History - Reflection

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon

What is History? It’s merely a story about the past which has been told to us in various different ways, either through a textbook in school or through our teachers or even through our ancestors. And like any other story which is passed on through time, even history may have different interpretations and varying versions. It is almost always entirely dependent on the teller’s perspective and can change from person to person.

All over the world, history is seen and told from a different point of view. This is something which has been seen through the generations. Nothing in history is a fact, because every aspect can be altered because of the different biases that may exist. Every country most commonly tries to glorify her and glorify her victories, while simultaneously also belittles the victories of any other state. So how can stories like that be called facts? When they are just a series of tales which are added to as the years go by. Just like the fable of the tortoise and the hare, which is told internationally, history acts like just another story told to the world. But in each different society the version of this story is different, it is altered by the story-teller according to his perspective, and each perspective is only driven by the individual’s emotions and reasoning power.

Looking into Indian History and the partition of India and Pakistan, along with the main players involved- Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah amongst other; all are heroes or villains with respect to the two countries. Today, in India M.A. Jinnah is portrayed responsible, while in Pakistan Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru are seen to be entirely responsible for the partition. Which is the truth? What is fact and what is fiction? Who decides?

Recently a senior, respected politician of the BJP, Jaswant Singh wrote a book (Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence.), in which he praises Jinnah, calling him a great man. For this remark, his book was on the verge of being banned and more so he was expelled from the party he helped build. Was he not entitled to his opinion? And who decides whether Jinnah truly was a great man? How can anything be black and white, when so many grey areas prevail?

And therefore, when Napoleon said that, “What is history but a fable agreed upon?” He was entirely correct. Because history is nothing but a story, viewed from different viewpoints and told in different ways.

CIA Article

Past experiences tend to change the perception of an individual for future experiences, or sometimes even give the individual a point of view. In this article, the author discusses just how the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the USA have changed the perceptions of the CIA interrogators. And how their emotions have completely over-powered their sense of reasoning and have made them extremely biased to any form of information that they might receive. The article deals with hypocrisy and could definitely be an eye-opener to many.

A terrorist is just as human as anybody else, and has the same number of rights that any citizen of any country deserves to have. Somebody who has been affected by terrorists is going to have an extremely different perception towards them as compared to somebody who is a terrorist himself. It is exactly this clashing perception which can be seen in the article. The article claims that terrorists are mentally, emotionally as well as physically tortured by the CIA interrogators. Why is this happening? This is because the CIA is willing to go to any extent to be told what they want to hear. They are completely biased towards their evidence, and their emotions do not allow them to reason their actions out. And this evidently shows complete hypocrisy. They have chosen to do exactly the opposite of what they believe in, because they too are driven by emotions. How does this make either of them different from the other? Is torturing another individual, for whatever may be the reason, ethical?

One of the several knowledge issue that the article deals with is the use of torture every ethical? Can what the CIA is doing be justified? Can desperation be a reason to mentally traumatise another individual? Of course, somebody who has been hurt, may often want revenge of some kind. But is becoming exactly like the person you want to harm correct?

Torture is never the answer. It may give the much awaited results, but it can’t be the answer to a situation. As once said by Mahatma Gandhi - “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” This is exactly what the CIA officers are doing. It’s almost like ‘tit for tat’, in the name of peace, they are only giving rise to more trauma, sorrow, hatred and betrayal in the world. This can be seen in the movie Khuda ke Liye, an innocent man is tortured to such an extent that he is forced to confess on being a terrorist even though he is not. That is what the police wanted to here, and that is what they finally got, even though it wasn’t the truth. Their motive was to harm anybody, under the assumption that they were terrorists, only to satisfy their thirst for revenge.

However, the article is very one sided. And it only talks about the trauma that the terrorists are facing. Completely failing to give any importance to the amount of torture the terrorists have put innocent people and families through. It stressed on the hypocrisy of the CIA, without giving it any credit for having gathered so much useful information over time. Whether or not, torturing those who have tortured others is ethical, is something that can be debated over for hours. It all merely depends on the individual’s perception, which more often than not is driven and guided by emotions and personal experiences.