People’s history

Rajasthan government has a good idea. But governments are not the right agencies to execute it

Early in the 19th century, James Tod, as the first British political agent to the ‘Western Rajput States’, compiled what information he could get on the antiquities and lore of much of what is now the state of Rajasthan. His 1829 publication (Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan) was meant in part to accentuate the mystique of the Rajput kingdoms, under of course British supremacy. Notwithstanding the wealth of material accumulated, Tod’s work has predictably been interrogated for its orientalist assumptions. Yet, despite many critical works, it remains a primary backgrounder for anyone, especially laypersons, interested in the ground histories of the

Rajasthan region.

A project, then, to involve the villages and towns of Rajasthan to write their own histories would make sense. The state has an especially diverse culture. At the micro-level are found ballads, folk tales and oral histories that remain unreported in the stories of valour of Rajput dynasties that are more commonly known. Such dynastic narratives tend to make invisible the ethnographic profiles of Rajasthan’s many tribes and communities. The problem is that this project, involving 41,000 villages and 186 towns, is at the government’s command. History-writing is such a disputed exercise that arguments against state-sponsored projects are well-known. The state’s education minister, Ghanshyam Tiwari, is right to categorise the opposition Congress’s criticism as partisan. The fact, however, is that such a project itself will be perceived to be partisan, no matter what the political orientation of the political party leading the government.

An atlas of India’s history, not just of Rajasthan, is something that should energise our academics and writers. The subaltern studies conducted under the guidance of Ranajit Guha tremendously enhanced an understanding of Indian history. But subjects for subsequent studies remain scattered and the writing has tended to drift far too much towards theory. Involving the inhabitants of towns and villages is a wonderful idea. It would re-anchor ‘history from below’ to the people who carry fragments of their lore. But it will not be credible if done by a state diktat.