LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT, 81. UNDERSTANDING CONTEXTS

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT

81. UNDERSTANDING  CONTEXTS

Corruption is a popular topic in the media. I am sure most readers  would have heard  of the quotation of Lord Acton:

'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

And yet, I am also sure that most of us have not seen the full statement. Or the context in which it was made. The fuller statement is:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

John Emerich Edward Dalberg, first Baron Acton- in short, Lord Acton for us, wrote this in a letter to a religious figure who was also a scholar, in 1887. 

The effect of the statement read as a whole is much more damaging than we originally thought. It would seem that great men- men in authority- had almost an innate tendency to be corrupt. 

Lord Acton was a scholar and  his knowledge of history was formidable. Though he was a Roman Catholic, he did not subscribe to all Church dogmas, in the light of  his own study and understanding of history. In the 1870s, the Roman Catholic Church was trying to promulgate the doctrine of the Infallibility of Pope in the First Vatican Council. Lord Acton journeyed to Rome and canvassed against it, but he did not succeed. In this letter he was giving his reason as to why people in high authority, whether King or Pope, should not be judged  differently than other men, as advocated by the churchman. Citing specific examples of Elizabeth and William III, he said how greatest names were coupled with greatest crimes!

Lord Acton
By Allen &Co [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons


High office has no sanctifying effect on the holders of the office. No one in power should be automatically trusted. When we understand the context, the full gravity of the situation dawns on us. The situation is more hopeless than we like to think, and all solutions appear puerile. Something more than, higher than, education is involved here, seeing that it is mostly educated people holding high office who are also highly corrupt. No country, under any system, is totally free, though the extent and methods vary. Indira Gandhi once famously said that corruption was, after all, an international phenomenon! So, we had already embraced globalism then!

The  administration under the British at the higher levels was almost totally free of corruption- a fact recognised by even Peter Drucker as contributing to the stability of the regime. But they were indifferent to the lower ranks. Certain departments- like education, police, revenue- were recognised as affording opportunities for the lower officials for frequent contact with the public, and thus providing chances for unofficial gratification! Hence their salaries were deliberately fixed low! But after Independence, it assumed much greater proportions, in spite of steady increase in official remuneration. 

It was Rajaji who first pointed out the seriousness of the problem, in the 60s- half a century ago! He also explained its genesis  and growth under the Permit-Licence-Quota raj administered by the politicians and bureaucrats in the name of the Socialist pattern of society. We are now supposed to be having a ''reform '' regime, but corruption is still with us. It has now pervaded every aspect of our public life at all levels.We can only raise our hand, and cry with the poet:

Jinhe naaz hai Hind par, woh kahan hai?


Education for Enslavement

Our present education system is a legacy from the colonial  sarkar. How many people understand it in context?

In all old cultured societies, learning was an end in itself- not a means to something else. Scholarship was valued in and for itself. This had taken the form of "classical education" in England, consisting of the teaching of Greek and Latin,through grammar schools. But by  the 19th century, some people had come to think of "useful learning" (utilitarian)through English, rather than appreciating classic poetry.

In India too learning was highly valued, but not for practical ends. It was in fact not necessary to be literate to earn a living. The East India Company's charter was subject to renewal by Parliament every 20 years, and while renewing the charter in 1813, the Parliament had required the company to encourage the revival and promotion of literature and encouragement of the learned natives of India., earmarking 1.00.000 rupees for the purpose. This had taken the form of supporting the traditional forms of scholarship of both Hindus and Muslims - through Sanskrit and Arabic.

With sentiments rising in England against Classical learning, thinkers like James Mill said that the objective should be not to encourage oriental learning, but to encourage 'useful' learning through English. It was however felt by some that native education being an expression of the cultural and religious beliefs of the people, its replacement by English education might lead to adverse reaction.

Thomas Babington Macaulay, the legal member of the Council of India and was to take over as the president of the committee of Public Instruction now powerfully intervened. He did not have a high or favourable opinion of the native learning of India (especially of the Hindus) and considered them little more than superstition. ( One does not know how much he really knew in the matter).He thought that modern subjects could not be taught through Indian languages. In his now famous Minute of 1835, he dismissed the whole of the Indian and Arabian knowledge as being less than a " single shelf of a good European library". He advocated European subjects through English medium. He clearly understood the difficulty of educating the whole population; so he hit upon the idea of creating a class of "interpreters" between the natives and the rulers-
 " a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste , in opinions, in morals,in intellect".

 That is, a class of Anglicised Indians who would convert the rest!

William Bentinck, the Governor General, concurred with Macaulay and decided on 7 March 1835 that

" the great object of the British Government ought to be the promotion of European Literature and science among the natives of India." 

He also decided that thenceforth govt funds should not be spent for printing books of oriental knowledge. This became law in 1836. Indigenous education and its institutions gradually declined.

Several points require attention in this connection.

   1. Macaulay thought of Indians as barbarians, their knowledge no more than a bundle of superstitions. In introducing European education through English instruction, he thought he was attempting to civilise India. This he considered to be triumph "followed by no reverses." He was trying to establish in India "imperishable  empire of our arts and our morals,our literature and our laws." 
  2.He was also aware that having access to European knowledge, Indians might demand European institutions!

    3.In a letter to his father in 1836, Macaulay said:

"The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious.No Hindoo who has received an English education ever remain sincerely attached to his religion.Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy; but many profess themselves pure deists, and some embrace Christianity. It is my firm belief , that if our plans of education are followed up,there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes of Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty...I heartily rejoice in the prospect." 

This shows the hidden agenda of the whole scheme of education!
   
   4. Whatever might have been his educational attainments , Macaulay seems to have been a complete idiot  concerning India. Just 50 years before his educational efforts in India, when English rule had not been firmly established in the country, other Englishmen , uninfluenced by any official 'vision' or mission, were discovering the merits of Indian knowledge! ( which Macaulay decried without knowledge) Sir William Jones, a Judge at Calcutta, studied Sanskrit and on 2 February 1786 observed:

"The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure;more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity.

Even before learning Sanskrit, he had studied Indian scriptures through Persian translations and he said:

"I am in love with Gopia, charmed with Crishen [Krishna], an enthusiastic admirer of Raama and a devout admirer of Brihma [Brahma],Bishen [Vishnu], Mahisher [Maheshwar]; not to mention that Judishteir,Arjen, Corno [ Yudhishthira, Arjuna, Karna] and other warriors of the M'hab'harat [Mahabharata] appear greater in my eyes than Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles appeared when I first read the Iliad."

He also said:

" I am no Hindu but I hold the doctrine of the Hindu concerning a future state to be incomparably more rational, more pious and more likely to deter men from vice than the horrid opinions inculcated by the Christians on punishment without end."

Sir William Jones
After Joshua Reynolds [Public domain] via Wikipedia Commons.


 German scholars and thinkers were also discovering the greatness of Sanskrit and its literature. Frederick von Schlegel (1772-1829), his brother Wilhelm August (1765-1845), Humbolt (1767-1835) and Arthur Schopenhauer (1776-1860) were great admirers of India and its  heritage. Humbolt declared in 1827: 

"The Bhagavadgita is perhaps the loftiest and the deepest thing that the world has to show."

Schopenhauer read the Upanishads in Latin, translated by a French scholar from the Persian translation of Dara Shikoh. He was so moved that he considered it the "production of the highest human wisdom" and declared:

It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death.

This shows how ignorant was Macaulay of the stirrings in the intellectual circles of Europe about India and its heritage. He was but serving the shopkeepers- the East India Company. And he was the first of a new breed of colonialists who wanted to suppress the intellectual attainments of the indigenous people, in order to show his own culture in better light- a task in which the dubious scholar Max Muller was to be engaged later. Such are the origins of the English educational enterprise in India.

But education by itself  could not have become such a pervading force but for its linkage with jobs. It is this linkage which has made this educational system such a strong social and political force, defying all attempts at reform or even improvement.

But one insight of Macaulay need not be denied. It was that Indian native languages were not adequate or suitable for teaching modern subjects. This is the position even today,especially in the light of the explosion in knowledge and information in all areas of mental effort and investigation. However this could have been achieved without denying ancient achievements and decrying the heritage as a whole. The unfortunate result is that we have all become Macaulay's children, brought up in complete ignorance of our own heritage. The position has not changed a wee bit in over 60 years of independence.

The whole situation is not without its ironies and tragedies. In 1836, the year indigenous education was replaced by English education, with the hidden idea or expectation of de-Hinduising India, in the very month it was introduced, was born Sri Ramakrishna. And from Calcutta, the then seat of imperial capital, he spoke against a mere 'bread winning' education. Without formal education, he held the 'Englishmen' ,as he called the English -educated youngsters of Bengal, spell bound with his native wisdom, educating them on the strengths of Indian tradition. In 1893, his chief disciple Vivekananda went to US and planted the flag of Vedanta there. He used Macaulay's language to proclaim and interpret Hindu wisdom, which macaulay had derided!

But this message has been lost on India subsequently! English is indispensable for modern education, but it also continues as an instrument of cultural enslavement- cultural colonialism. This is the most serious damage inflicted by Macaulay and the English colonialists on India. The average educated Indian today lacks any conception of the historical achievements of India in any field, and lacks pride in his country and its civilisation. Education is seen as the means to Westernisation and this for him is civilisation! 

Sri Aurobindo pointed out in December,1918:

"English rule has by its general principle of social and religious non-interference prevented any direct and violent touch, any deliberate and purposeful social pressure; but it has undermined and deprived of living strength all the preexisting centres and instruments of Indian social life and by a sort of unperceived rodent process left it only a rotting shell without expansive power or any better defensive force than the force of inertia."  

Sri Aurobindo
Photo by Henri Cartier-Bresson


(But since 1918, the British govt also changed its strategies and indulged in "deliberate and purposeful social pressure" when it encouraged Hindu-Muslim rift, and also communal divisions within the Hindu fold. ) However, the over-all effect of their education system has been to perpetuate  intellectual poverty and a sense of cultural inferiority among Indians, especially Hindus. That the so called Independent govt of India has simply followed the colonial policy is the most unkindest cut of all!

Note:

It is necessary for an educated and nationalistic Indian to study, in some detail, the "Minute on Indian Education" drafted in 1835, which has decided the educational fate of India . It shows the full extent of Macaulay's ignorance and the full force of his prejudices. It can be read in The Norton Anthology of English Literature, vol.E, p.1640. I give some salient points below in his own language.

1."the dialects commonly spoken among the natives of this part of India contain neither literary or scientific information, and are moreover so poor and rude that, until they are enriched from some other quarter,it will not be easy to translate any valuable work into them."

2. " I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic."

3. " a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia."

4."the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any Orientalist who ventured to maintain that Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations."

5."all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England."

6."We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother -tongue. We must teach them some foreign language."

7. (Sanscrit and Arabic ) "literature of small intrinsic value" .."that literature inculcates the most serious  errors on the most important subjects"

8."We are told to teach it because it is fruitful of monstrous superstitions. We are to teach false history, false astronomy,false medicine, because we find them in company with a false religion."

We see a man here, ignorant of Sanskrit and Persian ( it was Persian, the court language which was written in Arabic script) but arrogant enough to pronounce judgement on the worth of the literature without having read anything in the original!  ( Condemnation without study of the original is not literary criticism) Even the most illiterate and idiotic person will not tolerate if his mother is abused.. Yet we have an ignoramus here condemning our Motherland- and there are people in India who still hail him!

And the free Indian govt shamelessly follows the educational policy raised on his foundations!

Thomas Babington Macaulay who laid the foundation for officially liquidating Indian knowledge systems, and de-Indianising Indians.

" 

   

   

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 31.COMPARISONS ARE NOT VALID!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

31.COMPARISONS ARE NOT VALID

Man lives in a  physical environment- he is part of it. He also lives in a social environment, which he has himself created. How he organises his interface with these is the essence of his civilisation and culture.This can be done on the basis of unthinking instinct, mental processes or spiritual awareness. These represent three levels of civilisation. They are based on the state of evolution of the society, and it would be unfair to compare them. The majority in any society is just a block of unthinking masses, and get used to their conditions, blaming their fate or cursing the gods. A few people think and try to find solutions to perceived problems and make things better. But no solution is found satisfactory in the long run; new problems or sources of dissatisfaction are found, and the search for better or simply new ways goes on. The modern world calls this progress. Scanning the literature of the world, we can see that no society is satisfied with itself at any time for long.

The only source of satisfaction or contentment comes from an awareness of the basic nature of the world, and of man himself, and his place in the scheme of things. In the west, this was the beginning of the philosophical quest. Socrates prescribed: "Know Thyself". It is man who perceives the world, but he does not know himself! His perception of the world can be correct only if he has awareness of his own nature. This is an experience, not an idea. It is really a spiritual quest, not mere philosophical inquiry. It was too much for the old Greek society, and Socrates was put to death. But in drinking poison, Socrates proved his conviction of the immortality of the soul. He had chance to escape, and friends to help him do so, but he refused. So, Socrates lives in his death.

This is a glorious chapter in the history of mankind.The whole episode and the defence of Socrates are highly elevating.

After Socrates, the philosophical quest became merely mental exercise, with Aristotle holding man to be a (mere) rational animal. His spiritual potential was not reckoned. This has been the West's plight ever since. The heights attained by Socrates have not been touched since, not even glimpsed. There have surely been individuals with such a vision, but the vision remained individual, often secret. Society as a whole was not influenced by it. Christian theology displaced all old insights, and was itself discredited and displaced by modern science. Modern society has become secular (ie without spiritual vision); it takes sense perception alone as the test of reality. 

Ancient man was deeply aware of his dependence on nature, aware that he was part of it.. He lived with it, making due adjustments. Since physical conditions varied widely in different parts of the world, his style of adjustment also differed, resulting in wide differences in food, shelter, clothing. No ancient people cursed their environment. No one thought of conquering or subjugating nature. Nature was divine for them and they sought to understand and communicate with it. They understood Nature's language and its moods.

Up to the end of the Middle Ages the social framework with its hierarchies, mutual obligations and other features was also taken as "given" and people lived with it.

All ancient religions were based on celebrating and venerating Nature- their social and religious life coinciding with Nature's cycles. Organised Christianity created the first schism: the Biblical injunction " Be fruitful and multiply; subdue the earth" (Genesis 1.28) was interpreted officially as meaning man's superiority and hegemony over the rest of nature and giving him licence to deal with them as he pleased. The belief was spread through Christian catechism that everything in nature was created for man's use and enjoyment. He had dominion over it. Scholars have argued that this is the single most devastating element of Christian teaching at the base of the modern ecological crisis.Christian theologians are busy reinterpreting the position.

The attitude to Nature is one of the most important differences  between all the ancient religions on the one hand and the three Abrahamic religions viz Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the other. All these are dated, recent and based on personality cult. On the other hand, all the ancient religions are incredibly ancient, no one can fathom their origin. Arrogant Christians dubbed all the ancient faiths "Pagan" and systematically destroyed them. They were ably supplemented by Islam which is inherently militant.

One way the ancient religions inculcated respect for nature was by treating nature's powers and manifestations as divine personalities. The Abrahamic religions and following them the modern western academics and scholars could never understand this simple truth but treated them as nature worshippers, pantheists, etc. They were simply called 'primitive'. Modern scientific civilisation has reduced the world to a waste heap and polluted the very sources on which life depends- air, water, soil within 200 years of industrialisation and scientific technology; the ancients preserved the whole earth in a pristine condition, we know not for how many millenia; yet the moderns have the temerity and plain idiocy to call the ancients primitive! The man who drives a fancy car burning fossil fuel and releasing carbon monoxide and polluting the atmosphere is 'advanced'; the man who drives a bullock cart and preserves nature is 'backward'. Can perversion in language use get any worse?

Hinduism is the only ancient religion which is still practised in the world! It is the only ancient religion which has preserved all its scriptures intact! This is one reason why the two Abrahamic religions-Christianity and Islam are aggressively active in India, seeking to  convert and destroy Hinduism.

But the educated  in the West are aware of the limitations of Christianity on many fronts: imperfections of the Bible as the word of God; the absurdity of the Genesis story of creation; doubts about the historicity of Jesus, and many details of his life including his birth and its date; (Recently, scholars have claimed that Jesus had married Mary Magdalene: see Times of India,11.11.14); the Buddhist base of the teachings of Jesus (eg. Jesus's sayings "I and My Father are one; the Kingdom of God is within You"  etc have no basis in the Judaic religion. Jesus's insistence on non-violence and the idea of incarnation are also of non-Judaic origin) The educated westerners are turning away from organised religion and fall in a new category called "spiritual but not religious" or "non-affiliated".

Hinduism did not start from speculation, but awareness. Our Rishis "saw" the Truth, did not invent them. Their knowledge was derived from identity, not analysis. You cannot know a tiger, unless you become one! Perfect knowledge makes the process one: the knower, the known and the process of knowing! The subject-object division vanishes. The whole of normal perception is based on this division, but spiritual awareness does away with it!  It is not that the world outside vanishes; only, our perception undergoes a change.

This poses two problems:

1. This represents the very summit- there can be no further 'progress'. Perfection in any field signifies the end of the quest. This poses the risk of a slide.

2.Since the spiritual vision alters our vision of, but does not destroy, the world outside, the greatest practical issue is how to reconcile the two in day to day life! Fire will burn even a Jnani, as the poison killed a Socrates, or the bullet killed the Mahatma! (though they would say it is the body which is gone, not they themselves!)

The entire course of Hindu civilisation is an answer to this quest, an attempt at reconciling the two: spiritual vision with secular life. Vedic religion did not advocate running away from the world, or shunning it as evil.It prescribes a full life: let us live and enjoy a hundred years it says. One of the most basic  Vedic prayers of the Hindus prescribes, addressing the Sun:

Pasyema Saradas satam
Jeevema Saradas satam
Nandama Saradas satam
Modama  Saradas satam
Bhavama saradas satam
Srunavaama Saradas satam
Prabhravaama Saradas satam
Ajeetaasyama Saradas satam 
Jyokcha Suryam drusey!

May we witness  (and bow to the Surya) a hundred years!
May we thus live a hundred years!
May we enjoy with our family and relatives a hundred years!
May we enjoy happiness  a hundred years!
May we flourish a hundred years with fame!
May we utter sweet speech for a hundred years!
May we live a hundred years unconquered by any evil!
We wish to enjoy like this, beholding the Sun  for such long years!

This is the Hindu philosophy of life- the original Vedanta! This is what we see in practice, up to the time of Bhagavad Gita (3100 BC).

Spirituality or high religion cannot be practised by entire societies- all people not being suitable for such a high venture. So Hinduism prescribed different methods based on the principle of 'differing competence'- adhikaari bheda. But all of them had the same ultimate goal, which was denied to no one. It was Buddhism which disturbed this arrangement, by prescribing Sanyasa as the remedy for the problem of Samsara, and prescribing it for all, irrespective of the state of preparation and fitness. In the process, it corrupted the ideal of Sanyasa in practice, and destroyed society.  Subsequent philosophers could not completely counter the strong idea of the world as a place of suffering, and sanyasa as the remedy. This has been the undoing of India and India has only been sliding for the last 1500 years, subject to all types of foreign invasions.

Westerners and their Indian imitators have spread the notion that India was traditionally poor, and that this poverty was due to their religion which was otherworldly. This is an absolute canard. India was known in the ancient world for its fabulous wealth, which attracted plundering marauders like Mohammad of Gazni repeatedly. From the beginning of the Christian (Common ) era, up to the mid 18th century, India contributed more than 30% of the world's GDP; most of it was industrial output, not agricultural produce. It changed only ofter the British came and started swindling us. Our present poverty has nothing to do with our religion or philosophy;it originated with the British and continued with their Indian imitators.

But our intellectual life shrank under the impact of repeated  foreign invasions and Muslim rule. We aimed at merely preserving what we had, and did not grow. This is the reason why there is not much of creative literature for the last 500 years or so.

The Muslims brought one level of modernism: we had to contend with organised monotheism which believed in and flourished on conversions. The Muslims destroyed our temples but could not destroy our religion or philosophy. The Europeans brought another level or wave of modernism which was more insidious. They destroyed our self-respect and made us imitators ,while at the same time making us believe that this was progress and modernism! Macaulay, who was instrumental in introducing an alien system of education along with English language, wrote to his father in 1836:

Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully.....The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious.No Hindoo who has received an English education, ever remains sincerely attached to his religion....If our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence....I heartily rejoice in the prospect.

 Sri Ramakrishna was born in the same year ,1836, and Bengal was saved. His disciple went to the US in 1893 and conquered the Parliament of Religions  and won the hearts and mind of many intelligent, educated Americans. He made the West aware of Hinduism- the oldest religion in the world. Many of our national leaders during the freedom movement were inspired by him. Vivekananda was followed by Sri Aurobindo- the single Indian most feared by the entire British establishment, admitted by the then Viceroy himself! His nationalistic writings stirred the youth, and shook the empire.But he left active politics to pursue Yoga.

The national movement then fell into the hands of Gandhi, who was often confused and baffled. He led the movement to an imbroglio over the Hindu-Muslim issue, and led to the creation of Pakistan, both directly and indirectly. Gandhi became ineffective as leader after the failure of the 1942 movement and his followers, Nehru and Patel, sensing that freedom was near, accepted  the division of the country, as if it was their private property. It was only Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who opposed  the creation of Pakistan, in writing, till the end.

Nehru became the leader after Independence. He was not the first choice of Congress leaders- it was Sardar Patel. But Gandhi anointed Nehru his successor and foisted him as the PM. After Sardar Patel's death in 1950, Nehru became absolute sarvadhikari- like a Hitler or Mussolini, though with nominal democratic trappings.  Nehru had been educated in England and become completely anglicised in his thinking. His administration continued exactly what the British had left, including its educational framework. Since Nehru dynasty continued to rule for  half a century, our educational system remains essentially anti-Indian in spirit. It is England ( and now USA) transplanted in India. Our higher education is such that it can only serve the United states!

The Christian missionaries could not convert Hindus from the higher classes; so they are concentrating on the lower strata. But Macaulay's education aimed at the higher classes, targeting their mind . But there is a curious turn now: scientific advances have discredited Christianity; the educated people turn agnostic or atheistic or non-religious practitioners of eclectic spirituality. So the result of modern education on Hindus today is not  necessarily to make them Christian, but to render them anti-Hindu!, or at least unsympathetic to Hinduism, about which he understands next to nothing.These are the Macaulay's children now, and they run administration, the media, the educational circus. Thus the  educated Hindus are becoming de-Hinduised!

It is necessary to be aware of this background. Most Indians do not know their cultural history or the philosophical foundations of their religion. They do not know the history of Christianity or Islam, nor of the development of modern English literature,or of their philosophy. Even of modern science, they know pretty little at the cutting edges- they have only second hand or third hand access. All essential original research is done abroad-still. Even those Indians who have won world laurels in science -Dr.S.Chandrasekhar,Hargobind Khorana, Venkataraman Ramakrishnan-  have done so working and researching abroad. Our vaunted educational system once turned out clerks for colonial administration; it now turns out cheap engineers more than 60% of whom are found to be not employable! And the rest go to serve the States!

Good literature will contribute to our knowledge of the world. Mastering Indian classics is necessary to understand our own cultural heritage which is by no means mean.And acquaintance with the English classics  will help us understand the evolution of the modern world  as it has evolved with it; it will enable us to relate to it better, without feeling inferior in any way. It will also expose us to some beautiful minds from abroad. Exclusive concentration on science or technology, and lack of exposure to good literature, especially the classics, will only make us morons and amoral , consuming animals. (In fact, worse than animals, for they know their limits, we don't.)

NOTE:

On the economic condition of India before the pre-British days, see: INDIAN MODELS OF ECONOMY,BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT by P.Kanagasabapathi (PHI, New Delhi, third edition, 2012), chap.2

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. STUDY OF INDIAN LITERATURE.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
STUDY OF INDIAN LITERATURE

Since 1836, when English education was introduced under the influence of Macaulay, Indians have taken to it in a big way.The colonial govt. established its own system of schools and prescribed  qualification from these schools with knowledge of English as a condition for jobs. The colonial rule had also disturbed the  indigenous economic arrangements based on a network of delicate mutual relationships and obligations, largely devoid of money. So people were tempted to go to govt schools, get English education and seek govt jobs on an ever-increasing scale. This system of education-job linkage continues even now!

What started as English education ie study of English as a subject at the school level turned into English medium at  the University, which had been established at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras in 1857.The subjects taught were mainly of Western orientation like Western philosophy, science, English and European history, English language and literature etc. The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna records how deeply the middle class Bengalis were influenced by such education in all spheres. This was the case in the other provinces too. Sri Ramakrishna used to jokingly call such people "Englishmen". This adversely affected their faith in our religion and considerably reduced their interest in our languages and literature.

Indian indigenous school systems were run on private initiative and were supported by public charity and old rulers' patronage.. The colonial govt did not support them. With the change in the economic arrangements and consequent disruption in social relations, these schools slowly withered away. We read from the autobiography of Dr.U.Ve.Swaminatha Iyer how he studied Tamil- and Tamil alone- in the Tiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam. The colonial govt did not encourage the learning of indigenous languages and literature; the schools which taught them gradually dwindled and disappeared. Tamil was taught as a subject at the school level, but the large literature was neglected.

Since the old generation was still present in sufficient strength ,our knowledge and proficiency were not lost immediately. But over the years, indigenous ways and methods of mastering our language and literature were given up completely. No one learns Tamil today as did a Ki.Va.Ja. under Dr.Iyer, as he had himself done under Pillaival.

But here history crossed us.Modern Science rose gigantically in the 20th century, and English emerged as the leading international language of trade, commerce, academic studies and scientific research. And more and more, the academic standards and practices adopted by the western European and then American institutions became worldwide. Proficiency in English became indispensable for higher education in all academic subjects, not just science.

None of the Indian languages could develop on modern lines to become a medium of study in any discipline, beyond very elementary levels. All of them have just become languages for strictly local communication for mainly non-academic purposes.Classical or not, these languages are only useful for studying the old literature: they simply cannot cope with the expansion of English in all spheres. So we face a dichotomy: we may learn our language (mother tongue) for sentimental reasons but it is not sufficient or indispensable or even useful for serious learning in any academic discipline. They survive only on fiction or frivolous writing.

The great middle class is under terrible economic stress to acquire means of survival, but knowledge of our languages is not helping them in any way. The load of academic studies is so heavy the students have no time or energy or inclination left to master our language and literature. The state govts are all making appropriate noises for encouraging local languages, but the standards have fallen dismally low. A stage has come for instance in Tamil Nad when most school children cannot even read old poems unless the words are split; there is no question of comprehending their meaning! 

The Dravidian parties spread the canard that Sanskrit is a dead language because it is not spoken; but Tamil is worse because it is not spoken as it is written, and it is not used for any serious purpose other than filling some govt.forms. Pure or literary Tamil is not useful even for entertainment, as the many Tamil TV channels show.

The problem for Sanskrit  is not that it is not spoken; in fact it was never the means of mass communication. As its very name implies, it was for elite  and selected use; these uses are still there! The danger is that the number of Indians with the knowledge of Sanskrit adequate to read our scriptures in the original is fast declining; more and more Indians are resorting to translations.

This is the real danger because the translation business has become an almost total monopoly of foreigners who learn Sanskrit and attain academic proficiency in foreign universities which have their own hidden agendas, influenced by Christian missionary interests! This has world-wide ramifications, since these academics have nexus with the press and international publishers with wide distribution networks so that their books get adequate publicity and circulation! Most such books are written without practical knowledge or experience, and on the basis of some  western academic theories; they almost always distort the truth, misrepresent facts and give inaccurate meanings.

Some examples are necessary.In the academic circles, there are theories as to how to interpret literature: eg. Marxism, feminism,psychoanalysis, post-colonialism, structuralism, deconstruction,etc. Western academics have applied psychoanalysis (Freud) to Sri Ramakrishna and pronounced that he was a paedophile! They have written that Kali is a blood-thirsty goddess who killed her own husband, and that Shiva is a notorious womaniser! Their books are prescribed for study in universities and every year thousands of students pass out with such ideas about Hinduism! They are all backed by church organisations.Neither Indian Mathadipathies and their hero-worshipping followers, nor the new-age Gurus and their followers seem to care. These Maths or Gurus have not made any serious attempts to counter such publications,nor come out with their own authentic translations. For instance, if you want to study Manu or Kautilya or even Mahabharata, there are few competent translations and comments by Indian scholars.Those who know the subject,do not have competence in English; those who are competent, do not know the subject or are west-oriented. 

Two centuries of English education have made us all acquire a western orientation, not only in our attire and attitude, but in our very thought process. For instance, we regard a scripture like Ramayana or Mahabharata as literature! Kamban called his Ramayana "Ramavataram" but our people take it as mere kavya! Valmiki and Vyasa are poets, but they are not like Kalidasa or Bana. They represent a different /higher category altogether. Valmiki and Vyasa are Rishis,though they wrote poetry but Kalidasa is not:he is a mere poet, though a great one. He wrote Sakuntalam , Raghuvamsam  and Kumarasambhavam which are themes occurring in our Itihasa-Purana, but what Kalidasa wrote is kavya, not itihasa!

The general western orientation has some serious effects on our idea of culture and civilisation.

• We all tend to believe, like westerners, that civilisation started with ancient Greece and Rome.Even our ideas and institutions are assessed on that basis.Our people do not know that our philosophy is more ancient than that of Greece.
• Since western criteria rule academic standards, and since these are based directly or indirectly on Christian ideas, these are generally applied here too. After all, we observe weekly holiday on Sunday, according to christian notion! Kautilya is spoken of as our Machiavelli!
• Western literary, mythological, and classical figures are accepted in our usage too.
• Science is regarded as a western discovery. Most educated Indians are not aware of India's own contribution.
• Political ideas and institutions as well as economic principles and practices are all copied from the West. Most Indians are not even aware that till the middle of 18th century, India contributed about 30% of world GDP!
• Generally , in everything we apply western standards or yardsticks. Some Christian bishop determined in 1794, on the basis of the Bible, that the world was created by God on 23 October, 4004 BC, when Adam the first man was created. Everything in history was decided on that basis. Since the world was colonised by the Christians, this was applied to other cultures also. In the case of India, they assigned arbitrary dates to our scriptures on this basis. And our so called scholars (including unfortunately such nationalistic figures as Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, Dr.R.C.Majumdar etc) merely worked on that basis, and still do so- because all of them want western acceptance! The irony is that  science have proved that the earth is billions of years old, and Biblical theory of creation is utterly discredited;but our people cannot come out of the old mind-set.

What is overlooked through all this is that unlike ancient Greece and Rome, which are now in the museums, India is still a living civilisation, and our religion, in all its rich variety, is still practised, as it has always been! We still repeat the same Gayatri mantra uttered by our ancients 10,000 years ago.We still visit Kashi and Rameswaram, Badri and Kedar, observe Kumbhamela etc -we do not know since how long. Our Valmiki and Vyasa are still  part of our daily life and are accordingly honoured. We still remember and honour our Rishis and offer them tarpana. Who does anything for a Socrates or Plato, Homer or Virgil? They are great figures, mighty and majestic, but they are not part of the daily life of Westerners.They are remembered by scholars , but that is about all.

One thing most Indians do not understand is that western academics simply apply theories to our practices and such theories keep changing! These theories in sociology, anthropology, economics or politics or even in the sciences are mostly not proven facts, but merely the opinion of some powerful group which has power to enforce compliance. The pity is that Indians still continue to hold on to old theories and ideas which have been discarded.The same incident or observation may be explained by many theories, but what is the truth? 

In considering Indian subjects, we have to adopt Indian standards. We have to distinguish between mere literature, and itihasa-purana and other scriptures. We cannot merely analyse characters in Ramayana as we would do in say, Sakuntalam or Shakespeare. ( Rt.Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastry did that in his famous lecture series on Ramayana in the early 40s.) No doubt Mahabharata is poetry, but it is itihasa  written in poetry form- it was written for edification, not entertainment.Its main concern is Dharma- something foreign academics will never understand and respect. For that we need someone like Chaturvedi Bhadrinath, whose delightful book on Mahabharata deals just with this single theme!

But the irony is that we cannot  read Ramayana and Mahabharata in the original, even as literature! The same thing applies to many classical Tamil works, including Sangam literature or even Kamba Ramayana. It appears to me that the solution is very simple: some of us should take up just one book  and study it in the original- be it Ramayana, or Bhagavata or Gita or Narayaneeyam. We would thus master both the language and the scripture. We don't have to study Sanskrit to become poets, but we may learn enough to read, understand and appreciate poetry written in it! Age is no bar. I know one who retired as Deputy Accountant General, learned Sanskrit, studied Ramayana and Bhagavatam in the original and acquired enough proficiency to expound it too.Incidentally, he could also compose poems in Sanskrit! So, let us not curse darkness, but light lamps-even small ones!