Crafting official history, making official memory

There are two interesting aspects of this notification. First, it uses the word Samvidhaan Hatya (murder of the Constitution) to commemorate a political event, the national Emergency (1975-77). Second, it calls upon the people of India (not the government) to not support the misuse of political power in the future. The notification, in this sense, wants us to observe the Emergency as an inseparable element of our postcolonial official memory.

It is important to underscore the relationship between official history and official memory to understand the wider political implications of this move. Official history is produced in a systematic manner. The government publications and web portals, school textbooks and official historical descriptions of protected monuments and national memorials as legitimate sources create official history. Official memory, on the contrary, is about the possible ways in which historical images and events of national importance are commemorated by performing a set of authorised rituals. In other words, official memory transforms official history into an observable and evocative act.

The regime led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has always been quite concerned about the official memory. There has been an inclination to defy established norms and rituals simply to redefine official commemorative practices from a different and politically viable vantage point. This is not a simple task. Official rituals such as the celebration of Independence Day and Republic Day are deeply associated with our public culture which has evolved over the years. Any significant disruption in these rituals might have some adverse political consequences.

To avoid such a possibility, the Modi regime has followed a very interesting approach. Instead of innovating a completely new element or practice, the government has decided to systematically appropriate material objects, sites, and historical events for reconceptualising the contours of official memory. Two examples are very relevant in this regard — the construction of the National War Memorial (NWM) next to India Gate and the declaration of August 14 as the Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.

The story of the NWM goes back to the 1960s. There was a serious discussion in Parliament to nationalise the Central Vista and remove colonial statues. It was, however, Indira Gandhi’s government in the 1970s that took a bold initiative after the Bangladesh War. It decided to install the Amar Jawan Jyoti (Flame of the Immortal Soldier) at India Gate to establish a link between colonial and postcolonial commemorative practices.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had made a serious demand for a war memorial in 2012. The party reiterated this proposal in its 2014 manifesto as a poll promise. It was claimed that the party would “build a War Memorial to recognise and honour the gallantry of our soldiers”. After winning the election with a significant majority, the BJP-led government decided to go ahead with this plan. In October 2015, the Cabinet approved the proposal for the construction of NWM at India Gate. A proposal to establish a war museum was also accepted. The construction of the NWM began in 2016. Finally, the memorial was dedicated to the Armed Forces on February 25, 2019.

The NWM, as a new entity, also has redefined the authorised rituals associated with national festivities. A new custom was introduced in 2019, which has now become an established norm. The President and the PM visit the NWM every Independence Day and Republic Day to pay homage to the sacrifices made by the Armed Forces. This new commemorative practice, in a way, has underlined the centrality of the Armed Forces in the realm of the official memory of the State in a profound manner.

In August 2021, the government decided to declare August 14 as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day. It was argued that this move would help remind “the present and future generations of Indians of the pain and suffering faced by the people of India during Partition”. In this case, the suffering, violence, and pain were presented as the crucial elements of the past, which need to be remembered in an official manner. The Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas must be seen through the prism of this new version of official memory. The citizens are called upon to observe the crucial events of national life by evoking negative emotions — war, horror, and murder. This version of official memory is slightly problematic.

No one can deny the sacrifices of our Armed Forces in protecting the territorial integrity, unity, and sovereignty of the country. The impact of Partition has also played a significant role in shaping the collective consciousness of those who had faced unprecedented violence during 1947-48. And no one can ignore the State authoritarianism practised by the Indira Gandhi-led Congress regime in the mid-1970s after the declaration of internal Emergency. One finds serious reflections of these events in postcolonial Indian literature, painting, and other artistic expressions, including Hindi cinema. These elements of our public life, however, have been interpreted in a nuanced manner. A constructive resolve is always offered in such a way that suffering, pain and horror might not lead to collective trauma or pursuit of revenge. That was the reason why the contribution of the Armed Forces was celebrated as peace work; Horrors of Partition were commemorated to build a secular India; and the Emergency was observed as a point of reference for the protection of civil liberties and human rights. This positive attitude is inextricably linked to the basic cultural ethos that we call the Indian civilisation.

Hilal Ahmed is associate professor, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.He is the author of A Brief History of the Present: Muslims in New India.The views expressed are personal