Communal Relations - Conflicting Narratives

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Apr 21 2007, 02:59 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 21 2007, 02:59 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->book Review, The Telegraph, 20 April, 2007

Where the mirrors do not open out windows 
The Kakars reveal the pan-Sanskritic culture of the Hindus, with which the upper and middle castes would identify. The “rest” — and that leaves out swathes of Indian society and culture (“dalits and tribals, or the Christians and Muslims”) — are expected to “spot only fleeting resemblances”.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is the point of contention.

The reviewer of the book Chirosree Basu has picked on this wellknown crtitcism that is made always and every time - that people speak of a "sanskritic" culture and that there is "something else" that needs to come out.

OK fair enough - that's one opinion.

But I have two points to make:

1) It is all very well to speak of "other narratives" - but when a person such as Kakar writes his narrative why attack it and say "I don't like it - there must be something else"?

I put it to Chirosree Basu that he/she may be bluffing. The "other narrative" has been told too much and what the Kakars have done is the only narrative that needs to come out. I see no evidence to think I am wrong

2) The other point is the questionable use of the term "sanskritic"

I am finding that word used more and more often by English writers of Indian origin. I want to use the example of the word "islamophobia" that lierally means "fear of Islam" but it was (I think) coined by a Paki to mean "hatred of muslims"

So we need to be careful about which way the word "sanskritic" is being moulded to mean.

"Sanskritic" could mean a relatively innocuous reference to that which is in the "samskriti" - cultural or traditional or the more vicious usage of the term in Aryan=invader=sanskritic=oppression.