In an online column for Organiser,[1] author Rajiv Malhotra argues for a "grand narrative" to be constructed by "Indians, especially Hindus", among whom there is apparently a "crisis of . . . leadership", so that they may "establis[h] collective identities" on the world stage. In doing so, Malhotra feels Hindus would successfully "compet[e]" for cultural ground in the global battle to "interpre[t] the past", and point the way for the future.
Here I would like to evaluate Malhotra's case.
Malhotra begins by conceding that the very idea of a "grand narrative" has, in many countries, been "invariably" based on a "positive self-image" constructed from "carefully selected historical facts, mixed with exaggerations and even outright falsehoods." There is very little to contest in this observation. I also agree with Malhotra that it is superfluous to give examples of such self-serving narratives. Indeed, the difficulty would lie in finding a nation or people that has not sought to construct such a narrative.
Choosing to focus more on the fact that such narratives propagate "ideals worth aspiring" into the "global market" while proudly bearing the flag of their country of origin, Malhotra does not dwell on the negative effects of such narratives in, for instance, the United States, whose founding fathers he uses to illustrate the power of a glowing national narrative. Malhotra does not entertain the possibility that within the careful selection of positive stories people tell about themselves, and most likely at the very root of such a projection of national purpose, is a victim mentality (whether real or imagined). Or, if the situation does not suit the victim mentality, one may instead adopt that of a messenger or tool driven by some unseen higher power.[2]
The basic ideas are that one is either rising up against long-standing subjugation by bursting onto one's rightful place on the world stage, or that one is on some civilising mission spreading all that is good to others in the world who are not lucky enough to be guided by the hand of God, or not lucky enough to possess, in the case of Malhotra's Hindu nation, "inner sciences" founded in the "goldmine of Hindu ideas" over millenia, that will give mankind the "language of the future" if only those outside the Hindu nation would deign to give it the deserved recognition. Malhotra despairs that the "goldmine" has already been broken into, as we shall see below: "[s]ciences in the West" are "appropriati[ng]" the wealth of Hindu civilisation. Malhotra does not deny Hindu culture's widespread "valuable contributions to the modern world", but merely the proper fawning appreciation thereof.
Evading such inquiries, Malhotra proceeds to address those critics of his who are "confused about this matter" because they insist that a nation, especially one as diverse as India, is replete with "separate and conflicting narratives". To them, Malhotra enjoins that his narrative has always been possessing of an "open architecture" that is "adaptive and fluid, accommodating to fresh ideas and new members". All the while the crucial point, already conceded, of the tendency to construct self-serving narratives allergic to clear-headed examination of the facts of history, is swept under the rug. Perhaps Malhotra imagines that Hindus will not fall into that trap. But if so, is that not itself a self-serving view?
Malhotra dedicates many lines to propounding the "discoveries made by rishis in their inner laboratories" of spiritual introspection through meditation and philosophical discussion. I am more than happy to praise the achievements of the strong philosophical tradition on the Indian subcontinent. Furthermore, there is no justice in the suppression of the historical and literary record "as part of the frenzy for appropriation", neither is there much use in false modesty. If there are extant critics of Malhotra who shy away from an honest and proud presentation of the achievements of Indian culture, they should be challenged to re-examine their position. If there are a priori restrictions on the "introduc[tion] of . . . [the] Mahabharata, dharma-shastras, artha-shastras, and raj dharma discourses into mainstream teaching and debates", then they must be fought against. If there is a serious problem with "the fields of India Studies and Hinduism Studies" being "abandoned" by Indian students, then that should be examined further and the interest reinvigorated. If Indian historical scholarship has been reduced to "regurgitating and parroting Western thought [through] . . . trained . . . disseminat[ion]", then that needs to be tackled urgently at the grass-roots level. In all of these cases, "if" is the operative word, and I overuse it here because Malhotra underuses sourcing for the claims made. Namely, he cites none — other than the titles of two of his books. Further comment is unwarranted.
Malhotra should be criticised for naive propogation of Indian culture in a manner that does not give due deference to the achievements of other religions (that Malhotra himself brings up order to slander). The intellectual integrity of a Hindu/Indian grand narrative, should there even be one, will surely be measured by its attitude towards the achievements of other cultures worldwide. As always, looking in the mirror is the hardest, and most revealing, of attributes.
To typify Malhotra's approach in his article, we can take his bald claim that the spiritual ideas of "adhyatma-vidya (inner sciences) are now at the cutting edge of research in neurosciences in the West". No evidence is given, and no elaboration is attempted. This sounds suspiciously like the long-discredited psuedo-scientific idea known as as "woo".[3] I would be interested to see a peer-reviewed scientific article explaining the relevance of adhyatma-vidya in the "cutting edge" of research into diseases such as multiple sclerosis, or into cognitive science problems in vision and memory.
It is also difficult to take Malhotra seriously when he blandly dismisses, without any substantive analysis, the "Abrahamic sense" of religion as being "hostil[e] towards infidels" and towards "reinterpreting their holy books" because they lack the "vital quality of Hinduism": "its openness to critiques and change". Where can this "vital quality" be found in Hinduism I wonder — in the famously open and welcoming religious doctrine of caste, perhaps?[4]
Likewise, Malhotra seems to be equally unconcerned with real-world Christianity, where religious tolerance is evident in the Quakers and the writings of Leo Tolstoy, to name but a few classic examples. Indeed, the Vedanta position on what is arguably Jesus' central message proves to be quite antithetical to Malhotra's denigration of open-mindedness in the Abrahamic tradition. His disparaging of the "internal resources" possessed by Christians and Muslims as being insufficient to "reconcile . . . [sectarian] conflicts" is quite misguided.[5]
Finally, Malhotra's article suffers from a failure to appreciate the distinction between the theoretical ideals proposed by great thinkers and founders of a religion, and the way that religion may be followed in practice. It is all very well trading blows at the theoretical level between the respective ideals espoused by Hindu "rishis" and Islamic thinkers, and perhaps Malhotra deems these differences too obvious to merit any comparative analysis, but are those superior ideals reflected in the lives of Hindus and Muslims living today? Actions, as always, speak louder than words. Is Hindu tolerance anything to be especially proud of, such that Malhotra feels the need to tread on Abrahamic tolerance on his way to proclaim the long-denied greatness of Indian ideals?[6]
Malhotra would do well to heed the warning given by his own description of "cocoon[ed]" intellectuals: "[their work shows] shoddiness and lack of rigor . . . [instead they] tend to be bombastic and dismissive of opponents, rather than studying them seriously."
"History without tragedy does not exist, and knowledge is better and more wholesome than ignorance."
It is with the above epigraph that Raul Hilberg, undoubtedly the world's leading authority on the Nazi Holocaust, opens his autobiography, The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian,[7] there is surely no more fitting a lesson to take away regarding cultural narratives.
NOTES
[1] Malhotra, R. The Hindu Grand Narrative. Organiser. [Online] 14th March 2015. Available from: http://organiser.org//Encyc/2015/3/14/Column--The-Hindu-Grand-Narrative.aspx [Accessed 20th July 2015]. All quotes attributed to Malhotra below are taken from this article.
[2] Chomsky, N. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. [Paperback, reprint] London, Verso Books; 1994, pp. 19-32.
[3] Salzburg, S. Deepak Chopra Gets Upset, Tries The Harvard Gambit. Forbes. [Online] 24th November 2013. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/11/24/deepak-chopra-gets-upset-tries-the-harvard-gambit/ [Accessed 20th July 2015]. This is, of course, to cite only one example of dozens that could be produced where advocates of mysticism jumped the gun and married themselves to scientific phenomena, only to be rebuked by the relevant scholars.
[4] Mani, B.R. Debrahmanising History: Dominance and Resistance in Indian Society. [Paperback] New Delhi, Manohar; 2013, pp. 39ff. Roy, A. The Doctor and the Saint. In: Anand, S. (ed.) Annihilation of Caste. [Hardback, annotated critical edition] London, Verso Books; 2014, pp. 37, 53, 61-63, 82, 96, 111, 128. Both Mani and Roy discuss the extensive history of narrow-mindedness and extremism in Hindu thought and practice towards both passive and resistant Indian social groups.
[5] Regarding Tolstoy, Quakers, and religious tolerance in Christianity, see Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, [Kindle version] Golgotha Press; 2011, p. 220ff, and Leo Tolstoy, On Religious Toleration, [Online] www.nonresistance.org; n.d., available from: http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/Tolstoy/On_Religious_Toleration.pdf. Regarding the Vedanta position on Christianity, see Swami Prabhavananda, The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta, [Paperback] Hollywood, CA, Vedanta Press; 1992, passim.
[6] Gupta, R. The myth of Hindu tolerance. Guardian. [Online] 28th May 2009. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/28/hinduism-tolerance-india [Accessed 20th July 2015].
[7] Hilberg, R. The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian. [Paperback] Chicago, Ivan R. Dee; 1996. The quote is attributed to H.G. Adler.
No comments:
Post a Comment