Why should History be Taught and Studied?

An Essay And Article on History

History is an important subject and discipline of study. It teaches us so many things and enlightens us. It makes us wiser, nobler, braver and sagacious. It helps us to seek our roots in the pas and prepare for the future. The people who refuse to learn from the past are destined to suffer and lose. The study of history teaches us how to avoid mistakes and errors and exploit our strengths. It also helps us in becoming more adaptable, dynamic, practical and result-oriented in the light of past events, happenings and historical developments. It is really thrilling to know with the help of history how our forefathers lived and worked and how much we have progressed since their time. All our space researches and travels are a great attempt to re-discover ourselves, our creation and the history of the universe Man likes ‘and loves to unravel the mysteries of life and nature. And this is all history in a comprehensive and liberal sense. It is foolish to confine history to the recorded facts, figures and statements. They are important and interesting but to know about the unknown past is more significant and interesting: For example, India’s recorded history begins from the times of Buddha. But India’s history goes far back to Vedic and Indus Valley periods. And the history of that hoary past lies hidden in ancient religious texts in Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil literatures. The Epics and Puranas are also veiled history. They tell us so many things about the social, cultural, political and family life of those times.

Importance Of History

History is a serious subject and should be taught and learnt with all the seriousness it deserves. The American founder of Ford Motor company made a sweeping statement when he said, “History is more or less bunk,” His statement was not based on facts. It was wrong and erroneous. History is neither a sting of tales and fables nor a collection of dry and useless facts and figures. The prejudice against history is because of our failure to understand the subject in its proper perspective. It is not a mere collection of the records of past events and happenings. It is not a mere record of wars, battles and treaties of the past. It is much more than that. For example, Ashoka is regarded as a great king not because of his victory of Kalinga. But because of his great humanitarian achievements and acts of public welfare, Akbar is remembered today not because of his wealth and splendor but because of his message of religious tolerance and secularism. Carlyle called history historyas the biography of the great men. But he has not told the whole truth about history. It is biography of great men, but besides this, it is also the history of the triumphs, travails and progress of human civilization. Great men are there because there are common men and public. History is also the record of the march of human culture, religion, arts, literature and ethos. We should not view history through the narrow spectacles of our likes and dislikes. What is Ganga, but a liquid and flowing history of India? Himalaya is not simply a mountain.

It is a great historical and geographical monument of the country. History should be studied because it is a fascinating subject. It is full of marvelous facts, figures, events, doings, and happenings and facts are stranger than fiction. Study of history is not only profitable, but also very interesting. It is as interesting as a thrilling novel, fiction or a story. Many great works of literature are based on history. Shakespeare has created many historical plays and so did Jai Shankar Prasad. There are many great historical novels, fictions and stories in the world literature. Study of history strengthens the bonds of nationalism, unity and integrity. It teaches us how to be proud of past common cultural heritage and achievements. It broadens the horizon of our understanding and teaches us how to appreciate the cultures and lifestyles of other countries. It also very well underlines the fact that life is basically one and the same every- where. It is through the study of history that better understanding and relations among nations can be achieved and maintained. It is said that history repeats itself in the sense that similar causes have similar results. For example, India lost its freedom because of internal quarrels, dissensions and disunity. If these things again prevail the country may again disintegrate. Thus, history teaches us to be always vigilant, united, strong and prosperous. It tea, teaches us to be patriotic, but at the same time it also says that patriotism is not enough. Nationalism should merge harmoniously with internationalism.

History Repeats

Extreme and aggressive patriotism leads to chaos, wars and destruction as is evident from the last two World Wars. The lessons of history are forever and of far reaching consequences. They cannot be neglected or forgotten. The benefits and uses of history are too many to be counted. Nehru wrote his famous historical books ‘The Discovery of India and the ‘Glimpses of the World History’ keeping in view these benefits. History helps us in understanding our present in the light of the past and urge us to shape our future in the light of historical experiences. History tries to explain the why and wherefore of things, happenings and events. History has as many uses as any other subject or human discipline has. Great men and women have always been keen students of history. For example, Pandit Nehru was not only extremely interested in history but also a great history. History can be recreated with the help of literature, monuments, coins, stamps etc. For example, many people who are not the students of history have come to know much about Gandhiji from Richard At- ten borough’s film “Gandhi”. Similarly the T.V. serial “Chanakya” throws much light on the life and character of Chanakya and the social, political and cultural activities of those times. we must not forget history for better tomorrow.

Incoming search terms:

  • history should not taught

BLACK MAJORITY RULE IN SOUTH AFRICA

An Essay and Article On Black Majority

When De Klerk became the President of South Africa he released the ANC leader, Nelson Mandela, from jail, hoping that the latter’s popularity would fade, and he would succeed in achieving two things he had in mind, grant of voting rights to blacks and white veto to safeguard the privileges of the rulers in any future black-cum-white governmental set-up. But two years of negotiations with ANC leaders during which Mandela’s popularity continued to increase compelled De Klerk to concede black majority rule. Violence erupted in many parts of South Africa when it was known that De Klerk and Mandela had reached an understanding, and that blacks would be the new rulers of this country. The world media reported clashes between those who were haunted by the fear of losing power and those hoping to capture it. But these two leaders displayed wise statesmanship coupled with a desire to end violence, and hammered out a peace accord which ended apartheid and paved the way to black majority rule in South Africa. From this peace accord emerged a new constitution that was endorsed by 17 other political leaders.

Constitution’s Role’s For Black Majority

According to this new constitution, the next democratically elected President would exercise sweeping powers vested in him. He would have two Vice-Presidents or Deputy Presidents as his advisers, but would be free to ignore them if need be. The whites of South Africa would be partners in the new government, but would not have veto power to cancel any of its decisions. Instead, they were given a number of legal and informal Black Majorityguarantees. Thus they were assured a safe and honorable participation in the future government. This power-sharing formula, according to which the black majority will rule the country, was hailed as a victory for Mandela. The blacks had been struggling for their emancipation and against apartheid laws for decades. For the first time they cast their votes in the elections in April 1994. Mandela had assured them that there would be no nationalization of banks, mining companies and industrial establishments, all of which are owned by whites. He wanted that the new black-ruled country should march on the road to peace and prosperity with the cooperation of the white minority, and he knew that this goal could not be achieved without their expertise and administrative experience. He did not want their exodus, because any brain-drain would cause great harm to the economic interests of his country. Mandela also sought the cooperation of other political groups, particularly of the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party which was demanding a sovereign state within South Africa.

Inkatha Freedom Party is a militant organization and a fierce rival of the ANC. Its leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi is a separatist who had so far opposed all efforts to co-exist with the leadership of the ANC, because he knew that in the new power-sharing administration his party could have only a secondary role. Hence he wanted a separate sovereign status for the Zulu-dominated region of Natal. Nelson Mandela had many miles to go and many hurdles to cross before he could realize his dream of being a father figure of a truly democratic, multi-racial and united South Africa. The white rulers had no doubt come to terms with ground realities, and not much resistance to the new set-up was expected from them, although at the time of the announcement of the new constitution some of their ultra-groups broke into a frenzy of street violence in metropolitan centers of South Africa. The leaders of some black organizations were unhappy with the new constitution and were unwilling to accept the leadership of Mandela. They gave signals of a scramble for power and separatist moves which did not augur well for the future of South Africa. This jockeying for power among leaders needed to be tactfully handled by Mandela if a partition-like situation that was created in India at the time of the grant of independence to this country was to be avoided in South Africa. Already violence had erupted in black majority areas dominated by supporters of the Inkatha party and of AN, leader, and exchange of gunfire between these powerful rival groups was a daily feature of the power struggle.

The ANC had won international recognition because a majority of its leaders in different parts of South Africa had renounced violence to achieve their political goals and had agreed to allow whites to be co-sharers of power. Mandela had acquired the status of a world leader, respected and admired by all heads of state. Under his guidance the ANC had been working in close cooperation with that section of the whites who, like De Klerk, were in favor of black majority rule. The rising popularity of the ANC was an eyesore to other power groups of blacks. Buthelezi had warned that “cozy power sharing deals” of Mandela and De Klerk would be “a recipe for civil wars”. Even the estranged wife of Mandela, Winnie, who heads a splinter group of the ANC had accused top ANC leaders of wanting to negotiate “a short cut to Parliament” with the “elite of the oppressors”. The gulf of suspicion and hatred between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party was widening into unpredictable consequences. Large scale violence with a daily death toll of scores of blacks had compelled De Klerk to declare a state of emergency. in certain parts of South Africa, but the elections scheduled to be held in April 1994 had not been postponed.

The political scenario was similar to the one we witness on the map of the Middle East where militants and ultra- nationalists among the ranks of both the Jews and Palestinians have Black Majorityrejected the peace accord arrived at between Arafat and Rabin to pave the way for Palestinian self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. Mandela vowed that he would never allow a return to that form of separatism against which blacks had been carrying on their struggle for two centuries. But he exercised caution, good will and accommodation in his dealings with rival leaders. He had agreed to give Zulu king Goodwill Zwelithini official recognition as monarch with constitutional powers in Kwazulu-Natal which was to be incorporated into South Africa as one of nine new provinces after the poll. To soften his opposition to the poll he held a number of meetings with the Inkatha leader Buthelezi to remove the latter’s misapprehensions about the accord arrived at among all the black leaders and De Klerk for ushering in black majority rule. There were conflicting reports about the shifting stance of the Inkatha chief. Sometimes he expressed his willingness to hold talks with De Klerk and Mandela to break the impasse, and sometimes gave a call for the postponement of the whole poll, because it would ratify the new interim constitution, and give him no guarantee of the power he sought in Kwazulu black homeland and Natal province. Knowing well that by boycotting the poll he could pocket doubtful gains, he sought international mediation to avert the impending catastrophe that would make his political future uncertain and his dream of grabbing power not turning into reality. From the statements of De Klerk and Mandela who seemed to be on the same wave length it appeared that at that stage neither international mediation would be accepted nor the poll would be postponed. Black majority ruled in South Africa is now an established fact. Nelson Mandela has been elected the President of the new republic. Both the white minority and the Inkatha Freedom Party have accepted the power-sharing formula embodied in the new constitution.

The President has introduced many economic and social reforms, and is making sincere efforts to make his country an ideal democracy in which both blacks and whites share power and contribute to its prosperity. Mandela has placed South Africa on the map of developing countries and made it a member of the Commonwealth. He has attracted foreign investors and is trying to put the economy of his country on a so undo footing. Nelson Mandela is universally recognized as one of the most admired statesmen of the world. But his estranged wife who till recently was a deputy minister in his government is giving him some political headache.

She has accused his government of dancing to the tune of the whites and giving them too many concessions at the cost of the black majority.

Incoming search terms:

  • majority rule in south africa
  • what year did south africa achieve majority rule
  • what president was in office when the black majority rule in republic of south africa
  • The republic of south africa achieved majority rule in what year
  • south africa is ruled by black majority party
  • south Africa achieve msjority rule
  • a country with a black majority is rule by a white president
  • In what year did south africa achieve majority rule
  • Essays on Blkack TUesdAY in South Africa
  • essay apartheid what role did white minority gov want the blacks to have