Devansh Shrivastava On 16th December 1773, a group of Bostonian men guised as native Indians (the Mohawks) rebelled against the Tea Act by throwing about 42 tons of British tea into the sea. The courageous act which laid the foundations of the American Independence is a celebrated feature of the American roots. But what has been ignored in the interpretations by and large, as Benjamin Carp puts it, is that the rebellion was against the tea act not sugar whose trade was rooted in slavery (Carp 2011). Bostonians may have rebelled against the discriminatory tea act but slave trade could not emerge as a united cause against the British as it was the normal of those times. Such acts of defiance do have enormous significance but also echo several dark questions about glorification and ignorance of the past. Recently, against another similar normal, Colin Kaepernick refused to stand up for the national anthem before football match protesting police violence against the Afro-Americans and people of color. The arena of sports as a protest sight might appear unusual but evokes much more absurdities of the normalized paradoxes which reflect violent manifestations of past into present. In the age of great expectations and glorification, Colin’s act cuts through the barriers of normal and the rhetoric of being a national. It may not appear as glorious as the defiance of Bostonians but has triggered silent protest as a way of acknowledging the manifestations of racial violence and discrimination in the US. Such unapologetic acts have the potential of engendering eternal enquiry into the different understandings of nationhood. In the age of nationalities and nations, national anthem has acquired enormous importance socially and politically. Also, not standing up for the anthem and national flag could make you ‘unpatriotic’ and land you in jail. It happens irrespective of an individual’s belief and position as a dehumanized identity or class ridden survivor. The supposed expectation is- “stand up and take pride”, in what, “do not ask and keep believing”. It is strikingly absurd to witness lives of people below the national pride. Glorifying the past and envisioning a united future seems to engender new hopes in the imagined shared future. But these glorious interpretations of the past also have enormous potential to normalize age old oppression and its manifestations. It would not thus be unfair to infer that histories and time have a peculiar relationship and potential to define and un-define and redefine the normal. As we look back, not only the relationship reflects tragedies and absurdities of the past but also evokes a sense of eternal inquiry into the injustices meted out to the numbers whom we account as dead. A crucial vantage point in these histories is the act of defiance. Far ahead of time, such histories have remained crucial as they are markers of a ‘becoming thought’ against tyranny. To make the enquiry more precise, think of the horrors during communal riots in India. Why is it that those narratives with possibilities of state compliance do not enter our everyday lives? Where are the dead placed in the pride that we take while standing for the national anthem on various platforms? Why does the inherent divide in our languages harden in the times of violence against the ‘other’ communities? Do invincible champions of the cause of oppressed like Ambedkar or Periyar Ramaswamy have any space in the times of great expectations? How do dissent and the most pressing questions, say bounds of servitude, around us confront the contemporary ‘Great Expectations of the nationalized nationalisms’? Most importantly, in the glorification of almost everything around us, are we [too] acting blind to the new normalcy? Well, there lies no particular explanation to the questions posed above. What appears tangible is whether the narratives of dead can break the bounds of indoctrination and prejudice in everyday discourse/s around us. An uncritical approach to the past does not yield a politically engaged citizenry to the present and future either. Though states tend to follow a homogenization of paths to bind an obedient populace, it is hard or rather absurd to understand the idea of “national” what Benedict Anderson had called “Imagined Communities”. Not only such an approach tends to diminish the heterogeneity but also hardens who belongs to a boundary and who can never be a part. The remedy may be found in our school textbooks though the meaning of education remains a mooted topic since India’s political independence. The text books tend to evoke great deal of reason in the students but seem devoid of the violent histories of ‘national integration’ and absurdities of multiple heterogeneities belonging to the national. Maybe, such horrendous incidents of violence against minorities do not fit into the glorious past image but cannot be buried irrespective of several attempts to forget them. A fine line of distinction separates everyday forms of prejudice to pierce through the boundaries of sensitivity and transform into indifference. The nature of complex times, we live in, is that of what is believed and normalized to be the norm, its conflict with reason and the intertwined individual entangled into this complex set. The complex set is rather an outcome of the great expectations of the ‘collective interest’ for which we are made to live. While the accepted norm compels individuals to sway towards majoritarian beliefs, independent thinking gets endangered. Questioning police or extra judicial killings irritates the “nationalist” class and being critical invites rampant abuse on various platforms. Such great expectations of the status quo advocates have immense potential of exacerbating the ongoing politics of forgetting episodes of violence against minorities. It helps answering the most pressing questions of dissent of our times where what constitutes public order, sedition and hurt to religious sentiments often secludes a prominent section of this supposed “national”. Despotic efforts to nationalize nationalism in conduct do not make a nation; rather rebuilding the distorted social relationships and engagement with respective critical histories which re-build consciousness. Conscience, solidarity, empathy and consciousness are compelling forms of reconciling distorted relationships but are endangered by enormous attempts of the great expectations to normalize troubled pasts. It is high time that unapologetic acts of defiance, say Colin’s act, are contemplated and echoed again and again. Our times need much more such silent ways of making the national hear what does not amount to normal. Histories may be remembered or forgotten for various purposes but the roots of a nation cannot be absolved of its not so glorious past.
