ThinkFest book launch: work focuses on ‘decolonising’ history

LAHORE : Afkar-e-Taza ThinkFest conversations online hosted the launch of ‘The Loss of Hindustan: The Invention of India’ on Saturday.

In conversation with author Professor Manan Ahmed from Columbia University was Professor Akbar Zaidi, Dean and Executive Director of IBA Karachi. Explaining the premise of the book, Zaidi stated that the book focused on ‘decolonising’ history. Dr Manan elaborated the work with a simple question: ‘Why do we tell the story always from a Western perspective? Is there no other way of looking at the past?’ he wondered. Recalling the inspiration for writing the book, Professor Ahmed noted that once he visited the library of Immanuel Kant, the great early modern scholar, and found that one of the two books on South Asia in his library was the German translation of the 17th century ‘Tarikh-e- Farishta.’ ‘If Farishta was used by Kant to develop his ideas about the philosophy of history, then why is there no broader engagement with this work?,’ Prof Ahmed wondered.

Thus, based the voluminous history of ‘Hindustan’ by Farishta this new book by Prof Ahmed challenged the notion that there was no ‘India’—‘Hindustan’ before the British. ‘The word ‘Hindustan’ is itself a concept,’ exclaimed Prof Ahmed, ‘but it needed to be decolonised, in order for us to grasp its full meaning.’ Explaining the influence of Farishta’s work, Dr Ahmed stated that up till the early twentieth century, his work set the tone for most history works on the region. This is because it is Farishta, centuries before the British, who narrates the contours of ‘Hindustan’ from Kabul to Bengal, Kashmir to Tamil territory—a land with many kings, cultures, and religions. ‘After the Quran, it is Farishta’s Tarikh which was found in most 19th century libraries in India,’ he exclaimed. Asked about the imperial nature of Farishta’s work by Dr Zaidi, since he worked for a Deccan ruler, Professor Ahmed underscored that ‘Farishta’s history was a remarkable piece of work, especially in its focus on social history, as compared to the usual regal history which was the norm in Persian literature of the time’. Further interrogated about the supposed ‘Muslim’ focus of Farishta’s work, Professor Ahmed argued that these notions of Muslim vs Hindu, Muslim rule vs British rule were all colonial concepts, and that they did not exist in earlier times. ‘Was Guru Nanak just Sikh? Was Khusrau simply a Muslim?’ he exclaimed. Detailing his argument Dr Ahmed noted that for the colonial project it was critical that India was shown to have five thousand years of history, where after a glorious period there was a long period of Muslim ruled despotism.