The Memoir: Literary Form and Empire

Nazir Ahmad’s ‘Ibn Ul-Vaqt’ provides us with much material through which we can launch discussions on imperialism. However, my concern for this blog-post relates to a very specific part of the text: Noble Sahib’s memoir and the possibility of locating it within textual imperialist discourse.

                After Noble Sahib receives his first letter from the English Camp instructing him to wait for an indefinite amount of time, Ibn Ul-Vaqt suggests with confidence that he has come up with a ‘’good pastime’’  (acha mashghala)  for the British official. His suggestion – as it turns out – is that Noble Sahib should write his version of the Mutiny. The author’s choice of words in this regard are of particular significance. Ibn Ul-Vaqt does not ask Noble Sahib to write a linear account of events (which would imply an attempt to state an unbiased proceeding of events) but rather the word used is the ever-subjective ‘’yaaddasht’’ which the English version translates as ‘’memoirs’’ but can also be literally translated as ‘’memories’’ . Ibn Ul-Vaqt is not pushing for an attempt at objective history – he is pushing for a historical account that is tainted by the consciousness of the person who writes it.

The first point of significance, then, is that it is the colonial subject Ibn Ul-Vaqt himself who is pushing for Noble Sahib to publish his account of 1857. Secondly, Ibn Ul-Vaqt not only encourages this writing of History but also seeks to contribute towards it. He offers his own personal account of events to Noble Sahib – ‘’detailed day-to-day account’’ - for purposes of factual accuracy lest his memory of events fails him. In his introductory description of the protagonist, the narrator mentions that Ibn Ul-Vaqt took a keen interest in History – ‘‘The history of any country in any period was his favourite subject.’’ Moreover, the narrator attributed Ibn Ul-Vaqt’s admiration of the British to their possession of Empire – something that requires somewhat of an understanding of History. The past, as well as the knowledge of the past, was held in high esteem by Ibn Ul-Vaqt. Here, we see Ibn Ul-Vaqt actively giving something very dear to him – his own recollections of the past – to Noble Sahib so that his own narrative of the past assists (and in the process is subsumed) into the narrative of the colonial official Noble Sahib.   

                  Secondly, what relationship does the memoir have to a wider body of imperial literature? Colonial officials, such as Lord Macaulay whom we briefly discussed in class, often wrote of their experiences in the colonies. These accounts, it goes without saying, were influenced by the ideology of Empire and white-supremacy that characterized imperialism. When asked about the potential of this memoir causing harm to anyone, Noble Sahib replies that the Mutiny has taken a personal toll on him but he nevertheless sees it as ‘’a silly uprising’’ and Indians as largely ‘’helpless’’ and ‘’mistaken’’. This casual dismissal of the sentiments of the Indians is characteristic of this sort of literature however we must be weary of a stark characterization. Noble Sahib himself does not think his position on the Mutiny to be congruous with that of the Englishmen and the British government – he feels that his ‘’entirely personal’’ opinion may not be considered ‘’worthy enough’’ by them.  What about Ibn Ul-Vaqt’s contribution to the memoirs? How do his contributions complicate our understanding of the memoirs as an example of a sole colonial voice belonging to a stark category of imperial literature? In this light, can the memoirs be seen as a joint project between the colonial administrator and the native?