Danish Zahoor
In the year 1869, Leo Tolstoy published War and Peace which was to become one of the most celebrated works of world literature. It was a colossal work of over a thousand pages, part history and part fiction. Featuring more than 500 characters around its plot of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1805, it masterfully brought the Battle of Borodino to life. Tolstoy hesitated to call it a ‘novel’ and argued that it was a work that could not be categorized under the rubric of the western literary thought. Very typically Russian, it was in fact a literary category in itself.
War and Peace would become not just an epitome of literary genius but also the beacon light of a distinguished school of historical thought, one that sought to understand history through an enormous number of small, incremental and converging forces, all of which contribute in their minor but significant ways to shape it. When these forces prepare ground for historical events to unveil themselves, everybody, including those in power positions in the society, is supposed to behave like actors performing to a predetermined script. If they are reluctant to behave according to the script and wish to go against the stream of history, they are very likely to become irrelevant, be thrown out of power or even worse, get executed by the invisible hands of history that would always be overwhelmingly more powerful than the actors themselves. In Tolstoy’s famous words from War and Peace, “Kings are the slaves of history.”
This is a perspective very different from that of the western historical thought that seems to have an innate fixation for the Great Man theory of history. American and Western European historical works are replete with the names of Kings, Generals, Presidents, Diplomats and Industrial leaders whose personalities, decisions and speeches often seem more weighty and decisive to shape the events of history than popular upheavals or economic depressions. Very often, this appears to be an effort to pander to the tastes of the readers who have an insatiable appetite for stories of individual heroism, power and charisma. Not in Tolstoy’s grandiose theatre of history where even the seemingly unimportant actors are at the center stage of action!
buy abilify generic buy abilify generic
In 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation putting an end to slavery in the United States, it took place in the backdrop of a society that was just beginning to get industrialized and required a huge influx of manpower to run its upcoming factories, railroad companies and mines. There was a clamor to liberate the huge pool of this inexpensive resource that was locked up in the rural and domestic economy of America. Lincoln was the man chosen by destiny to lead this transformation but it would be infantile to believe that he was driven solely by his personal motivation to end slavery. It was in fact a result of a long succession of historical events that led to a point where it had become expedient and probably even important in order to usher in the age of industrialization.
Similarly in India, the sentiment of nationalism spiked dramatically after the widely televised Kargil War of 1999. By this time, the television had become an integral commodity of the average Indian household and the emerging private news media captured the imagination of millions through courageous on-field reportage. Media crews also ventured into the remotest villages of the country to interview the families of the martyrs, often moving their widows and orphans to tears on camera. A general atmosphere of rage and homage was palpable. The war ended inconsequentially after two months but the aftertaste of nationalism remained.
Over the next decade or so, the country’s popular culture especially its films would adopt nationalism as the predominant theme of their stories. A succession of films were released post Kargil which centered on the theme of war against the country’s most favorite adversary, making guaranteed fortunes for the investors. This period was also punctuated by major incidents like the Parliament attacks, the Godhra attack, Mumbai train bombings and Delhi serial blasts. In 2008, the 26/11 attacks of Mumbai turned out to be the last straw, immensely outraging the public and forcing the Indian government to contemplate an overt military strike against Pakistan. All of this took place in the general backdrop of a post 9/11 world with Islamophobic propaganda already replete in the western media. The time was thus ripe for the right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP to take over, which they did by an astounding margin in the 2014 general elections. The man destined to spearhead the party to victory and lead the nation was Narendra Modi whose anti-Muslim image after the Gujarat riots perhaps only made the case stronger for him. Once again demonstrating Tolstoy’s theory, even a powerful leader like Modi would obediently follow the predetermined script of history and direct the nation’s politics through an arcade of consistent policy, highlights of which were challenging Pakistan, abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu Kashmir, reconstruction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and bringing the widely resented Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019.
The present theme of Indian politics is well set and tremendous right wing political capital is still at the disposal of the current regime. Leaders are merely required to acquiesce and utilize it to the fullest. In the context of Josef Stalin, the famous historian E.H. Carr writes “circumstances make the man, not the man the circumstances”. This holds true for leaders of all eras across the world, no matter how popular or powerful they are. In a Tolstoyan world, they are all at the mercy of the invisible but undeniable hands of history.