The South Asia File

[Guest]

Kaushal,

I have no argument with you on the fact that the British and Europeans had a flawed sense of our history and the Hindu civilization. But the conlusions you derive from thereon are flawed. I am amazed that inspite of reading from VOI publications (assumed since you have mentioned Frawley and some others) you have reached such conclusions. Let us go back to the 17th century, european traders land up in a country with little kingdoms, myriad languages, customs, class/caste segregations, major parts ruled by Moghuls and all of them binded by some sort of over lapping culture. On further introspection they find out that this culture has some literary sources. The recent history says they were ruled by Muslims and many practice crude forms of discriminations and superstious rituals.

Moreover, these folks who have landed believe that they have a superior civlization and have come 5000+ miles by sea to trade and proft to make a small fortune. It is true there was never a India in the modern nation state sense. The big Hindu kingdoms that existed in the Gupta, Mauryan periods were long gone at least a 1000 years before the Europeans landed. Now, Why do you expect an honest and symathetic view of Inidan history from such folks. Till this day, except for some over whelming issue, India still votes on local issues (the 2004 elections being the latest example).The unity of India was rooted in its culture and not as a nation as understood by the British. So do not expect sympathy from a source so motivated, who wants to show his superiorty of civilization and wants to profit from us using his superior military and organizational skills. I also expect such an imperial power to exploit the weaknesses of the native country. The hindu/muslim division is not an invention of the British. It is a myth that we have a composite culture. It is utterly false to say Hindu-Muslims lived peacefully with each other at most times. Please read the following sources to get a accurate picture of the scenario, instead of talking only about a notion of hindu-muslim unity during the 1857 revolt.

Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences by Sita Ram Goel
Medieval Indian Chronicles by KS Lal
Myths of composite cultures and equality of religions by Harsh Narain

It is a myth that the British helped in the vivisection of India.In 1947, muslim society and their leaders succeeded in getting recoginition as a separate culture and nation and getting the country vivisected on that basis. I think in your enthusiasm to project and challenge western civilization with an Indic stream of thought you are projecting new notios of history (like the Britsh wanted to break the country) with no basis in fact. You talk about newspapers talking about the eventual breakup of India in the 50's. Well, what do you expect newspapers to talk about except for current political events. Britain had no interest in uniting India, when they were ruling (the motives were there) but they had no interest in breaking India, once they left (no motive).

Your views are establishing motives are in the realm of speculation. My view is motives are self evident (like the US involvement in the middle east is rooted in Oil). ON Macaulay a lot has been written and indeed he was biased and eager to scorn Indian culture but Koenrad Elst (a sympathizer of Indic views by all means) provides a good set of documentation in
"A dubious quotation, a controversial reputation: the merits of Lord Macaulay"
that Macaulay meant well and was not the devil he is made out to be. Here is a comment from the book on one of Macaulays post popular quotes.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Our lies about Macaulay. Was Macaulay attempting to create 'intellectual slaves' for the British Empire? Yes, if we just read the following: 'We must at present do our best to form a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.' We, in a most mischievous manner, present the above quote, twisted, taken out of context, and thus, present Lord Macaulay as a villain. No, if we read the full paragraph as originally available in his February 1835 Minute on Indian Education: 'It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.'"

So far, I had thought that Macaulay was well-intentioned but that he undeniably had wanted to anglicise India at least in language. But even this turns out to be unfair to him. In fact, he envisioned a modernization of the native languages, making them as fit as English for the conduct of modern affairs, thanks to the good offices of the "interpreter" class which he set out to create. Even on language he wasn't all that imperialistic, wanting to enrich and modernize rather than replace the native languages, assuring them a new lease of life in an age of science. As for replacing Indian taste/opinions/morals/intellect with their English counterparts, he considered this a great boon to the Indians.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Even an Arun Shourie states the following:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, many of the strictures in his Minute were entirely to the

point: the texts which were in use at that time in Arabic and

Sanskrit schools were out-dated, they were teaching notions about

geography, astronomy and the rest which had been superseded by

recent researches. And in this sense, modernising the syllabus and

imparting education through English, opening our eyes to the world

was indeed to raise Indians.


The scorn was deepened in part because of the truimph of western

science and technology, but even more because of the fact that

educated Indians acquired just a smattering of anacquaintance with

even this new learning -- they concluded that the 'scientific

temper' and 'reason' were all; they knew next to nothing about our

culture...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In analyzing situations and history, one has to be intellectually honest. Just becuase the British did or get some things wrong, does not mean everything that went wrong with India has to be attributed to them.

Huntington's clash of civilizations is not a futile book, its arguments are well rooted in facts. In the book he observes that India seeks to structure the world through the eyes of her spirituality. Do not go and try looking for sympathy amongst a westerner for the view of Hindu civilization but at the same time do not go about blaming the westerner for all our problems. History will be written by the victors to suit their purposes. Let us not be apologetic about the disparities in the Indian nation. Not more than 10 nations have the homogenity that our detractors demand of us.

All you have provided as evidence or reasoning so far to the British intent to break India is that TSP was formed on their watch.

As evidence to refute this claim I provide the following:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nationalism generates a collective emotional response and converts it into patriotism.  It is a  sentiment, which demands the people of the country to rise above ethnic, religious, communal, sectarian and regional loyalties.  But for Muslim scholars it is an evil, which instigates the people for war either to defend or expand the territorial boundaries of their respective countries.  By and large the Muslim thinkers in colonial and post-colonial India tended to oppose nationalism on the plea that it was incompatible with the concept of pan-Islamism. 

Muslim intellectuals like Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, Shibli Numani, Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Abul Kalam Azad and other Muslim intellectuals of this sub-continent carried the tradition of Shah Waliullah (1703-17620), (known as father of Muslim fundamentalism).  They did not allow their community to adopt India centric Islam and free them from the subjugation of Arab imperialism in the name of religion.  Presently Sayyad Shahabuddin is carrying the same tradition and fighting an intellectual battle on behalf of Indian Muslims, whom he calls Muslim Indians.  

Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan(1817-1898), scion of a Mughal family was known to be the principal founder of 'modernist Islamic thought'.  A known advocate for scientific and modern education to Muslims he renounced the Islamic orthodoxy of Waliullah but his rational interpretation of Islam, which was contrary to the fundamentalists views on controversial issues like Jihad, polygamy and animal slaughtering was rejected by his contemporary Muslim intellectuals.  Ultimately, he succumbed to the pressure of fundamentalists and “agreed not to express his views on Islam through his writings” (Rational Approach to Islam by Asgar Ali Engineer ­ 2001 ­page 191). 

The Founder of Aligarh Muslim University, Sir Sayyad Ahmad Khan was actually a Muslim intellectual loyal to British throne and was largely responsible for keeping away the modern educated Muslims from northern India away from Indian National Congress.  In fact he never liked unity between Hindus and Muslims against the Britishers.  Ironically, he was in favour of a non-Muslim and non-Hindu rule over India.  During his speech on January 29,1884 he said, “I have said repeatedly that for India it is impossible that either Hindus or Muslims are rulers and are able to keep the peace.  It is inevitable that a third nation rules over us”( Muslim Nationhood in India by Safia Amir ­ 2000 ­ Page 25).  He also suggested, "Since the Hindus were joining hands against Muslims (he meant Indian National Congress dominated by Hindus), the latter should unite with the British and strive to make their rule permanent, rather than becoming subjects of the Hindus by joining the Congress" (Ibid page 244).  Sayyad’s main aim was to ensure that Muslims remain loyal to Britishers. 

Shibli Numani (1857-1914), another Muslim thinker and contemporary of Sir Sayyad was also known for his fluctuating views on the question of Muslim nationality.  Initially, he was in favour of the feeling of nationalism among the Muslims, but subsequently he became a 'confirmed pan-Islamist' with a plea that Muslim nationhood was not based on region but on Islam.  He strongly believed that "it was extremely essential to keep alive Muslim nationality". Ironically, he even considered "India under British as Dar-ul-Islam" and made statement that "it was the religious duty of Muslims to remain loyal to their (British) government". 

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->