NB: It could also be called the standardisation of thought; the co-option of history by ideology, and the elevation of outrage to an art form. DS
Historian Aparna Vaidik is under attack on social media. A controversy arose following a discussion on her new book at a lit fest in Kanpur. It was alleged that Vaidik used derogatory words to describe revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh. But the truth is something else.
Given the nature of our times, it should be no surprise that the attackers did not consider it necessary to check the authenticity of the report that claimed she had been derogatory: it did not matter that Vaidik is a reputed historian and professor, who has rigorously researched and published four books.
Revolutionaries are the subject of Vaidik’s study. Her work involves a critical analysis of their conduct and their decisions. They are inspiring figures, but they are not sacred for her: they are the subjects of study.
The social media attacks reveal something about the nature of our society. First, the authority of facts, of proof or evidence has ended. The need to fact-check has ended too. People want “facts” that suit their belief system. Second, we are all looking for enemies instead of friends. Who will take the effort to make friends? The joy of finding an easy enemy is much greater. And as soon as we see the “enemy,” we attack. It has become our first instinct. Third, we all have our own gods about whom we cannot stand to hear anything “disrespectful”.
Let us set the context of the incident I am speaking of. At the Kanpur lit fest, a young scholar, Ishaan Sharma, was in discussion with Vaidik on her book Revolutionaries on Trial: Sedition, Betrayal and Martyrdom. The complex personalities of revolutionaries were one point of discussion. Sharma, searching for a Hindi word, used “dohra” or “double”. It was rejected right there. Then the word “bahuroopi” was suggested. That too was not found suitable. The audience was working with the panellists to figure out an appropriate Hindi word. Vaidik said she wanted to talk about “complexity” and that none of the Hindi words mentioned captured the meaning. The discussion moved forth.
Also Read | Bhagat Singh: A radical legacy
Vaidik presented interesting facts about Bhagat Singh: he was fond of food, of fun—he would prank officers in the jail. He used to go to the movies with the four annas he got from the party; and he used to eat up his friends’ share of food. What Vaidik wished to highlight was simply this: that even revolutionaries were human.
It is indeed difficult to understand how such a discussion could be made out to be made into an attempt to tarnish Bhagat Singh’s image or insult him. If you watch the video of the event on YouTube, you will notice the audience is involved in the discussion. During the Q&A, one person in the audience objects to the use of the word “dohra”. Vaidik says the word was rejected as soon as it was suggested. The matter ended there. However, in the reportage of the event, a local newspaper chose to sensationalise the exchange into a controversy.
The misreporting got credence because the organisers of the lit fest themselves tendered an apology. They immediately freed themselves of responsibility by saying they did not intend to hurt anyone’s feelings, and that they would be careful in the future. Ideally, the organisers ought to have criticised the newspaper for distorting and misreporting the incident and should have spoken on behalf of their speaker. Instead, they appear to have sought the easy way out.
The incident itself, was not as important as the reaction to it. This shows that not only are we as a people being provoked, but that we are in fact looking for provocation. And so, public discussion is gradually becoming impossible. After all, we all need quiet, peace, and time, to reflect upon issues. But we as a society no longer linger on events, we simply react. Instantaneously. The first victim of this culture of instant reaction is thought itself, and our ability to think.
Even those who call themselves intellectuals and who are in the public sphere, or want to continue to intervene in it, cannot resist the temptation to react immediately to events. Do they fear that if they do not do so, they will become irrelevant? They forget that intellectualism is inimical to haste.
Also Read | Bhagat Singh: a rebel in prison
It is also interesting that everyone believes they are qualified to speak on every subject. The respect for scholarship or expertise is vanishing. Hardly anyone has the humility to say that he or she is not qualified to speak on a subject.
Among those who commented on the issue are those who consider themselves responsible citizens. Wasn’t it their responsibility to check the facts before commenting? To watch the video and see what had passed? Why did they not do that? Will they escape responsibility by saying they did not have the time? In that case, what was the hurry to comment on a matter about which they were not in the know?
This unsavoury incident makes it even more necessary for us to realise that we have a responsibility to make our environment free from sensationalism. It is our responsibility to establish a culture of reflection that replaces a culture of haste.
Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University and writes literary and cultural criticism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where Are the ‘Don Quixotes’ of Indian Academia?
Witch-hunt against Tejaswini Desai highlights dangers of being a teacher in India today
Professor’s Harassment by ABVP Shows Near-Complete Takeover of Universities by RSS-BJP
Apoorvanand; Gauhar Raza: The bully that is destroying India’s academic culture
After the truth-shower 