SARAJEVO'S POLITICAL NEED TO REWRITE THE PAST

BANJA LUKA, AUGUST 14 /SRNA/ - Parts of Sarajevo's political, media and intellectual circles have for some time been persistently attempting to rewrite the past in order to create the impression of an ancient, uninterrupted and supposedly self-evident continuity of a nation that emerged in its modern political form much later, said Ana Trišić-Babić, Acting Director of the Republika Srpska International Cooperation Office.

In an op-ed for Glas Srpske, she cited the intent was to create, through the media, cultural interpretations and political discourse in Sarajevo, a sense that there is an uninterrupted national continuum stretching back centuries, although the sources do not support this.

According to her, there is an increasingly visible attempt to present the 1737 Battle of Banja Luka as a kind of "Bosnian national epic", as a victory of "Bosnian warriors" over a foreign enemy, and even as evidence of an alleged early national consciousness.

"This is a textbook example of the political use of history," Trišić-Babić stressed.

We are publishing in full the op-ed entitled "The Past on Demand":

There are moments when a person can no longer pretend that this is merely a matter of different interpretations of the past. There are moments when it is obvious that this is not about history, but about a political need wrapped up in historical language. That is precisely what we have been witnessing for some time in parts of Sarajevo's political, media and intellectual circles: a persistent attempt to rewrite the past in order to create the impression of an ancient, uninterrupted and supposedly self-evident continuity of a nation that emerged in its modern political form much later.

This is not a scientific dispute. It is a project.

Its logic is simple. When the actual sources do not provide a sufficiently deep historical continuity, that continuity is constructed. When historical periods do not confirm what is politically needed today, their facts are renamed. When even that is not enough, modern identity is projected backwards through the centuries onto people who did not perceive themselves that way, nor could they have done so given the political, cultural and civilizational circumstances of their time.

This brings us to a very illustrative example.

THE USE OF HISTORY

An increasingly common attempt can be seen to present the 1737 Battle of Banja Luka as a kind of "Bosnian national epic", as a victory of "Bosnian warriors" over a foreign enemy, even as evidence of an alleged early national consciousness. This is a textbook example of the political use of history.

The historical fact is much simpler and more precise. The Battle of Banja Luka was part of the 1737-1739 Austro-Turkish War. The Habsburg Monarchy attacked the Ottoman Empire. The territory of Bosnia at the time was not a national state of any kind, but an Ottoman province - the Bosnian Vilayet. The forces defending Banja Luka were part of the Ottoman military system: local Krajina units, sipahis, Janissaries and other military elements of an imperial structure. That is the context. That is history.

But that framework is deliberately erased today. Instead of speaking about the Ottoman army in the Bosnian Vilayet, it is spoken of "Bosnian warriors", a "native Bosnian army", some alleged beginnings of a distinct national consciousness that supposedly already existed at that time. In other words, a provincial military mobilization within the Ottoman Empire is retrospectively transformed into a precursor of the modern nation. This is not an interpretation. It is a falsification of the historical meaning of the event.

Let us be perfectly clear: a regional designation is not the same as a national identity. The fact that someone lived in Bosnia in the 18th century does not mean that they belonged to the modern political nation that someone today wants to project backwards. At that time, identity was primarily religious, social, local and imperial. Modern national concepts cannot be mechanically imposed on periods in which they did not exist. Every serious historian knows this. Therefore, this is not a matter of ignorance. It is a matter of intent.

The intention is to create, from Sarajevo, through the media, cultural interpretations and political discourse, a sense that there is an uninterrupted national continuum lasting for centuries, even though the sources do not confirm it. When such a continuum does not exist, it is then constructed from whatever is at hand: medieval Bosnia, stećaks, Ottoman military victories, geographical names, anti-fascist institutions, even contemporary political slogans. Everything is used. Everything is bent. Everything is placed at the service of one goal: to construct a history for the purpose of creating a nation that simply did not exist in that form with that continuity.

This is what deserves to be called an artificial myth.

An artificial myth is not the same as collective memory. Every nation has the right to its symbols, traditions and emotional connection to the past. But when a myth is created against the facts, it is no longer a matter of cultural memory, but of political technology. The heritage is no longer being preserved, but manipulated. The past is no longer being studied, but edited.

SERBS WILL NOT APOLOGIZE

A particular problem arises when such a project is also built on suppressing the history of others - specifically, the history of Serbs in BiH. Because this is not merely an attempt to add depth to one's own history. It is also an attempt to deprive others of that depth.

The Serb people will not apologize to anyone for having a historical continuity.

They will not apologize for having had, since the 9th century, through the Vlastimirović dynasty and subsequently strongly through the Nemanjić dynasty, their own state, political organisation and a clear awareness of their own territory. They will not apologize for having had their own church, spiritual tradition and state-building heritage. They will not apologize for having enjoyed international recognition at a time when much of today's Europe did not have what it now readily regards as its centuries-old stability.

Nor will they apologize because Constantine Porphyrogenitus, within the political geography of his time, includes Bosnia among the Serbian lands, within what is designated as baptized Serbia, together with other Serb regions of that period. This fact is not intended to fuel day-to-day political rhetoric, but to serve as a reminder that history does not begin when someone today decides to rearrange it.

The Serb people will not apologize for preserving their identity over centuries of foreign rule through their church, language, traditions and epic poetry. Serb epic poetry was not merely a literary form, but one of the most powerful mechanisms for preserving historical memory. Together with the Serbian Orthodox Church, it preserved an awareness of origins, covenant, freedom and political dignity at a time when there was no state in the formal sense. This is a rare civilizational continuity and cannot be erased by any modern renaming of territory.

And finally, Serbs cannot be expected to apologize for having, with that identity, stood up to an Austro-Hungarian Empire, suffered enormous losses, won a victory and participated in the liberation of the South Slavic peoples. Nor did this history emerge yesterday, nor is it the product of someone's subsequent interpretation. It was paid in blood, recorded in documents and confirmed in the memory of an entire people.

That is precisely why the attempt to replace all that depth with modern geography is objectionable. As if simply naming a territory today were enough to erase the peoples, churches, state traditions, literature, legal systems and historical sources that shaped that territory. It is not enough. And it never will be.

Cultural heritage is not merely a territorial fact. It is not an administrative map. It belongs to the specific historical communities that created it. If that substance is erased and only the territory remains, we are no longer talking about culture, but about the political appropriation of culture.

And that is precisely what is being done far too often today.

EDITING

At one point, medieval heritage is declared the foundation of an alleged ancient distinctiveness. At another, the Ottoman period is presented as the height of the "local spirit". At yet another, the anti-fascist framework is used as the foundation of statehood. Then the political context of all these things is ignored if it interferes with the contemporary narrative. What is a foundation at one moment becomes an obstacle at another. What was foreign yesterday is proclaimed one's own today. What was historically imperial is presented today as national. This is not continuity. It is editing.

That is why it is important to speak about this calmly, precisely and without hatred. The point here is not to deny anyone the right to an identity. Every nation has the right to build its contemporary political and cultural self-awareness. But no one has the right to do so by violently rewriting the past, appropriating someone else's heritage and erasing the historical depth of other peoples.

For Republika Srpska, this is important for a broader reason as well. At a time when international cooperation, cultural diplomacy and the effort to accurately represent our identity are also being conducted beyond our borders, it is our obligation to be surgically precise. We must avoid both the trap of offensiveness and the trap of relativization. Our response must be serious, measured and based on facts. Only such a response carries weight both academically and politically.

A people that has its own historical continuity has no need to invent depth. It has an obligation to know that depth, preserve it and defend it against falsifications. A public space that allows myth to replace sources, a political need to replace facts, becomes a space in which identity is not being built, but confusion is being created.

That is why it is important to say simply: history is not clay that today's politics can shape as it pleases. It has its limits, its sources and its dignity. Whoever respects that dignity respects themselves as well. Whoever falsifies it sooner or later becomes trapped in their own construction.