Dr. Taymiya Zaman

Among many other things, what really struck me in Dr. Taymiya Zaman’s talk was the way she incorporated two things in her study, herself and language. This obviously comes from my own preoccupation with these two things, since they constitute the main reason why I aspire to do History myself. This blog will be a personal response to the questions raised regarding either of these in Dr. Zaman’s talk, although this will definitely not come even close to approach the delicacy and profoundness of expression she establishes not only in her research but also in its presentation.

In the previous blog, I wrote about the aspect of Fanon’s writing where the reader can easily detect the personal investment that went into the book. Although it was a scathing piece of analysis, one could argue that it was still very much a non-academic work. Last week I realized through Fanon that you could write profound non-fictional stuff without claiming objectivity or impersonality, both of which I believe are fallacies anyways. There was a possibility hence of embracing the subjectivity with which you are writing something and turn it into a powerful mirror for the pre-existing white dude’s scholarship on the same subject, which, while claiming objectivity, reproduced the hierarchal preconceptions that they held with the name of academic scholarship. What I witnessed yesterday was a step further. In Dr. Zaman’s presentation of ‘A Mughal Historian in New Mexico’, she blends in her personal venture and her scholarly approach into an academic work, and maintains the originality and delicacy of the very real human experiences that comes along with it. The question in my mind, which is too often asked by those around me when they come to know of me as an aspiring historian, was this; “is the work we do as historians ‘objective’ and devoid of our subjective affinity or aversion to it?” Dr. Zaman shows how firstly, our selection of what to study is marked by our (very subjective) interest in the subject, and secondly, how our interaction with it and the conclusions we derive are also contingent to our experiences and (conscious or subconscious) preconceptions. Funnily, her witty jab at her uncle’s tableegh and how she is doing the same thing also struck a chord in me. After all, what makes history appealing to me is also the basic fact that it affects us on day to day basis whether we choose to recognize it or not, and to embark on this journey is not only to do research or earn money (LOL), but to foremost know ourselves better. How this could be a dispassionate and impersonal proposition for anyone is beyond me.

Another thing which stood out for me in Dr. Zaman’s research was regarding the language politics in New Mexico. What we observed in Memmi earlier this week regarding linguistic dualism struck close at home. After all, language is the most visible thing we Pakistanis encounter and judge ourselves through in the question of decoloniality, as Dr. Zaman pointed out too. The ease with which Mexicans, according to her, accepted Spanish and used it as their own shatters the notion of language as a key qualifier for decolonization. There are many further nuances involved on the extent to which we can understand Spanish as being the language of Mexicans, but they must not be shy of placing the Mexicans as the primary actors in this discussion, rather than Manichaean preconceptions of colonial vs. native language. Moreover, the determinist understanding of gendered linguistics leading to lack of gender rights was also shattered since people living with the heavily gendered language of Spanish in Mexico do have right to gay marriage etc, while many living in areas with less gendered languages don’t have such rights. Such findings made me rethink the relationship between identity, language and politics which I had previously believed, and has made me more appreciative of the complexity and nuances of such expansive discursive domains.

Coming out of A-5, I told my friend, “If I go on to become a historian, I aspire to be historian like Dr. Taymiya Zaman.” She was just brilliant and made me think of the many original ways in which one can approach history and historiographical writing without falling into the banality of white dudes writing boring ass papers which are a torture to read. May her originality become the norm in academic writing.