Session 8 - Challenging the rules of the game

I find a high degree of resonance between Trouillot's conception of the 'rules of the game' and Chakrabarty's Provincializing Europe. In many ways, the two texts directly speak to each other. For me, what Dipesh highlights as the act of 'translation' can also be understood as certain acts being translated into a schema that fits into the 'rules of the game'. But what is interesting is how these
'rules' are European in conception  yet become an integral part of history of any and all regions; every history is a variation of European history. It is interesting to note that if Dipesh's suggestions are taken into account, we are not only talking about changing the 'rules' of history but in many ways, language itself. How do we speak of certain things that are to us, 'un-thinkable'? And there is no doubt to my mind that the lived experiences of many in South Asia, are to us, products of 'Western Academia', un-thinkable. Recall how we encountered great difficulty when we discussed the issue of the Thacoor in Guha's work; this text is raising precisely that issue. How do we make sense of the testimonies of the people; do we interpret them into a secular framework and if not, how do we interpret them?

The other observation which I found fascinating in Dipesh's work was that of the Indian Scientist who believed in both Astronomy and Astrology. This observation speaks directly to a lot of experiences in our own lifetime. How then, do we make sense of these experiences? I think that as Dipesh points out, there seems to be two different sets of belief systems that seem to be operating; one secular, i.e, European and one indigenous. But, the question then becomes; can there be no convergence between them? I got the sense that Dipesh seemed to be almost arguing that even in Bengali literature this convergence was rather missing. And of course, in the practice of history writing, this convergence is entirely missing. As Dipesh points out, the History of South Asia is always written by somebody outside the experiences; a 'neutral' observer. I think the mention of three African authors could help us give direction as to how we can go about bring these two modes of 'thinking almost' into conversation with each other.

Dipesh also speaks with Guha in this text. How is Guha's methodology being challenged by Dipesh? Guha's practice seems to be to interpret or rather translate the actions of the 'people' into a language that we can understand. Yet, this act of interpretation can be seen as decisionist reading of History. My question is; if we stick to the 'European' mode of History writing, which inevitably out of constraint of the discipline we have to, is there really another way of writing about the 'Thacoor'?