The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : History? What's that?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jan 26, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

History? What's that?

By Hasan Suroor

The question, do today's upwardly mobile youth care enough for history, applies as much to young Britons as to the "X" generation across the globe.

CONSIDER THIS: "When did the Second World War happen? Yes, you George at the back."

"1549 sir?"

"Wrong. Yes, John you... "

"1562 sir?"

"No! No! What about you, Jenny in the third row?"

"1840, sir?"

The questioner, by now fuming under his breath, decides to make one more attempt.

"Robin, yes you, any ideas?"

"1903, sir?"

At this point he gives up, tells the children to look up their history books again and turns to another subject — the Holocaust — only to be greeted again with blank stares.

Believe it or not, this is how many British schoolchildren (names have been changed) responded when they were recently tested for their awareness of history. The Sunday Telegraph, which conducted the survey in two secondary schools — including one in London — said the level of ignorance it discovered was "shocking," with barely less than 40 per cent able to "date" the Second World War correctly and a quarter unable to say what Auschwitz was remembered for despite the publicity surrounding the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camp.

Although the survey was restricted to only two schools, it confirmed another recent poll, which showed that an overwhelming majority of young Britons had little grasp of history. And this in a country that once took pride in having a strong sense of history, where past still hangs heavily, and where cultural historians have a field day preserving and marketing British "heritage."

It would be interesting to see how schoolchildren in India respond to a similar test about major historical events relating to the subcontinent. They might betray the same degree of ignorance but then compared to the Europeans we are a pretty "a-historical" people anyway. Our universities are full of brilliant historians, but on the Indian street there is very little sense of history except as a means of settling "old scores" — or inventing what historian Eric Hobsbawm has described, in another context, as "emotionally-skewed historical untruths and myths." But that is the subject of another debate.

Returning to the current controversy in Britain, it is interesting to note that the issue may not have got the attention it has were it not for Prince Harry's "Nazi gaffe" when he wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party — and that too as his grandmother, the Queen, prepared to attend a major ceremony in the memory of millions of Jews gassed by the Nazis. (Imagine a prominent public figure in India turning up at a fancy dress ball wearing a General Dyer uniform or masquerading as Nathuram Godse around the anniversary of Gandhi's assassination). Suddenly, the penny dropped and people started asking: if someone with Prince Harry's background — educated at one of the country's best private schools, widely travelled, exposed to cosmopolitan influences — could be so "historically-illiterate" there must be something fundamentally rotten in the system.

It was this that triggered The Sunday Telegraph survey and hundreds of articles and commentaries on the state of history education — and the monarchy. "Princes Harry and William ... went to Eton, one of the best schools in the country," pointed out a seasoned columnist of The Sunday Times. She said that while government-run comprehensive schools had "for years been entirely unable to give their pupils any sense of history whatsoever," Eton was expected to do better.

The Harry episode has caused a storm across Europe, America, and predictably Israel. In Britain, it has provoked a widespread sense of embarrassment, anger and shame, particularly among the monarchists who fear that such controversies only play in the hands of republicans and strengthen the perception that the royal family is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

Even in these permissive and post-modernist times when nothing is deemed to be wrong and everything is right, depending on where you come from, there are certain historical events that sheer decency does not permit you to trivialise. The more responsible free speech campaigners, too, tread cautiously while dealing with such events, and the Holocaust, which claimed the lives of six million Jews, is one of them. Although there have been other gruesome events, including our own dark deeds rather inadequately dismissed as "Partition riots," the Holocaust stands alone as a state-sponsored project to exterminate an entire race. That it happened not in Africa's alleged "heart of darkness" but in the supposedly "enlightened" Europe made it the more shocking, plunging the entire continent into a collective sense of shame and guilt.

More than half a century after the event, it still remains not only an emotive issue for the Jews but a grim reminder to the entire world of the dangers of prejudice and aggressive nationalism. In Germany, it is already illegal to display Nazi symbols and now there is a move to impose a Europe-wide ban. Indeed, until recently even artistic licence did not apply to Nazi-related themes.

Public figures such as Prince Harry, promoted as "role models" for the young, cannot simply afford to be seen with anything even remotely associated with the Holocaust. Given the sensitivities around the issue, it requires a degree of ignorance, foolishness, and bad taste to be seen making light of it in any way. Prince Harry appears to have been guilty of all the three confirming his growing reputation as the enfant terrible of the royal family, which has been mired in a series of private and public scandals in recent years. As on previous occasions, he has said "sorry" but the incident has raised wider issues lost in some of the sensational media coverage.

The question is: does the "X" generation, as today's upwardly mobile youth are known, care enough for history? Is it sufficiently aware of the past or has it even time for it, given its preoccupation with the present and its own future in the career stakes? The question applies as much to young Britons as to the "X" generation across the globe.

Ignorance and indifference to history apart, there are issues surrounding the way and the kind of history taught in schools not only in Britain but many other countries, including India. Germans routinely complain about Britain's school history curriculum, which, they say, reinforces stereotypes about their country and tells children very little about modern Germany. Recently, the German Ambassador in Britain took the unusual step of arranging for a group of British schoolteachers to visit Germany so that they could see for themselves how far removed from reality their classroom lessons were.

The Harry "scandal" has also exposed the "closet" colonial mindset that still exists at the highest levels of British society. The theme of the party, into which Prince Harry so smugly walked in flaunting the Nazi insignia, was "Natives and Colonials!" What does the party's theme say about its organisers, who count themselves among Britain's select elite? Can one really blame Prince Harry or any young person moving in such circles for believing that history is a joke?

Commentators said that it required a "distinct lack of feeling" and understanding of history to organise a party around such a palpably racist theme. They said the incident — the theme of the party as well as the Prince's behaviour — was a classic case of "ignorance breeding insensitivity." "You can only ignore it [history], your own country's or other people's, at your own peril," wrote Thomas Kielinger, a London-based journalist in The Observer.

Meanwhile, critics of the monarchy are barely able to conceal their glee at the royal family's humiliation and blame the episode on a culture of "unaccountable privilege." They point out that barring the Queen herself, every other notable royalty — from the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Charles downwards — has been in the headlines for the wrong reasons. Prince Harry, the youngest son of Charles and late Diana and third in line to the throne, has been particularly awkward and got himself into all sorts of trouble, both at home and abroad.

So, how much damage has his latest antic done to the royal family? Contrary to republican claims, the demise of the monarchy is no closer after the Harry incident. For all its unpopularity, it is here to stay if only as a lucrative tourist attraction. As for history's verdict on it, well, that is another matter.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

ANDHRA PRADESH'S CULT OF VIOLENCE

CRUCIAL YEAR FOR POLITICAL UNION

History? What's that?

Where Bush can tackle tyranny