2005-03-15 - 11:44 p.m.
What I'm listening to: King of Pain by the Police, on vinyl.
"This is the history of Jan's buildings and it is sanguinely hoped that this piece of paper will be preserved and placed in the documents of family history of Mistri Jan Mohammad and of his children, grand children and great grand children. Written by me on the 10th day of May, 1926." J.M. Ahmad Din (my great grandfather).
I've been thinking about this document that I have for the past week or so. I have a copy, my uncle has the yellowed originals. I've been thinking about the writing of history, and transference of 'official documents' lately...evidence of the past. This quote comes from the assembled papers of my great grandfather, that includes the history of our ancestral home in Lahore, which the family no longer owns. I went there once in 1997, and have photographed it in black and white. It is massive as it stands, and was elaborate in its day. It still stands, within the walled city of Lahore. It used to have a running fountain in the courtyard, and fancy railings and balconies inside, as well as lavish fixtures, rugs and accesories, and the likes. A real palace, so I've been told by the relatives.
In British India, my great grandfather earned the title 'Khan Sahib'. That's where my blog name comes from. It was an honour bestowed upon by the British, at the same level as being called 'Lord' or 'Sir'. Seems appropriate, since we decend from aristocracy, and my great grandfather retired as a high ranking official in the Punjab government, before independence.
While growing up, we all thought this title was a pretty big deal, him being knighted and all. But, as I delve further into post-colonial studies, I must admit that this type of 'honour' is fairly patronizing. It's kinda like saying 'he's ok, you know, for one of them'. Such a title is really inline with colonial discourse. What this title tells me is that my great grandfather sold out to the British, to have received such a 'high' honour from the colonial masters.
In the 1930s, the independence movement really began to gain momentum, so I'm wondering where he would have stood in relation to this budding rebellion. Probably pretty ambivalent, or perhaps against it, considering that he made his fortune through colonial trading, through British India, British West Africa and England during the 1920s. When the power structure has treated you so well, why upset it?
One thing's for sure, his written English is seemless, sometimes better than native speakers. Grammatically clean, yet charmingly poetic. Not bad for being 'one of them'.
I guess what a lot of this boils down to is narrative, and how stories about the past tell more about the present than anything else. I'm really facinated with romanticism, and idealized tellings of history. Truth is irrelevant, but what happens when the stories are told contemporarily and how does this effect one's own concept of identity, when the evidence of these stories are so spatially and temporally distant?
