The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity

Satyajit Ray’s work delves into the intricacies of cultures, their distinctions, and the need for inter-cultural communication. Ray was a prominent Indian filmmaker in the 20th century. His works emphasize the uniqueness of each culture, the heterogeneity within each, and the importance of maintaining open channels of communication with other cultures. Unlike some who view Indian culture conservatively, Ray was open to learning from global ideas and art forms. He highlighted the challenges of understanding cultural nuances in films, especially when the films were translated for foreign audiences. For instance, Sen argues, the nuances lost in translations can impact the perception and understanding of a scene. Despite these challenges, Ray’s films have garnered international admiration, showcasing that cross-cultural understanding, while demanding, is achievable. Ray stressed the importance of representing the “true essence” of a culture, cautioning against pandering to foreign audiences’ love for the “false-exotic.” He championed authenticity over perpetuating misleading cultural misperceptions.

The contrast between movies like Salaam Bombay! and The City of Joy, which rely heavily on villains, and Satyajit Ray’s films, which avoid such simplifications, are discussed. Ray’s films often depict societal problems without resorting to easily identifiable villains. This absence of villains allows Ray to convey the intricate societal situations leading to tragedies, rather than pinning them on a few malevolent characters.

Ray’s films reflect the heterogeneity of contemporary Indian society, resisting stereotypes of East versus West. Additionally, the idea is refuted that external cultural influences dilute Indian identity. Sen argues that Indian culture has always absorbed external influences while maintaining its essence and uses the example of the chili, an essential ingredient in Indian cooking introduced by the Portuguese. Lastly, Sen touches upon the dangers of anti-modernism, which can challenge the adoption of global scientific knowledge in India.

Defining modernity in contemporary India is complex, suggesting that while some see modernity as a Western influence, it is not as easily categorized. Criticisms of modernism and modernity often misinterpret the concept as a binary. However, modern thoughts often have deep historical roots, indicating that defining something as modern isn’t straightforward. Decisions about policies, for instance, should focus on the impact on people’s lives rather than their perceived modernity.

In discussing Asian values, the text argues against the belief that Western traditions have historically been more attuned to freedom and tolerance. Such generalizations oversimplify diverse and nuanced cultures. Sen notes the pitfalls of drawing broad contrasts between “our culture” and “their culture.” There’s immense diversity within each culture, making overarching generalizations problematic. The idea is that these cultural divides should be acknowledged but not taken as definitive boundaries, and the relevance of practical reason in the present context is paramount.

The relationships between Western perceptions of India and India’s self-identity, shaped deeply by colonialism, are discussed. This relationship was further amplified by recent resistance to Western cultural dominance. Both Western and certain Indian viewpoints have a tendency to stress the differences between the two cultures, sometimes leading to an oversight of the rich diversity of Indian traditions. The Western gaze on India is characterized by three dominant perspectives: the “exoticist” view, which marvels at India’s distinctiveness; the “magisterial” perspective rooted in imperialism; and the “curatorial” stance, which systematically catalogs diverse facets of Indian culture, reflecting genuine cultural interest without inherent biases.

Historically, European interest in India was kindled by British scholarship, particularly figures like William Jones of the East India Company. By 1784, Jones had founded the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal and, in collaboration with other scholars, translated numerous Indian classics. However, despite these scholarly pursuits, Western perceptions frequently highlighted India’s distinctive aspects, often resulting in skewed interpretations. Influential works like James Mill’s The History of British India alarmingly painted Indian culture as “primitive,” despite Mill’s lack of firsthand experience with India. This stood in stark contrast to acknowledgments of India’s ancient contributions in various fields by scholars like Alberuni. Such interpretations deeply influenced British policies, notably Macaulay’s education reforms, and resonated in derogatory portrayals like Katherine Mayo’s Mother India.

Historical interest in India often bore an “exotic” undertone. Ancient works such as Megasthenes’s Indika depicted India intriguingly, merging genuine observations with mythical tales. Over time, from figures like Alexander the Great to European Romantics such as the Schlegel brothers, India’s allure remained persistent. The ebb and flow of admiration to criticism of India in the West is evident in Rabindranath Tagore’s Western reception, exemplifying the impact of both exoticist and magisterial views on India. These perceptions underscored mysticism over India’s rational achievements, in turn influencing India’s self-image, with many Indians selectively adopting favorable exoticist views.

Chatterjee’s analysis underscores the dynamic between India’s internal identity and external perceptions, especially during the colonial era. Recent historiographical trends emphasize the marginalized “subalterns,” thereby inadvertently sidelining India’s scientific and mathematical achievements. Historical gaps in mass education in India intensify this alienation. Furthermore, comparing Western philosophers to Indian peasants creates a misleading contrast in intellectual traditions. Western perspectives, whether curatorial, magisterial, or exoticist, often sideline India’s analytical traditions, overlooking significant parts of its intellectual heritage, including notable inventions like chess. This skewed image, shaped by an imbalanced relationship with the West, has particularly affected India’s rationalist traditions.

Sino-Indian interactions during the early millennia showcased a tapestry of mutual admiration and intellectual exchanges, transcending religious confines. The seventh-century musing by Yi Jing, “Is there anyone in any part of India who does not admire China?” (167), mirrors this sentiment. The two countries shared a rich history of knowledge exchange, with scholars such as Yi Jing journeying to India to study at revered institutions like Nālandā, delving into subjects from Ayurveda to Buddhism. On the flip side, Indian scholars like Gautama Siddhārtha made significant contributions in China, even heading its Board of Astronomy in the eighth-century.

This vibrant intercultural dialogue, while largely overshadowed by religious narratives, especially Buddhism, was much more extensive. It spanned various domains, from science and mathematics to literature. For Sen, the contemporary tendency to narrowly define cultures, especially on religious lines, is a reductionist approach that misses the intricate depth of these historical exchanges.

Xuanzang’s sojourn to India exemplifies the celebrated nature of these exchanges. His depictions of Buddhist temples in “middle India” indicate reverence. In China, his legends, particularly in the 16th-century tale Xi You Ji by Wu Cheng’en, became widely popular. Yet, not all exchanges were seamless. China, at times, resisted Indian influences, especially Buddhism, rooted in Chinese intellectual pride and skepticism toward foreign ideologies. Prominent scholars like Han Yu in the ninth-century voiced disdain for Buddhism. Daoists also clashed with Buddhists, claiming their founder, Laozi, was a precursor or even an avatar of Gautama Buddha, which led to temporal disputes.

This intercultural melding impacted India as well, reducing its civilizational exclusiveness. The influence of Buddhist connections, in fact, expanded horizons for both Chinese and Indian intellectuals. These connections catalyzed mutual exchanges in fields as diverse as mathematics, astronomy, literature, and the arts. Historians face challenges in tracing these idea flows due to methodological constraints and disparities in preserved records, with Chinese archives being more extensive. Notable historians like Jean-Claude Martzloff and Joseph Needham have often debated these interactions’ direction and magnitude.

Moreover, Buddhist traditions and public councils, such as the one hosted by Ashoka, showcased values aligned with democratic principles, emphasizing restraint in speech and respect for all views. Interestingly, the origins of printing can be traced to East Asian Buddhists, emphasizing “universal free distribution” (186). Such traditions underline the significance of public communication, seen even in modern healthcare. Historically, China admired India’s health systems. However, in contemporary times, post the 1979 reforms, despite China’s impressive economic ascent, India, especially regions like Kerala, showcased superior health metrics, potentially credited to democratic governance and robust public health interventions.

Democracy’s health impact is evident, Sen argues. While India provides state-of-the-art medical amenities for the affluent, its basic healthcare often lags. Nevertheless, media scrutiny, a hallmark of democracies, drives improvements, narrowing health disparities between India and China. The historical interplay between India and China underscores the value of open communication, as seen during the SARS epidemic in China. Both nations, rich in history and interactions, have invaluable lessons for each other, even today.