India allowed foreigners to shape the idea of itself

Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by LurkerBaba, Apr 28, 2012.

  1. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    3,680
    Location:
    India
    Patrick French, writing in the Sunday edition of this newspaper - Writings on India (and the foreign hand on the keyboard) (The Big Story, April 22) - raises too important a point not to be taken up. In arguing against a new defensiveness among Indians, related to foreigners writing about their country, he mentions a number of invaluable accounts of India by foreigners over time. The Chinese Buddhist monk, Xuanzang; the Uzbek polymath, al-Biruni; William Hawkins in the 17th century. What he does not say, and what I suspect is at the heart of the Indian anxiety about foreigners writing about India, and especially its history, is that this body of work is often the only way Indians can form an idea of their past.

    For, few places in the world have as long a history as India's and so few historians. Fifty odd centuries, full of big impulses and no one we can describe as an Indian Herodotus. No Tacitus. No Ibn Khaldun. No equivalent of the Chinese annals. As someone whose primary motivation for learning Sanskrit was to form an idea of the classical past - through the epics, charitas and the Kavya literature of the first millennium, a little bit of Kalhana - let me say that the void is real enough. And probably no country has had to depend as much on foreigners, and later its conquerors, for historical information as India.

    The gaps are real, but we, in modern India, have done little to fill them. We have allowed the study of epigraphs - one of the chief sources of information about the classical past - to grind to a halt; we have stood by and done nothing as the centres of Sanskrit learning shifted away from India to Europe and America. We fooled ourselves into believing that we did not need the humanities; and, even as the imaginations of our young people were paralysed, including those in the sciences - for they no less than artists need the past to enlarge their idea of human possibility - we did not build institutes of classical studies to rival our IITs and our IIMs. We let foreigners do the hard work of studying our past and humanities.

    It is humiliating not to know one's history; and that humiliation, when one meets a foreigner with a more intimate knowledge of your past than you possess yourself, can turn to wretchedness and anger.
    It is like the story an Islamic art dealer friend of mine used to tell of putting on one of the first exhibitions of Islamic art in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi prince, who had commissioned the exhibition, was at first full of questions for the English dealer about the Islamic past and culture. The dealer tried his best - perhaps too hard - to answer the prince's questions. What he didn't know was that the better he answered them, the more the prince resented him for it. At last, the prince, apoplectic with rage, yelled: "But how do you know these things?" How indeed!

    When you don't study your past, you expose yourself to people distorting it. I grew up around many such distortions, the ugliest of which was the idea, advanced by the British, and supported by Muslims because it trivialised the harm done by the Islamic invasions: that there was no idea of India. It was like Churchill said: "India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the equator."

    Such an offensive thing to say! A near complete dismissal of India's classical past. And so untrue. One has only to open a work of Sanskrit literature, like the Kumarasambhava, say - and what an opening: "There is in the north the king of mountains, divine in nature, Himalaya by name, the abode of snow. Reaching down to both the eastern and western oceans, he stands like a rod to measure the earth" - to know that while there was not a unified political entity (as neither there was in Europe or Greece) there was an incredibly powerful notion of India, asserted again and again in its literature. Of a cultural unity. A world so vibrant, so inter-connected, that it allowed for a man like Vallabhadeva in the 10th century in Kashmir, to write the first commentary on the Kumarasambhava, which in all likelihood was composed five centuries before in Ujjain. And, nine centuries later, Mallinatha, working in modern-day Andhra Pradesh, felt the need to improve on what had come before and wrote his marvelous exegesis on the same work. Would it were that India today, with armies securing her borders, had such a profound sense of who and what she was.

    I offer this as one distortion of India by foreigners. But there have been many: old and new, they range from mangoes and slum dogs to apologising histories of the Mutiny; there are the correspondents with their povertarianism and exaggerated fears of Hindu fascist take-overs; and there are the orientalists, who would turn hard gritty India into a fantasy of sweetmeats and fakirs. All problematic, all irritating enough. But the foreigners are not to blame; what is to blame is India's historic and continuing dependence on foreigners for an idea of herself.

    Patrick French - though serious writers, like him and Katherine Boo, whose book could not have had a better reception in India, have little to fear - is right: there is defensiveness these days, there is over-sensitivity and perhaps a degree of xenophobia too. But in a country which has bended so easily to the will of foreigners in the past, and where foreigners are still invisibly able to occupy positions of great power, both politically and intellectually, a little xenophobia is not such a bad thing.

    French writes: "Let India accept the world, as the rest of the world accepts India." I would say that India, if anything, accepted the world too easily, too unquestioningly; it allowed the world to shape its idea of itself. And if now, in a different time, there is a pushback, it is only to be expected, and even welcomed, so long as it is the accompaniment to intellectual labour.


    Aatish Taseer is the author of Stranger to History and Noon. The views expressed by the author are personal.



    A vibrant entity - Hindustan Times
     
    pmaitra, Iamanidiot, p2prada and 3 others like this.
  2.  
  3. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    I agree completely with everything expressed in the article.

    Even today, despite 70 years of independence, we do not have a well-formed indigenous concept of what "India" is and what it ought to be. We are only living in the present without understanding the past nor preparing for the future.
     
  4. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    If he was raised in pakistan then he would be a raving lunatic! Goes to show the difference between upbringing in India and pakistan.
     
  5. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Also shows one doesn't need a father around to have a good upbringing.

    ===

    Regarding history, we Indians are in denial. We promote our region/religion/clan over the nation at times, or atleast deliberately pretend or try to be ignorant. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, we are a union of differences and this diversity should be acknowledged and preserved.



    For eg. the Rajputs will have a different version of history, Rohilla Pathans different, Sikhs different, Marathas different etc.
     
    Nagraj likes this.
  6. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    True.It took me a lot of reading and mental storming to come out of that thinking
     
  7. devgupt

    devgupt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, US
    The Mughals who ruled India held the title of Badshah(emperor). when the mughals lost their strength, the powerful governors became independent. And yet they held the title of nawab (deputy in arabic) ,nizam (governor) and not the title of emeperor. So you had Nizam of hyderabad, Nawab of Bengal, but never the Badshah of Bengal or Hyderabad -which shows that the idea of India or Hindustan was very much relevant and these rulers didn't consider themselves outside of it.

    And yet the British peddle the idea that Indian nationalism is their gift to us.
     
    pmaitra and The Messiah like this.
  8. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    The idea of India was there long before Mughals. In ancient India the title of Samraat was used by those kings who achieved supremacy over most of the subcontinent, while lesser rulers held the title of maharajadhiraja and maharaj. There was also the idea of a chakravartin, a universal, benevolent ruler who upholds dharma throughout the world. This title was used to describe Bharata (the legendary king) as well as Ashoka.
     
    pmaitra and The Messiah like this.
  9. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Good logical analysis.

    Agreed.
     
  10. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I agree, and by virtue of this agreement, I agree to the other two posts as well. :)

    Transitive relationship!
     
  11. devgupt

    devgupt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, US
    Err I was raising the same point. I gave the example of Mughals because before British they were the last pan Indian empire (Maratha empire was short lived)
     
  12. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    I was not arguing your point, only expanding on it.
     
    devgupt likes this.
  13. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    More than British it is few Indians themselves who willingly buy that crap and are gullible enough to peddle that too.
     
    devgupt likes this.
  14. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    Indian Nationalism was born during British times
    when the whole country was under one political rule ie under ONE FLAG

    Before that we were all messed up
     
  15. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    The REAL and difficult question is why India is still ONE country and
    Why cannot Europe become One country though they are of the same race and religion

    This is what CHURCHILL was alluding to that India will splinter into many countries
    because of languages and castes
     
  16. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    No... it as first under Bharata then (I hate to say it :D) under the Mauryas and after a period of slumber was awakened again by Marathas..

    Give this theory of the Brits gave us the idea of India a rest.
     
  17. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    They were just Kingdoms emperors and dynasties

    The Indian Nationalism arose when Indians started reading their histories ;and travel was possible
    through roads and trains ; And people realised that what DISUNITY down the AGES has done to us
     
  18. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    OK lets us talk about the more difficult thing

    What has kept India together after 1947
     
  19. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Railways and the Mahatma are the genesis of the Indian Nationalism
     
    nrj likes this.
  20. devgupt

    devgupt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, US
    When did Shankaracharya established the four dhams?
     
  21. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    Good question

    The Hindu Civilisational LINKS and Commonalities were NOT the political unifiers for India

    The Himalayas and other holy places were just Piligrimages for the rest of the country
     

Share This Page