05-08-2009, 10:41 PM
X-posted...
Book Review from The Telegraph, 8 May 2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->FOUNDER OF A NEW VISIONÂ
Fearless speakerÂ
Robert Knight: Reforming editor in Victorian India By Edwin Hirschmann,
Oxford, Rs 795
Very often, the grand narrative of history is notoriously punctuated with blind spots that cause collective amnesia. <b>Robert Knight, the founder-editor of The Times of India, Mumbai, and The Statesman, Calcutta,</b> is a tragic victim of this amnesia. This book is undoubtedly a commendable effort to salvage this illustrious figure in the history of Indian journalism from oblivion. Besides being a rather belated tribute to a great champion of liberalism, the book is also a tribute to liberalism itself.
For one thing, this biography by Edwin Hirschmann clearly shows the extent to which <b>Knight was a product of his age: an age that was extremely significant not only in the history of colonial India but also in the history of British imperialism and Western liberalism.</b> Hirschmann cites classical economics and James Stuart Millâs grossly misleading History of British India as the background for understanding Knightâs reforming spirit. However, the background does not quite come through, and Hirschmann fails to provide an elaborate contextualization of his subject. He does not examine Knightâs reading habit or provide a sociological account of Knightâs reformist zeal. Similarly, he does not attempt to explain the glaring inconsistencies in Knightâs ideology â those represented by his assumed role of a liberal-minded imperialist â and his ambiguous advocacy of the Tories as the more capable administrators for India, despite being a liberal himself. Thus, Hirschmannâs âbiography as historyâ remains only partially constructed.
<b>What it chronicles in reasonable detail is the political history of British India, rather than a history of 19th-century Western ideas.</b> Hirschmannâs approach unaccountably refuses to acknowledge the fact that the philosophy behind <b>Knightâs editorial policy looked back on the triumph of reason heralded by the Enlightenment, which, according to historians like Hippolyte Taine and Alexis de Tocqueville, traced its roots to the French Revolution. While Edmund Burkeâs Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) articulated the premonition that the âabstractâ revolutionary ideals, however magnanimous and purportedly rational, may actually turn out to be tyrannical, Enlightenment discourses glorified them, feeding into the Utilitarianism propounded by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. Utilitarianism professed freedom of expression, equal rights for women and an end to slavery, among other things. Utilitarian liberalism was trying to evolve a complete âethologyâ for post-industrial Europe which would inform its politics and combine the apparently incompatible notions of public governance and individual liberty.</b>
<b>This perception of public governance as a process of authoritative decision-making by a select and knowledgeable few, which is conditionally exposed to rigorous, external verification, is integral to the understanding of Knightâs piquant chastisement of biased and ham-handed British policies.</b> His criticism of British economic policies also needs to be put in the perspective of the 19th-century debates on laissez-faire economy.
The hard facts of Knightâs editorial career have been well-documented by Hirschmann. The author also divides Knightâs career into five segments
âreformerâ, âeditorâ, âdissidentâ, âimperial criticâ and âStatesman elderâ. His narrative becomes an efficient documentation of the emergence of journalism as the âfourth estateâ. Moreover, the narrative also offers valuable insights into the debates on Orientalism.
Hirschmann does not dwell on Knightâs family life for too long, but he refers to the crises in his life caused by litigation and libel. The book invites readers to judge whether it can be called the saga of a fearless speaker, bearing in mind Michel Foucaultâs definition of parrhesia or âfearless speechâ in his last book that was produced from his tape-recorded lectures.
ARNAB BHATTACHARYA
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think these traits or guidelines are followed by the Indian elite.
Book Review from The Telegraph, 8 May 2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->FOUNDER OF A NEW VISIONÂ
Fearless speakerÂ
Robert Knight: Reforming editor in Victorian India By Edwin Hirschmann,
Oxford, Rs 795
Very often, the grand narrative of history is notoriously punctuated with blind spots that cause collective amnesia. <b>Robert Knight, the founder-editor of The Times of India, Mumbai, and The Statesman, Calcutta,</b> is a tragic victim of this amnesia. This book is undoubtedly a commendable effort to salvage this illustrious figure in the history of Indian journalism from oblivion. Besides being a rather belated tribute to a great champion of liberalism, the book is also a tribute to liberalism itself.
For one thing, this biography by Edwin Hirschmann clearly shows the extent to which <b>Knight was a product of his age: an age that was extremely significant not only in the history of colonial India but also in the history of British imperialism and Western liberalism.</b> Hirschmann cites classical economics and James Stuart Millâs grossly misleading History of British India as the background for understanding Knightâs reforming spirit. However, the background does not quite come through, and Hirschmann fails to provide an elaborate contextualization of his subject. He does not examine Knightâs reading habit or provide a sociological account of Knightâs reformist zeal. Similarly, he does not attempt to explain the glaring inconsistencies in Knightâs ideology â those represented by his assumed role of a liberal-minded imperialist â and his ambiguous advocacy of the Tories as the more capable administrators for India, despite being a liberal himself. Thus, Hirschmannâs âbiography as historyâ remains only partially constructed.
<b>What it chronicles in reasonable detail is the political history of British India, rather than a history of 19th-century Western ideas.</b> Hirschmannâs approach unaccountably refuses to acknowledge the fact that the philosophy behind <b>Knightâs editorial policy looked back on the triumph of reason heralded by the Enlightenment, which, according to historians like Hippolyte Taine and Alexis de Tocqueville, traced its roots to the French Revolution. While Edmund Burkeâs Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) articulated the premonition that the âabstractâ revolutionary ideals, however magnanimous and purportedly rational, may actually turn out to be tyrannical, Enlightenment discourses glorified them, feeding into the Utilitarianism propounded by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. Utilitarianism professed freedom of expression, equal rights for women and an end to slavery, among other things. Utilitarian liberalism was trying to evolve a complete âethologyâ for post-industrial Europe which would inform its politics and combine the apparently incompatible notions of public governance and individual liberty.</b>
<b>This perception of public governance as a process of authoritative decision-making by a select and knowledgeable few, which is conditionally exposed to rigorous, external verification, is integral to the understanding of Knightâs piquant chastisement of biased and ham-handed British policies.</b> His criticism of British economic policies also needs to be put in the perspective of the 19th-century debates on laissez-faire economy.
The hard facts of Knightâs editorial career have been well-documented by Hirschmann. The author also divides Knightâs career into five segments
âreformerâ, âeditorâ, âdissidentâ, âimperial criticâ and âStatesman elderâ. His narrative becomes an efficient documentation of the emergence of journalism as the âfourth estateâ. Moreover, the narrative also offers valuable insights into the debates on Orientalism.
Hirschmann does not dwell on Knightâs family life for too long, but he refers to the crises in his life caused by litigation and libel. The book invites readers to judge whether it can be called the saga of a fearless speaker, bearing in mind Michel Foucaultâs definition of parrhesia or âfearless speechâ in his last book that was produced from his tape-recorded lectures.
ARNAB BHATTACHARYA
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think these traits or guidelines are followed by the Indian elite.