Regret typo in previous mail.
'him' in second para refers to Atish Taseer.
Problem with us Indians is that we very quickly turn every debate into lofty issues of principles and ideals.
This propensity has been used to hilt by those who have aimed to put us on mat on various issues as well delineated by him to turn us into apologetic gellys unable to protect ourselves paralysed by the implanted guilt
The point made by Atish Taseer is simple direct and very meaningful-it speaks of the reality that if you are dead what purpose will all your great learnings and ideals make. Also it is an indirect appeal to all Indians to at least now put themselves to the task of understanding ourselves and our history through our own efforts.
Moreover, he also made the point that xenophobia has to be 'little' so let us not blow it out of proportion.
>> Who decides what is balanced and intelligent? You?
Of course. Everyone has a right to decide for himself/herself if the author is balanced and intelligent, or not.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Varun,
>> say something, if not laudatory, at least balanced, empathetic and intelligent. Brass, Nussbaum, Crossette, Margolis and a whole slew of commentators in cyberspace, do not seem to be capable of such a feat.
Who decides what is balanced and intelligent? You? (Haven't we been through this before?)
>> It's not really a question of being thin or thick skinned, but of desiring to read something fairly sophisticated or multi-faceted
Great post.
"hope we never become so thin-skinned that we require all foreign writers to say only good things about us."
By now, there should be enough sophistication and awareness in people that they can say something, if not laudatory, at least balanced, empathetic and intelligent. Brass, Nussbaum, Crossette, Margolis and a whole slew of commentators in cyberspace, do not seem to be capable of such a feat. It's not really a question of being thin or thick skinned, but of desiring to read something fairly sophisticated or multi-faceted. Again, the above writers do not qualify.
>> the gratuitous commentary of Martha Nussbaum or Paul Brass?
Gratuitousness is in the eyes of the beholder. People comment on what they see. You have a right to express your disagreement with them. I hope we never become so thin-skinned that we require all foreign writers to say only good things about us.
"if they make errors or if we disagree with them..."
Yes, but what if the "error" is one of essence or nature, such as the gratuitous commentary of Martha Nussbaum or Paul Brass? What great insights or perspectives do they bring to India? The one speaks of the dangers of Hindu fascism, while the other is obsessed with violence and its gory details, to the exclusion of everything else. Really sick.
Indian freedom saw the death of a word; Indophile. A foreigner, most problably with the white skin who loves understands and lets the world know about India. From Voltaire's waxing lyrical for Indian civilization to Katherine Mayo's horribly true Mother India, people from outside have written about India in reams and reams.
If there's any antipathy towards outsiders writing about India since Indian independence comes from the fact that they are not sympathetic to India. French is someone who won't face since her writing are more like Voltaire's eulogies. The problem comes when a foreigner lamblasts India like Mayo and how Indians react. Like in this one :
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/the_elephant_in_the_room
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Writers from outside have defined and continue to define India. The not-yet-thrown-out Aryan Invasion Theory comes from Renè Dubois, Max Muller, Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Sir John Marshal. India as a gigantic sewage system comes from Katherine Mayo, and is alive in the infinitely more powerful Cinema vignettes, thanks to a Danny Boyle. Even a rebuttal has to be by a Will Durant before we can accept it.
Ramayana becomes a racial narrative of Northern invaders conquering Southern tribals and forest-dwellers, Mahabharata a minor skirmish among some small feudal chieftains in Haryana. Valmiki and Vyasa cannot be one man, it must be written by several persons over many centuries. Michale Witzel and Steve Farmer are the authorities on the Vedas, Wendy Doniger and Jeffrey Kripal on Sri Ramakrishna, Stephen Batchelor on Buddha the regular politician, and Joseph Lelyweld on the homoerotic Gandhi
As French himself writes, Al Biruni was an apologist for Mahmud Ghazni, gloating that
Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims.
He analyses the aversion and says:
These two cultures (Hindu and Muslim) are utterly different. There are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.
if a civilization adheres to a policy like not "ravaging the soil" quite faithfully, and if a foreign civilization starts a trend to the contrary, it would be only surprising if the victimized civilization doesn't take to xenophobia on a large scale
Things become even more difficult to unravel when ostensibly Indian writers (Sunil Khilnani, Guha, even Rushdie) proselytize The Idea of India, "an artificial nation put together by the British". There is no need to remember Ashoka, Akbar, Adi Shankara and the chAr dhAm, hymns like Gangecha Yamunechaiva Godavari Saraswati etc.
What about word-usage. Communal is a positive word in Europe, meaning community oriented. Here it is a swear word. Secular means strict aloofness of the state from Religion, not separate civil codes, Muslim personal laws, Shah Bano, and Hindu marriage acts. A republic treats all its constituents equally, does not do special status for Kashmir. Lebensraum is not the correct term for Gujarat riots. Saffronization cannot be compared to Talibanization or even Stalinization in education (JNU, West Bengal).
This is why Aatish Taseer is largely right. A push-back against the mellenia-old definition of ourselves by others is the need of the hour.
Patrick French did push you to the wall. You criticise him, and you are proving his point. Temptation is too high not to.
I have no knowledge, intellect or skill to question him, but one thing was indeed interesting to note. "Amitav Ghosh told the audience: “Every time you hear a white man talking about freedom, you better run very fast.” Ghosh has made his career in the US; his novels tick every postcolonial box; he is married to a white woman, but he felt no hesitation, let alone shame, in making this generic slur"
I am a bit puzzled; the whole article seems to be on generalisation either way. generalised western, including brown gora saab, depiction of India. or generalised repulse. Then why such trivial quibble hurts?
My apology if I didn't get the point correct. Nothing against you sir, you are very much respected anyways.
As for Aatish, I tried to learn Sanskrit for more or less the same reason. Unfortunately for very little success. I definitely need a kick :D
During the horrific Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 in which 160 innocent people were gunned down by jehadis trained and funded by Pakistan, most Western reporters focused on the alleged "root causes" of this violence. These "root causes" ranged from Kashmir and alleged institutionalized discrimination against Muslims in India, all the way to sunspots and the position of Jupiter in the Pisces constellation - everything, that is, other than the actual causes: murderous Islamic terrorism and its sponsors in the ISI.
Fareed Zakaria wrote an article for Time magazine that was described as the "Hindus had it coming" explanation.
And of course, we Hindus in our usual way tucked our tails between our legs and slunk away.
There were two and only two people who stood up for India and wrote articles defending us - Christopher Hitchens and Patrick French.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. French has earned the right to write about India and is a "desi" - much more so than the one billion of us who sat mute when people urinated on us even as we were being murdered by jehadis.
I fully agree with Patrick French. Americans, Britishers and others who write about India must not only be tolerated but must be welcomed. They can often bring a perspective to us which Indian writers can't. If they make errors or if we disagree with them, we can of course point that out. If nationalism becomes xenophobia, we have to worry.