My two entries earlier this week focused on conferences and archives. Before I move on to more interesting themes like the much postponed series of postings on Hariscandra, I wanted to add a set of comments on both those themes.
Last week, Naim saab suggested that my first question in my earlier posting on Archiving wasn’t clear. Now as I reread the post, I thought I should add an explanatory note. Well, the issue is the reclassification of declassified historical documents at the National Archives, which in the present day context of a secretive U.S. Administration involved in a global war on terror raises all kinds of questions. John Wertman, who worked in the Clinton White House between 1999-2001, has an article in the Washington Post entitled Bush’s Obstruction of History, in which he writes about a consequential Presidential decree by Bush. Now, former Presidents or their legal heirs could bar the release of any document ‘for almost any reason’, as Wertman puts it. He also argues that this decree flies in the face of the intent of an earlier Congressional Act Called ‘Presidential Records Act’ passed in 1978 and might have serious consequences for historians who want to study the Bush era. All efforts by historians to lobby Congress or to seek legal redress haven’t produced any result so far and if this decree holds good, then Bush Presidential Library will turn out to be a library in name only.
So, one of the two questions I asked was as follows: what is the value of National Archives and official government documents for uncovering historical truth?
Since I am not a historian who works exclusively out of places like National Archives, here or in India, I am hesitant to provide even a provisional answer. On occassions, for certain aspects of my research, I have used National or State Archives but what I discovered in such places like that hasn’t been critical for my work. Like all historians, I too operate with a conception of an archive, however unconventional it is. But my theory of archive isn’t what I would like to discuss here; rather, it would be beneficial to think about the value of National Archives. Among other government documents, National Archives include classified documents and reports, which hadn’t been made public for a fixed period, usually twenty five years. These documents, I am sure, would be of critical importance for those who work (contemporary) histories of state institutions, public and foreign policy. One could also find corroborative evidence through interviews and extensive ethnographic work but historians are more likely to be able to cite published and official documents and reports, rather than an informant. Such methodological preferences of historians towards the official and the written is what we should keep in mind. Innovative historical schools such as the Subaltern Studies have taught us how to read these official documents in between the lines to identify traces of a subaltern presence, even if the documents themselves were produced by the dominant.
Perhaps our inquiry could take us in two different directions. First, identification of projects for which National Archives would be necessary. Second, the notion(s) of truth that historians possess. So comments invited from more knowledgeable historians, especially from those who are desperately waiting to use the George W Bush Presidential Library, which is likley to be established at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. You may not find much, if you don’t raise your voice now.
Post a Comment