THE article ‘Don’t tear down statues’ by Pervez Hoodbhoy (June 27) is a great example of comparing apples and oranges.

Removal of racist colonists’ statues is an expression of protest by violently marginalised communities, whereas destruction of Hindu/Buddhist heritage sights in Pakistan, and Muslim sights in India, has been a part of violent nationalist projects.

The assumption of a neutral standpoint from where to access history is intellectual naivety at best, and moral bankruptcy at worst. There is no such thing as ‘the past’.

There are multiple pasts and contests over them shape both the present and many possible futures. Instead of patronising protesters, perhaps our liberal intellectuals should ask: what do different symbols signify to the marginalised?

Taj Mahal and pyramids symbolise oppressive regimes from the past, but the present realities of ordinary Indians and Egyptians are marked by ruthless capitalist exploitation with the social veneer of Hindutva fascism and Sissi’s brutal military dictatorship.

Unlike Taj/pyramids, statues of colonists like Churchill personify socioeconomic structures that sustain racial capitalism. Churchill may be long dead, but his legacy still haunts many communities.

Additionally, the fall of Saddam Hussein’s statue did not yield anything of substance because it was part of an imperial war.

If imperialism manages to co-opt ongoing movements, then perhaps the fall of racist statues may also not yield anything substantial, but that’s a moot point for now.

If you think the fall of colonists’ statues is cultural vandalism, your culture is most likely also based on racist, classist and sexist values.

However, if you are concerned about preserving racist/colonial pasts insofar as these may offer lessons for posterity, that can be done in spite of the fall of their physical manifestations.

Umair Rasheed
Urbana, Illinois, USA

Published in Dawn, July 6th, 2020