The murder of George Floyd in the United States at the hands of a policeman while other policemen abetted him with their inaction, has spurred worldwide protests. It has started a conversation around systemic racism, prejudice and bigotry in many countries. Even in India, people are sharing social media posts with #BlackLivesMatter (even those who never use hashtags like #DalitLivesMatter when caste atrocities take place or #MuslimLivesMatter for instances of social boycott or police brutality, but never mind that). Another fallout of the protests was the instances of vandalism, including the destruction of certain statues.
Some of the protests in the United States turned violent and led to the looting of stores and arson. There have been instances the statues of slave traders such as Jefferson Davis being torn down in the US. In the United Kingdom, #BlackLivesMatter protesters tore down a statue and threw it into the river harbour. This was the statue of Edward Colston, an 18th century slave trader.
For years there were calls to remove statues that have been a symbol of unimaginable cruelty, oppression and racism – but they remained in place. During a protest on 7 June 2020 in Bristol, protestors pulled down Colston's statue, defaced it and dragged it through the streets of Bristol before dumping it into the river. The statue was then retrieved from the river and according to reports, will now be kept in a museum as it is – defaced and damaged.
In another instance, the statue of Robert Milligan – also engaged in the slave trade – was removed from outside the Museum of London Docklands. This was done by the civic authorities in response to the “wishes of the community”.
In my humble view, vandalising of statues – even those of men guilty of heinous crimes against humanity – is wrong. It is wrong even if the protestors are making the most valid points by doing so. For one, it delegitimises the most vital and legitimate of protests and relinquishes the moral high ground. As importantly, it gives those in positions or authority an excuse to demonise the protests and punish the protestors.
There is no question that statues of slavers such as Davis, Colston and Milligan represent the whitewashing of history and deny crimes perpetrated against humanity for centuries. However, removing statues as a form of protest is wrong because it is vandalism. The removal of Milligan’s statue by the proper authorities as a response to public outcry is a legitimate and civilized way to deal with the situation.
An art lover might say that there is an intrinsic artistic value of such public fixtures. But, more importantly, I think that these statues are important historical lessons. They represent the horrors of the past and remind us never to permit a repeat of those horrors. They remind us of the evils of racism and bigotry (casteism and communalism in our case), how these dehumanized so many millions. They remind us to acknowledge the existence of these evils even today - and to guard against them.
Add to this the fact that removing statues does not change history. It doesn’t it negate or correct atrocities perpetrated in the past nor does it mitigate human suffering today. Those statues should remain as an eyesore – stirring our collective social conscience as a daily reminder of what society must strive to evolve away from.
I often agree with Trevor Noah, but in this case, I think he is wrong. Plus, the rat analogy is rubbish. If there was one terrible, super-rat responsible for the most plague deaths, perhaps there should be a statue of that rat – so that subsequent generations would know what kind of plague rat to watch out for!
Recently I read an article by Dilip Mandal about a statue of Manu prominently displayed in the Rajasthan High Court premises. As someone known to be a staunch advocate of the caste system, social and gender hierarchy, Manu’s ideas/teachings were used to justify centuries of oppression and injustice. I am disturbed not just by the existence of such a statue outside a 'temple of justice', but by the fact that this statue was put up a scant 30 years ago. This is not some ancient folly dating back to ignorant and unenlightened times, but an installation dating back a few decades when we as a society ought certainly ought to have known better.
I agree with the Dilip Mandal's view that the very existence of such a statue – outside a High Court of all places – is an affront. It is repugnant to the concept of equality, social justice and democracy. However, I am not certain that tearing down such a statue is the best course of action. Perhaps if the statue is removed by the authorities and then put up in a museum along with a history of Manu and the social inequities he helped perpetuate down the ages; that would be educative and edifying.
Or perhaps, the could remain where it is, but along with an addition. A plaque should appear alongside the statue detailing the oppressive, exclusionary and divisive nature of Manu’s beliefs and why they have no place in a modern society striving for equality and justice.
As such, the statue would be a daily public reminder to the judges, lawyers and litigants who visit the courts – of exactly what does not constitute justice.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
