoy jokes on particular communities,
particularly because I also grew up hearing anecdotes where a Sardar
would be the butt of the joke. TV shows and joke-books too are full
of those. So, yes I absolutely wish that people would realise
how distasteful and hurtful it is.
On the
other hand, how smart is to spread stories which would strengthen
communal feelings in an already deeply divided society? It can easily
be true that some Sikh Gurus saved Hindus from conversion, or Hindu
women from being abducted by Muslim administrators or rulers, and
that some Mughal rulers or their Muslim bureaucrats were exploitative
of the people, particularly Hindus. But, does that mean that all
Mughal rulers were exploitative and coercive? (The story does not
name any Mughal ruler.) And does it mean that only Muslim rulers were
possibly oppressive? And that Hindu or other kings and their
bureaucrats were only the nicest possible individuals?
How much
sense does it make to spread stories which we cannot substantiate, in
a society which has used myths and unsubstantiated stories as
'authentic' history to deepen distrust, conflict and hatred between
communities? We already have Ramayan, Mahabharat and multitudes of
other stories doing the rounds in our country and being used to
'prove' how the Mughals were the worst thing that happened to our
country and how Hindu nationalism needs to get its own back and
prevent Muslim assertion in any form. Don't we know that any ill-will
assigned to Muslim rulers transfers itself comfortably to the Muslim
citizens of present day India? The imagined and actual atrocities
committed by Muslim rulers would be avenged with impunity on today's
Muslims? We already have Mosques pulled down and hundreds killed
in riots in Gujarat in 2002. Have we not had enough riots and
violence?
What is
worst is that highly 'educated' people, individuals educated in some
of India's best institutes, individuals trained in weighing
scientific evidence and thinking logically, 'Like' and 'Share' these
stories on Facebook without thinking once about what evidence they
have to believe these stories, and what impact spreading those might
have. Again, I am not saying that the stories cannot possibly be true
- very likely many rulers were atrocious; power does tend to corrupt,
so, why would only Mughal rulers have been immune to that corruption?
On the other hand, we don't know that they were all corrupt, communal
and disrespectful of women and other religions. Why do we think that
any one community would have the worst possible morals and ethics and
all the rest be pure as driven snow?
In
precolonial times, there was no single united Indian nation-state as
we have since independence. Most kings and rulers were engaged in
waging wars and extending their empires. Except under some emperors
India did not have one central authority, nor did we have one
official religion. It can be nobody's case that rulers were always
impartial or pro-people; and yes rulers many times imposed extra
taxes on people from religions other than their own. But, does that
mean that Muslim communities among the ruled were also responsible
for the actions of Mughal rulers? That, they, for generations have to
pay for what the rulers did? True, there must be Muslims today who
are corrupt, who don't respect other religions, or women. But does
that mean that all Muslims are corrupt and hate other religions? Does
it mean that as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs we can forget that we are
also human beings and can perpetrate any kind of atrocities on each
other, and go on hating each other for ever?
Yes,
justice is important. So is history. But, history as a body of
knowledge is tentative, it cannot tell us the whole story, it cannot
present the full facts of any case or all the evidence. Can we
simplistically base our conceptions of justice on 'truths' we can
only half-know? Can we push history and historical truth through
centuries to justify violence and oppression on certain communities
today? What kind of society would that make us? If we simply decide
to believe the worst of each other, or refuse to accept an alternate
interpretation of available facts; if we refuse to accept any
interpretation which is contradictory to our perceptions, prejudices
and beliefs, then history will only become a convenient brick to be
thrown at the other party - and never a credible means of
understanding our collective and intertwined pasts/stories. It will
be twisted, distorted and pulled in all directions to make it fit our
version of stories we weren't even ever part of. It will not let the
hatred rest. It is all too easy to invoke a history of imagined
slights and offences and go on seeking revenge. It is harder to let
go. It is harder to believe good of someone we have been taught to
fear, hate and defeat. But is that any way to make our way together
as a society? Would it ever allow us to begin to trust each other, to
look at each other without uneasiness and suspicion?
And that
brings me to the question of freedom of speech and expression. I
fully support this freedom. But, I also hope that we will all use
this freedom carefully. That every time we put something up in the
public domain we will think about what impact it may have. Do we wish
for greater or lesser violence and hatred? Do we wish for greater or
lesser understanding across faiths and religions? Do we wish for
greater or lesser dialogue with others? It is real people out in the
world that we are talking about. Can we afford to ignore our
responsibility in making their lives harder or easier? Once spread
these stories cannot be contained. Is it smart to put a story out
there without thinking even once about whether there is proof to
support it? Particularly, because I often see multiple versions of
the same joke, the same anecdote floating around in virtual space,
and can never figure out where each originated and which one is true?
With increased freedom and more space to express myself has come
greater responsibility of choosing what I say, whose word I spread
around.
