Narratives and the New Year

Introduction

Spoken or written accounts of connected events do get passed from one group to the other and these narratives shape history. People hear, observe, perceive, and then construct and pass on their versions. How true these are, how authentic the recording or ‘memory making’ has been, and thirdly with what intent these are transmitted are important. Narratives decide the history, build prejudices, and result in ‘actions’.

If events happened and these were registered, recorded, and passed from generation to generation in either ‘moukhik’ or ‘likhit’ ways, standing for oral and written history, then where is the question of distortion one may ask. There can be two reasons or causation factors. First is by giving the benefit of doubt, the distortion ‘naturally’ happens. Many of us are aware of the classroom/workshop versions of ‘Chinese whispering’ wherein after 5th or by 6th ‘relaying’ the message gets distorted, and not with any such intent by the participants. In fact, the participants try to be as sincere in relaying the message to their best of ability. Still distortion happens and beyond all stretches of imagination. In spite of sensitizing the class not to react, it becomes difficult for the ‘non volunteering’ part of class in controlling the laughter at the stretch and distortion getting witnessed after one more relaying. The second reason for distortion could be sheer interest in distorting communication to suit one’s specific purpose. One of the factors causing is ‘which side’ one is ‘representing’. What gets disturbed and distorted is the ‘truth’ part of the message, authenticity of communication process, and aspiring wrong things indulging in non-dharmic pursuits.

Origins and instances

There have been many migrations from and into our land of Bharatavarsha. Many lives have passed from here, and many new joined here with their old memories and stories. If we consider the reasonable past of a millennium and half, many versions exist about the same thing or instance. History recording has not been perfect is one of the acknowledgements. Winners write the history, it is often said. So also, some ‘interested’ write the history, and others buy it. The reasons could be a few or many. Travelogues of those times’ visitors have been used as evidence of what was happening then here. With a quarter and more of the GDP coming from our land, probably we had an attitude of ‘givers’ may be the reason for not ‘bothering’. The ‘takers’ had all the awe and recorded their findings can be the complementary.?

Whether some people visited our north thousand plus years before, ‘South Central’ parts eight hundred years ago, or ‘South Western’ parts five hundred years ago, North West four hundred years ago, the recordings from our side would have reflected the ‘truth’, observing in unbiased manner. Later, three four hundred years ago, Europeans learning Turkish, Persian and faring well in conversations with our rulers and court seniors of those times, carried their memory wealth as well as material wealth from here. All this mostly went unnoticed. Presenting the rulers and the chiefs of those times in a manner that suited their purposes dictated the tone of the visitors’ narratives. Description of the morally fallen and corrupt life of local rulers, if reported by outsiders, we have no evidence to corroborate or negate. Moral turpitude incidents reported are accepted as we don’t have independent reporting that could counter the selfish or unbiased narratives from the other side.

More about narratives?

Duopoly in business may result in some ‘match fixing’ or ‘cooperative/collaborative’ endeavors which may be termed ‘cartel’ by those who don’t like these! In political and social scenarios, the duopoly results in intense rivalry and damaging the ‘other’s interests’ by each of the two parties. Over the years the two dominant elements will start emerging clearly and these may be different in different regions. There could be economic disputes, a sense of aggrieved feeling by one party (against the other) that might have existed.

Shaiva/Vaishnava differences in certain regions can’t be wished away saying that some vested interests have spread these narratives. Nine hundred years ago, the chief acharya of a tradition had to flee and stay in a completely unrelated place for years. Only plea was the reason that advanced age (and his death approaching fast) that he was allowed into pilgrim town of the sect. Another aggressive ruler belonging to a sect chopping off the heads if people were found without the ‘symbol of the sect’ is not recorded properly. The narrative spread was, he was the avatar of so and so and cleansed the world of unfaithful. ?Who plundered which place worship is mostly heresy. ?Who helped rebuild which place can have to narratives to suite the proponent’s comfort and political interest. Ethicality of what is the truth in such cases goes on slippery slope.

Sabotages have two sides akin to modern day splits. Who opened the fort gates of different kings and what were the luring, if recorded properly would have set the historical narratives without bias. Later medieval and pre-‘modern’ rulers were so feeble and weak in terms of withstanding the luring is hard to establish as we are mostly dependent on the narratives of the later ruling class of Europeans. Many of the narratives are either hagiographies or denouncements, either side extremes. Even the lives and times of five hundred plus Indian states which had ‘agreements’ with English were not recorded properly and many narratives that are spread later have no corroborative accounts. All of us heard of triangulation!

Additionally, reportedly huge quantum of recordings got destroyed on the eve of these princely states joining Indian union, as it was feared that such material may be used from judicial or administrative angles by the new Indian government. Though evidence is destroyed, the very act of destroying evidence communicates that there was substance in the narratives spread about these. It means there was something to be badly hidden. Another point is about subjectivity and context knowledge (or lack of it). Dressing traditionally to enter a place of worship may be seen as sense of improper dressing, if the males are supposed to be bare chested. Another may say that tradition is well honored. Which side or narrative wins and why?? If the reporting and recording person is not embedded in the context, does this confer unbiasedness or lead to misinformation led bias? Which shall prevail and under what circumstances? Need elaborative study.

Closing the current narrative about narratives

Current times are digital. Digital can be of use in terms of storage, sorting, finding a pattern. Modern trend of digital powering the ‘easy distortion’ has to be avoided. It is a must. AI can supplement our efforts but not provide ‘Alternative Narratives’ without base. The people who lived in the times when no recordings were available are made to ‘say the things’ these ‘creators’ wish. Words are literally put into the mouths for various vested interests or simply to create excitement. The current trends of ‘cut and conveniently paste’, editing to suit choice, morphing the pictures, tampering the videos or through deep fake, and such have left many a bad taste in the month.? ?

Creating content that doesn’t reflect truth, and reality has become a common thing. It is a different matter whether anyone is taking such ‘campaign materials’ with any seriousness. However, in spreading hatred, spreading the tension during flash point times, such messages can ‘light up’ passions, and bring up pent-up negativity. Prejudices, biases, and canards are now digitally built, serving more effectively and delivering efficiently. Inflammatory?

Impression management has assumed a weightier role in ‘Communications’. Planting true or false but aspirational stories, spreading ‘good vibes’ have become a habit now, a more regular feature of corporatized communications. Authenticity takes a backseat if 24x7 virtual media messages or comments or re-posts happen by busy leaders. Something is amiss, and it is authenticity. Truth is suffering, and innocent are becoming victims. Information overload may reduce the seriousness of this type of communication, but the damage will be done. Then the onus remains on the victim, and argument builds up that she/he should not have become the victim in the first place. Avoidance?

Do market forces work under the above circumstances? Whether the ‘Satyameva jayate’ will still be valid? Whether the long legal gestation times and lower conviction intensity/rates for ‘fake’ can take people away from this ‘fake’ trend? Whether the risk of fake news distorting the medium / channel / platforms’ credibility has the potential of ‘punishing’? Whether losses due to ‘lost’ customers cause consequent significant dip in the revenues? Capital market has the power of ‘serving’ backlashes? When repeated fake happens, whether general loss of credibility can instill ‘fear of GOD’ in the actors concerned? Above are some of the questions that need desirable answers. May be the new year beginning now can provide a few answers in the desired manner. May truth prevail, may good happen, and may this pattern sustain is the prayer.