ABSTRACT

What does morality have to do with history? Should the past be pluralised as a heuristic category? Might we disengage common representational tropes from historical events otherwise remembered in mutually contradictory ways? This study attempts to answer these questions by narrowing in on the contested legacy of Tipu Sultan of Mysore (1750–1799). Tipu is remembered today both as a proto-anticolonial figure who died fighting the East India Company (EIC), and a Muslim tyrant who colonised a mostly Hindu southern India. This martyr/monster duality finds expression in contending portrayals of his death in combat against the British in 1799. Tipu’s ‘last stand’ becomes the pivot of this discussion where I will demonstrate how the past is used to envision moral victory from conflict by its presenters in comparable events like the Battle of Pollilur (1780) and the Battle of Alamo (1836). This means, I contend, that the past being exploited for various ends is split from itself at the moment of its enunciation; replicated and reproduced in accordance with the ideological exigencies of its presenters. I will argue that this calls for a paradigmatic shift from the Rankean ideal of what really happened to how what supposedly happened is told; who tells it; and for what purpose. Through this proposed model, I will elaborate how the historical ‘fact’ becomes ‘meaningful’, and how morals and history, history and fiction, colonial and anticolonial, are closer to each other than apart.

摘要

道德与历史有什么关系？过去是否应该被多元化作为一个启发式类别？我们是否可以将常见的代表性比喻从历史事件中分离出来，否则会以相互矛盾的方式被记住？本研究试图通过缩小迈索尔的蒂普苏丹（1750-1799 年）有争议的遗产来回答这些问题。蒂普今天被人们铭记为一个在与东印度公司 (EIC) 战斗中牺牲的原始反殖民主义人物，以及一个殖民印度南部以印度教为主的穆斯林暴君。这种烈士/怪物的二元性在他在 1799 年与英国人的战斗中死亡的竞争性描写中得到了表达。蒂普的“最后一站”成为本次讨论的重点，我将展示过去如何被其主持人在类似事件中设想从冲突中获得道德胜利，例如波利勒战役（1780 年）和阿拉莫战役（1836 年）。我认为，这意味着，为了各种目的而被利用的过去在它被阐明的那一刻就与它本身分离了。根据其主持人的意识形态要求进行复制和复制。我将争辩说，这需要从 Rankean 理想的范式转变真实发生的事情如何被告知应该发生的事情；谁说的；以及出于什么目的。通过这个提出的模型，我将阐述历史的“事实”如何变得“有意义”，以及道德与历史、历史与虚构、殖民与反殖民如何相互接近而不是分开。