Revisiting History and Endeavoring on Writing Historiography: Praxis and Silwals Practice

[Published in Molung Research Journal, Vol. 3, No 3. Kathamndu: Molung Research Centre, July, 2013] Atindra Dahal Abstract In order to challenge the prototypical and exclusionary observation of history over past events and archrivals, currently scholars have laid an extensive focus on writing historiography, which, as per they define, preferably documents to bring forth the non-political events, non-political agents and hidden truths and then tries to acknowledge their powerful roles in social changes, political transformation and movements. Besides, it sets up an anal of the facts, which are covered for long and are not disclosed. This paper observes such writing trend in book titled Kalam by an emerging journalist of Nepal, Mr. Ashok Silwal.

History vs. Historiography Only the truth is that no truth is permanent and inflexible; hence, changes are the ultimate truth in universe. So is in History. History records the past, and offers a set of discourses to future generation about bygone legacies and inheritances. Generally, history, as mechanical memorization, counts political decays and development, changes in power equations, governing modes, and basically fluxes in rulers. Being an elitist in characteristics, the praxis of writing history, till the time, except some exceptions, only acknowledges few counted political figures, lead persons and then virtually denies the constructive contributions made from the rest of others. Neither only politics neither is the history nor are only politicians the actors for changes and developments. There are many nonpolitical events and nonpolitical agents to unleash undying contributions for progress. History is being quite apathetic for those. Hence, a new methodology of observation has to take place in process of documenting history that is a great deal termed as historiography. Notions on Historiography To rebut discriminatory practices of setting archival of history, currently, the trend of historiography, which is a process of determining and re-determining itself in the spirit (38) as said by Croce, has developed; and it equitably assesses the role of all other agents who have contributed in history building process. It encompasses every other macro to micro level agents for changes. Historiography lobbies for streamlining those all yet ignored forces and brings the hidden claim (Karapidakis 111) out. Dignifying and documenting the role of pro-poor, unrevealed one and virtually subalternized is arch-objective of historiography. Guha writes For, it fails to acknowledge, far less interpret, the contribution made by the people on their own, that is independently of the elite to the making and development of this nationalism ( 43) and briefs about lopsidedly blinkered history that has profoundly displaced the roles that normal people made for Indian Independence. To fulfill the gap, he exhorts on writing

historiography. He urges for mixture of elite agents and subaltern agents of political changes. Fusion of both and recognition of all which means the same with views by Iggers and Wang fundamental change in the perception of the past (14) is primary aim of writing historiography. To confirm it, Guha again says, that elitist historiography should be resolutely fought by developing an alternative discourse (49). He advises people to avoid monims - observing history from single lenses and with only a truth and develop an understanding to esteem the role of different dimensions, synchronously. To explore Guhas notion further, Chakravorty writes that my concentration here on the relationship between post-colonialism and historiography overlooks the contributors that other disciplines political science, legal studies, anthropology, literature, cultural studies, and economics have made the field of subaltern studies[] the relationship between new field of postcolonial writing and historiography has not yet received the attention as it deserves (9), and regards that literatures, as major field, have to extensively promote writing historiography, which is writing with sentiment of left or made others or in Gazes term detailing the role of different kinds of difference (26). But till now, very negligible attempts and substandard reciprocations are made over. So, besides defining, Charavorty urges the need of making rapid progress in writing historiography. To make writing historiographical, as author argues, one has to subsume all the branches and subsets of social realties besides of collecting some elite protagonists. Quataerts notion of emerging historiography for an activists history from below (174) richly supports it. Tracing the erroneous feature of history, as earlier explained authors do, Mcevoy grumbles over tremendous shortcomings on developing chronology of the events. Despite the fact that plural events play role for changes in society, only prominently elite and ranked political or lead line personals are documented for. But many others, who have contributed equally, are bypassed. So with concept of Positivist historians, who could heal problematic of periodization (87) he argues for such type of writing, which brings out the historical truth in other sense (73), as said by Woodman; and that adjudicates the role and position of all in history. For Mcevoy, making the chronology inclusive of all responsible factors, together with politics, is foundational aim of historiography. History is not inclusive even for Cofino, and he says, the end of history is, alas, also the end of the dustbins of the history. There are no longer any dustbins even for deposing of old ideologues, old regimes and old values (122) to stress in reorientation of history writing and supports Konkles argument on 'concept as a paradigm for studies' (290) which regards that historiography should replace history and has to make paradigmatic shift in ways of reevaluating past chronology and events. Spivak asserts that subaltern cant speak; and even history does not try of make them speak. It only favors to those, who can speak. But countermanding the trend, historiography resists the cantankerous treatment as monolithic, elite-centric and centripetal type of mis-documentation of the facts. It keeps in acknowledging rest of all, who made more or less contributions for changes. As per authors feeling, the anthologized history has only simulated then replicated the elites activities, where as historiography has to attempt, in next turn, being inclusive of all. Kitromilides regards such attempt of writing historiography, as major development in intellectual history (165).

To brief about historiography, Dehue writes, The final section gets back to the issue of historiography getting involved in the debates it is investigating. My tentative conclusion will be that, regardless of the risks, it seems better to challenge untenable beliefs on straight versus nonstraight facts than to stay safely hidden in academias closet (248), and admits that historiography is revealing the non-straight matters and making an anal of facts, what contemporary elite history has forgotten. So, bringing the hidden in front of all and unmasking the covered reality is historiographical attempt in writing. In support of Dehue, taking about core feature of historiography, Millar says: Much of this renewed interest can be attributed to changes on the ground: to the processes of transition from authoritarian rule and democratization, in which social movements played an important role, thereby drawing hitherto excluded groups into the national political arena... (202). She means that exhibiting the groups, which are excluded in history and in documentation of the past glory, is major interest of historiography. The role such groups played for democratization of nation is not well acknowledged. Thus, history too remains tyrant and despotic in terms of democratizing itself, over which the historiographical theorists refute back. They argue historiography to be more democratic and inclusive in documentation of social realities and changes. A report from UNO, developed by Pocock, regards history as only a partly encompassment of partly activities; and it synopsizes that history doesnt include all. If we think, as we do, of history as the narrative of human actions in a theoretically infinite diversity of temporal and partly man-made contexts and circumstances, we will think of history as the kingdom of the secular, and historiography as the triumph of secularity (9) speaks over lapses in history. Only historiography is triumph for mass people since it recognizes their roles and salutes it. Thus, history is only of power mongers. Only winners and elites are anthologized, and it has not been impartial enough for all the social subsets and units, which made roles for social changes. But historiography positions that all others are to be taken into account; and so does it. Silwals Experiment in Writing Historiography As historiography advocates for documenting truth that elitist history has left, Silwals book, Kalam, makes an attempt of developing historiography of Journalism in Nepal. The pain and pleasure together with surfing and sufferings of press industry in Nepal are thoroughly documented. The book acknowledges the role of press in order to instigate the mass movement for political changes; but elite history only regards politicians as responsible. It even discloses the Medias roles, through their editorials, to systematize movements and guarantee the changes. Most of its segments explain how the protagonist, even not being a politician, made a balanced contribution for democratic movement and political development in the nation. The book reveals many of truths and realties that national trend of history writing has discarded. He points that even negative contribution of press is equally responsible, besides wrong doings of political parties, to have unfortunate dissolution of Constituent Assembly without any of outcomes (Trnas.97) revisits claim as most succinct and prototypical example of historiographical sketches, and explores the role of all subsystems in dissolution of Constituent

Assembly. As we either accredit or accuse of political parties for any current boon or bane, acknowledging others, which are almost equally contributive to the situation, are deliberately ousted. Making a sheer and sharp expostulation over, the protagonist of the book confesses that even the Media houses and press industry would have endevoured to evacuate ongoing political deadlock and impasse. They ought to apologize on failure of constructive roles as they should have had. The author discloses a fact that press is equally functional drive for any realities of the society, besides politics. The convention of only acknowledging political activities is refuted. Rather he acknowledges press as history making bricks. This is a historiographical attribute in writing. The opinion, What loss that nation and people had to incur because of armed conflict, we journalists are also responsible for this. As like, parties and government were not very serious about Maoist demands, press and Medias too thought it very lightly and disregarded for any hugely tangible loss from them (167) urges that heavy suffering in name decade long armed conflict was equally caused by delay in timely action of press and Medias. Besides perceiving the movement as an outcome of struggle for power, and weakness of political parties, he accepts it as shortcoming of press as well. With such confession, the author, through the protagonist of the book, makes journalism one of key associates of ongoing history and acknowledges the role of non-political sector in process of social changes. Besides, the book, in detail, throughout the page 139 talks about how the protagonist of the book Mr. Puskar Lal played a vital role to coordinate between palace and parties in order to diffuse political anarchy and animosities. No other documentation has ever brought the fact to people. Only political leaders were discussed but the mediator was missing. Kalam, is the one to document in such alternative way. The lines Puskar said that the protest and revolution on road for democracy wont bear any fruit and accelerate, unless press too strives for similar movement (146), cedes media and press as remarkable player for political changes. This feeling contradicts the assumption that only parties and leaders cause the changes and movements; then it legitimizes the mass media as powerful igniter for upheavals. This is an attempt of accepting media as history builder and as an agent of changes, which the streamlined history has gainsaid. Going ahead, the disclosure of fact, as, a day, he went to see the underground leaders of the time, but the leaders of congress were found indulging in card playing named Paplu, a famous game of the time(147) is next episode of secrets revealed. The national documents only talk about their meetings, discussions and other political activities. They were ever reported as conscious and worried to take movements in favor of people. But, the book brings other way realties and explores the facts- shows their flippancy- which were unknown till the time. It is an attempt of bringing yet uncirculated and hidden facts. The monthly issue of Sadhana Magazine was published as homosexuality special issue, hence that happened to be atop in debate (97) makes the reader feel that the protagonist of book dared to write on isolated issues. The time when society accepted only heterogeneous marriage and bisexual bonding, homosexual would be neither talked, nor accepted nor be tolerated. It was taboo on talk; and practicing was socially and legally prohibited. Bringing a whole issue of magazine on such banned area was making a breakthrough in press documentation.

Despite legal restriction and social objection, that time, there was certain number of homosexual people, who were feeling isolated and marginalized. Their campaign to be unified and bring the voice to mass was not easy. There, the activity of making a news space to those people would be automatically raising voice of subaltern, marginalized and discriminated people. It was an endeavor on brining out hidden realties of social truth to public. Hence, writing on homosexuality could be a practice in writing historiography and Silwals exposure about Puskar Lal as doer of such left task is further cementing it. "Oomph! Great surprise, changing authors name, with a bit of modification, the article published in next day (30) serves an alternative truth about leading and state owned press, Gorkhapatra. We might have only read about virtues of Gorkhapatra and may have developed lofty imaginations about it, but the author, in terms of exploring the mysteriously glamorous journalistic life of protagonist, dares to reveal the unethical and inadmissible type of task, the largest and oldest media house of Nepal committed. It is an attempt of revealing the truth, which was kept behind. The book, describing Udit Narayan, discloses medias roles in changing public mindset. It alters assumption that Medias only follow the rumors, get into press without authentication and succumb misreporting. The book reveals uncovered fact of unwelcoming move of Udit Narayan over his first wife. Therefore, the bank too wanted me help it to get the loan paid form Udit (66) reveals a new and yet unpublished truth about the very singer. Writings on him have only exposed the timelines of career exploration, stories of struggles, and attempts for accomplishment in music industries. The later descriptions are lopsidedly inclined about the success and virtues he kept in packing. But, being very honest to people, the book discloses the other and left truths about him. This is an attempt to pick up some un-narrated parts and unaccounted values, as historiography should do. The book even questions the traditional thought of male discrimination over females. Amateurish attire, gesture was same, a type of sexual warm up was created. They would remain quite aggressive and I had to be retaliatory, such problem reoccurred many times (268) evokes some new facts. We have long kept blaming the males for domination and discrimination over females. The lead feminists activists, especially, after vast reconfiguration of the world by the end of World War II, keep aggressively venting their wraths to males as ever ferocious and seductive. By citing some female unfriendly praxis and incidents of few rude and beastly male exploitations, they generalize ills towards whole male society. In squeal, always males are charged as oppressors. But resisting the trend, the protagonist reveals the fact that he was attempted for seduction frequently and shows that even females can oppress over males. Though, our nation has constitutionally secured press, a same message is being differently broadcasted into different Medias, and people are being confused (118) confesses that even Medias are not clear in themselves though they claim. The misfortune is that people are more confused than being amused with Medias dense presence. Though all Medias claim that they are working to make people clear, the situation is not so. So, the book reveals what the Medias themselves are not able to admit. Conclusion

The book brings froth many of truths, which major history has not revealed. It endorses a notion that history is not only related to political game of power and evaluation of loser and defeated. It vouches that press is a lot worthy agent of building history and social changes. Silwals book traces many agents, which contributed history making process, especially press. Hence, this is a revisiting of history and practice of writing historiography. Works Cited Chakravorty, Dipesh. Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography. Nepantla. Views from South 1.1 (2002) 9-32. Spivak, Gayatri. Can Subaltern Speak? USA: Columbia University, 1999. Croce, Benedetto. Theory & History of Historiography. Trans Douglas Ainslie. London: George E. Harrap & Co. Ltd, 1921. Dehue, Trudy. Historiography Taking Issue: Analyzing an Experiment with Heroin Abusers Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40(3), 247264 Summer 2004. Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002 /jhbs.20023. Gaze, Backward. Queer Renaissance Historiography. Edt. Vin Nardizzi, Stephen Guy-Bray, and Will Stockton. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. Guha, Ranjeet. On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India. Subjectivity and Social Change: Nepals Quest for Modernity. Nepal: IACER, 2007. P+ 43-50. (IACER, Course Packet, M. Phil. Spring 2007). Iggers, Georg G. & Edward Wang. Points in Historiography. USA: Rochester, NY, 2002. John G. Mcevoy. Modernism, Postmodernism and Historiography of the Science. Essay on Historiography. Nepal: IACER; 2012. (IACER, Course Packet. 2012). Karapidakis, Nikos. The Absence of Byzantium or the Absence of History in General?. The New Ways of History: Development in Historiography. Edt. Gelina Harlaftis, Nikos Karapidakis, Kostas Sbonias, Vaios Vaiopoulos. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2010. Kitromilides, Paschalis. The Encounter of History with the Social Sciences. The New Ways of History: Development in Historiography. Edt. Gelina Harlaftis, Nikos Karapidakis, Kostas Sbonias, Vaios Vaiopoulos. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2010. Konkle, Maureen. Writing Indian Nations: Native Intellectuals and the Politics of Historiography, 18271863. London: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Michael Confino. Some Random Thought on History's Recent Past. Essay on Historiography. Nepal: IACER; 2012. (IACER, Course Packet. 2012). Miller, Nicola. The Historiography of Nationalism and National Identity in Latin America. Nations and Nationalism 12 (2), 2006, 201221. UK: Department of History, University College London, 2006. Pocock, J.G.A.. Western Historiography and the Problem of Western History. Siege New York: United Nations Headquarters; NY 10017. Quataert, Donald. Trends in the History Writing of the Late Ottoman Empire. The New Ways of History : Development in Historiography. Edt. Gelina Harlaftis, Nikos Karapidakis, Kostas Sbonias, Vaios Vaiopoulos. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2010. Silwal, Ashok. Kalam. India: Adroit; 2069. Woodman, A.J. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography Four Studies. USA: Routledge, 1998.