Tuesday, February 01, 2005
History and Hindutva
Romila Thapar writes in Frontline on the Indian classics, history and Hindutva.
In the case of what has more broadly been called Indology (which is often at the root of the present controversy) it would involve examining the early texts - for instance, the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and such like - as well as the commentaries on these texts that were written during the centuries between their composition and now. If we are to study these texts as part of a system of knowledge we have to consider the scholarship and the historical context of the discourse from early times and understand how scholars commenting on these texts analysed them. This requires a degree of expertise not easily available to all.
Associated with this were the variant versions in which the themes of these texts were treated. Why, for example, were there Buddhist, Jaina and multiple other versions of the Ramakatha that differ in significant ways? This was also part of the discourse among scholars of the ancient past and among those who responded to these versions. But in the current discussion of these early texts we marginalise the commentaries and variant versions and refer largely only to 19th century writers. This is an impoverishment of our intellectual tradition. It would be worth examining why our views of these texts are largely determined by 19th century views of the past. Similarly, we are intolerant of attempts to analyse the past crosscurrents of intellectual life and their historical context, using contemporary techniques of analysis. If such discourse is thought to be a Western way of looking at the texts, then surely the logical reaction in terms of advancing knowledge is to discuss these analyses and not merely dismiss them.
Thapar rightly points out that there are problems with looking at the Indian classics from a 19th century Western perspective. I can speak for the Mahabharata. Upon reading commentaries from some of the 19th century scholars today, it is clear that the scholars of the time would today be considered, at best, to be working from highly constrained models at best. Many of these were British scholars interpreting the literature of the ostensibly uncivilized Indians for them. Commentators looking at these opinions today sometimes find that these were not just biased, but completely wrong.
Fortunately, in the case of the Mahabharata at least, things are getting better. There is increasing scholarship from Indians as well as Westerners. Contemporary Western scholarship, not to mention Indian scholarhsip, is fairly sensitive to cultural differences and quite aware of the problems related to interpretation therefrom. Further, given that scholars can now work with the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (which was completed only around 1970), something both the 19th century Western scholars and the traditional Indian interpretations were working without, scholarship in the field is likely to only be more informed.
A positive aspect of this entire controversy has been the increased interest in Indian history, thanks to the rewriting of textbooks. Thapar talks about some of the problems surrounding this, and how these problems might be addressed. That reminded me of this 2000 Sulekha interview with Subhash Kak, where he too talked about what could be done to fix the problems.
One of the worst things that was done in the Nehru-Indira years was the establishments of entities such as ICHR, ICSSR, and NCERT. These were modeled after Soviet originals, forgetting that the history of these originals-- notorious for rearranging the past to suit the present, not only in books but also in photographs-- was ugly. In history, we should have a multiplicity of perspectives and the government should have no role in that. My advice to the government would be to abolish these entities and replace them with a peer-reviewed system of grants to fund new projects.
In the case of what has more broadly been called Indology (which is often at the root of the present controversy) it would involve examining the early texts - for instance, the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and such like - as well as the commentaries on these texts that were written during the centuries between their composition and now. If we are to study these texts as part of a system of knowledge we have to consider the scholarship and the historical context of the discourse from early times and understand how scholars commenting on these texts analysed them. This requires a degree of expertise not easily available to all.
Associated with this were the variant versions in which the themes of these texts were treated. Why, for example, were there Buddhist, Jaina and multiple other versions of the Ramakatha that differ in significant ways? This was also part of the discourse among scholars of the ancient past and among those who responded to these versions. But in the current discussion of these early texts we marginalise the commentaries and variant versions and refer largely only to 19th century writers. This is an impoverishment of our intellectual tradition. It would be worth examining why our views of these texts are largely determined by 19th century views of the past. Similarly, we are intolerant of attempts to analyse the past crosscurrents of intellectual life and their historical context, using contemporary techniques of analysis. If such discourse is thought to be a Western way of looking at the texts, then surely the logical reaction in terms of advancing knowledge is to discuss these analyses and not merely dismiss them.
Thapar rightly points out that there are problems with looking at the Indian classics from a 19th century Western perspective. I can speak for the Mahabharata. Upon reading commentaries from some of the 19th century scholars today, it is clear that the scholars of the time would today be considered, at best, to be working from highly constrained models at best. Many of these were British scholars interpreting the literature of the ostensibly uncivilized Indians for them. Commentators looking at these opinions today sometimes find that these were not just biased, but completely wrong.
Fortunately, in the case of the Mahabharata at least, things are getting better. There is increasing scholarship from Indians as well as Westerners. Contemporary Western scholarship, not to mention Indian scholarhsip, is fairly sensitive to cultural differences and quite aware of the problems related to interpretation therefrom. Further, given that scholars can now work with the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (which was completed only around 1970), something both the 19th century Western scholars and the traditional Indian interpretations were working without, scholarship in the field is likely to only be more informed.
A positive aspect of this entire controversy has been the increased interest in Indian history, thanks to the rewriting of textbooks. Thapar talks about some of the problems surrounding this, and how these problems might be addressed. That reminded me of this 2000 Sulekha interview with Subhash Kak, where he too talked about what could be done to fix the problems.
One of the worst things that was done in the Nehru-Indira years was the establishments of entities such as ICHR, ICSSR, and NCERT. These were modeled after Soviet originals, forgetting that the history of these originals-- notorious for rearranging the past to suit the present, not only in books but also in photographs-- was ugly. In history, we should have a multiplicity of perspectives and the government should have no role in that. My advice to the government would be to abolish these entities and replace them with a peer-reviewed system of grants to fund new projects.
