LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT- 34. LITERATURE IN TRANSLATION

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

34.LITERATURE IN TRANSLATION.

Translation of good literature from one language into another has been a scholarly pursuit from ancient times. But no translation of any work has ever been considered fully satisfactory.

Europe claims its intellectual and philosophic traditions from ancient Greece and Rome. But even Roman writers like Cicero, Seneca and others had taken Greek ideas and rendered them in Latin. The Christian Bible (Old Testament) is translation from Hebrew  to Greek to Latin to other European languages. The New Testament was translated from the Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew to Greek, from where it was translated into Latin. For a long time, the Latin version alone was used in the Catholic Churches for ceremonial services. The first English translation was made in 1535, a second one in 1568. After England became free of Papal control under King James, he got it translated into English- hence the name 'King James Version'. (KJV) But it was a selective version, to conform to the wishes of the prominent section of  a faction of the Church of England followers-viz the Puritans, but over the years it gained wide currency after Oxford university started publishing it. Its language is in a class of its own, automatically inducing a sense of the high and the holy. But modern sensibilities desired a free-flowing version in plain language, and so we now have the New English Bible. It too has been revised. But those who have read the KJV enjoy it for its language and can never get to like the new versions. Though I am not a Christian, I have found it enjoyable reading.The newer versions read rather like modern stories.

Apart from the language, even the correctness of translations has been questioned. It has been so throughout, with all translations. Ronald Knox, a Catholic theologian and scholar produced his own translation from the Latin, but referring to the Greek and Aramaic versions where necessary. It is considered not only accurate in scholarship by insiders, but it makes delightful reading too, in idiomatic English. Personally, I consider it the best version, having read the several versions available.

I give this example to show how difficult it is to get a competent translation even of the Bible. Most official translations are works of committees and the result is not satisfactory. It is a translation done by a committed and dedicated individual scholar that can be satisfactory. One can imagine how it would be if a committee of scientists set out to invent the ideal horse or donkey. (It is a different matter that the Bible itself is not accepted by most educated people today as 'the word of God'.That has nothing to do with its merit as  grand literature.)

Though the rediscovery of the Greek classics was the main prop for the Renaissance, and though Europe was busy with translations of Greek classics, England lagged behind and it often translated from other translations as from Latin or French! The first major translation of Homer's epics was by George Chapman in 1611-15. It was followed by Dryden (1700) and Alexander Pope 1715-25.With English language undergoing constant evolution, almost every decade sees a new major translation. The first complete translation of the dialogues of Plato was made by Thomas Taylor in 1804 and it had tremendous influence on the Romantic poets and other intellectuals. In 1871, Benjamin Jowett's translation appeared and became the standard. However, modern scholars are increasingly questioning the accuracy of this translation and newer translations are coming out. Though translation is an old art, it has never been mastered to perfection.

Every language has its own way of thinking. Even ordinary words in a language do not convey the same shade of meaning or significance in other languages.Every language lives and thrives in a specific cultural context, and evokes different emotional response. The significance the word 'cow' has for a Hindu, no one else will understand. 'Go mata' is a peculiarly Indian idea and cannot be conveyed in English by making it "Cow mother" which sounds quite ridiculous, though it is literal translation. Krishna calls Arjuna "Bharatarshaba" ,but if it is rendered as "bull among Bharatas", will it make any sense to a non-Hindu? Most of our words- dharma, karma, jnana, Brahman, Atman, deva,varna,vasana, samskara,  guru,etc are untranslatable into English. Perceptive writers understand this and retain the original words, but may explain them in a separate glossary.

With the introduction of Macaulay's education,and English, and its linking with jobs, study of Indian languages, especially Sanskrit has declined. But even during the British period it did not disappear. Up to 1950 or so, Sanskrit was being studied in schools and colleges.  Universities like Calcutta were great centres of Sanskrit learning. The govt appointed a committee to go into the question of teaching Sanskrit under the chairmanship of Suniti Kumar Chatterjee which submitted its report in 1957. It pointed out that it was not a mere language, but the very fountain and vehicle of  Indian philosophic and scientific thought and culture and every Indian language, including Tamil, had liberally and heavily borrowed from it and grown. They recommended that Sanskrit education should be strengthened and encouraged. But the govt quietly forgot the report.Sanskrit is neglected in the educational system, and Hindi, which has absolutely no classical or historical value,is given a boost for political reasons. There is no Classical work in what they now call 'Hindi': Mirabai's songs, Ram Charit Manas of Tulsidas are all in old regional dialects. Hindi is an artificial amalgam of later origin.

The position in Tamil Nad has been particulary bad , especially since Dravidian parties came to power in 1967. Sanskrit teaching has been totally scrapped from the state syllabus. It is again a politial decision, based on ignorance and prejudice. At one stage, it went to such an extent that the excellent Sanskirt section in the Annamalai university was attacked and the Sanskrit books set on fire in the 70s- something which only Muslim invaders had done in Nalanda centuries ago! 

Our knowledge of Sanskrit has become so low, that most of us Hindus cannot read anything in the original at all! Most need a vernacular translation, while many need English translation. And here lies the danger.

Most of the translations are of religious or philosophical books- eg. Ramayana, Bhagavatam, Gita,etc. The peculiarity of these books is that they are used for 'Parayana' ie ceremonial reading or recital or chanting. They are never read as mere literature- even though they are couched in the finest poetry. In translating them, the traditional scholars-who were also practising Hindus- kept two things in view:

1. The language should be appropriately elegant and induce the religious or spiritual mood. Reading them is not like reading a novel.They are not read for the mere story value,or casually. It is a spiritual,more than aesthetic,experience.

2. The translation should be such as to enable a serious reader to go to the original without difficulty.

Read old translations by Sengalipuram Anantarama Dikshitar, Kadalangudi Natesa Sastigal and they maintain this high tradition. In the next generation, we see some dilution- eg .C.R.Srinivasachariar, Anna Subramanya Iyer, though they too are still orthodox in their comments and explanations. But come to the recent translations ( such as the Gita Press editions of Valmiki Ramayana or Bhagavatam.)While the original Sanskrit slokas are transliterated beautifully in Tamil with accurate pronunciation marks, the translation itself follows the market Tamil of Tamil novels and stories- totally inappropriate for the high purpose. Even well known Sanskrit words in normal usage, familiar to cultured families, are needlessly translated into 'current' Tamil. eg. Krishna is rendered as 'Kannan'. It denotes the same person, but does this word Kannan convey the meaning of the word 'Krishna' -which is in fact a technical term? Rishi is rendered as 'munivar'. Do they mean the same thing? "Buddhimaan' is rendered as 'arivaalan'; 'Rajya paripalanam' is rendered as " arasaatchi enra podu nalap pani"! Hanuman is written as 'anuman'. The pity is, people reading this will never get to know the exact meaning or nuance, of the original word. The translator says this is all done to facilitate easy understanding. But any serious learning involves some effort, and by making everything easy, we make it vulgar, and make the readers dull.These books are read by astikas, but the translator has adopted the nastika expressions of the Dravidian parties. And these books are priced so low, such inelegant translations will gain widespread usage. Modern prose renderings, often in cheap editions, are no better.

In the English translations we find other types of difficulties, more sinister and serious.. Most of the translators are mere academics, without practical knowledge of what they translate, or professional writers who write for money. Many of them have no love of or sympathy for the subject or respect for the traditions. Many of them,especially foreigners, have their own hidden agendas: in translating, they give their own interpretation. So, they distort the meaning. These books are produced rather well by international publishers and are distributed world-wide. Many educated Indians read only such translations or books. There are still fine Indian scholars writing in our regional languages. Why can't we refer to them?  Actually, we are promoting the foreign interpreter. On the contrary, see Chaturvedi Badrinath's writings on Mahabharata- with verses in original from Sanskrit! But that is the fruit of dedication over many years.

But the real long term danger of leaving the translation work to foreigners is more serious. Translation invariably involves interpretation. Sanskrit words are capable of conveying multi-layered meaning, and by choosing one over another, the translator can obscure the real meaning. Besides, what people generally regard as religious or philosophical notions are in fact deeply psychological concepts. The clever western academics take these concepts, give them their own colouring and introduce them as their findings! And our people then borrow them in the name of modern scholarship! And shamelessly they say all new original ideas come from the West!

An Indian scholar faces serious impediments in translating from English or other European languages. He has no mastery over English or the other languages. We have no libraries in India which have the latest publications in any subject.I have found that almost every Indian scholar who has written any good book in any subject has done so after studying the subject abroad, and accessing the libraries in the foreign Universities. How can the translations be satisfactory if they are not proficient in both the languages, leave alone the subjects? Besides, Sanskrit scriptures are to be heard, not read; how can a text-book scholar get the correct meaning of scripture if he lacks exposure to the uttered sound? Even Max Muller did not understand spoken Sanskrit- he could not even identify it!

The works of the ancient Greek philosophy, mythology, etc reveal many ideas which have a strong similarity to our own thinking. Many stories have common themes. For instance, Aristotle said that Homer's epic 'The Iliad' dealt with suffering, while his other epic "Odyssey" involved study of character-good versus bad. In both, gods had intervened. Now think about it in relation to our own Itihasas- Ramayana and Mahabharata! What is Ramayana, except the story of suffering- first of Dasaratha, then of Rama and Sita, and finally of Sita? Did Sita's suffering end with Ravana's death in the war or the Pattabhishekam? A new wave of suffering started then, and  pursued her even in the second sojourn in the woods- this time in Valmiki's Ashrama and ended only with her leaving this world! We have no strength of heart to read this part of the story, and blissfully end with the coronation!

And what is Mahabharata, except the struggle between moral right and wrong? And there, who is totally white, and completely dark? All are in the shades of grey! Almost every one talks of Dharma, but none follows it fully! More than personal failure, does it not show that we are all puppets in the hands of a destiny which we cannot fathom?

And what is the story of Helen of Troy? Is it not one of kidnap of a princess, her confinement in a foreign land, and a battle to rescue her? Does it not remind you of Ramayana? Do not the wanderings of Odysseus, lasting more than ten years, remind us of the Vanavasa of the Pandavas? Yet which Indian, in all these years, has mastered Greek and Sanskrit, and made a comparison? We still depend on western translators- for both! Sri Aurobindo was a master of both languages, but his interests were different!

 English literature is full of direct references and allusions to the Classical literature. Apart from direct expressions like Achilles' heel. Trojan horse, Pandora's box etc, we cannot read any great poet, old or modern, unless we know the Classics. Our own vernacular literature is full of references to the Classical Sanskrit literature and Puranic and Itihasic incidents, but their study is neglected. With the current focus on certain branches of engineering and commerce and business studies in our educational system, serious study of literature is neglected by our youngsters. Not that we will give up mythology,but Harry Potters, Spidermen and Supermen  will usurp the place of the old heroes! With all the advances, the West has not forgotten its Classical foundations, nor neglected their study, but we have no idea of even the full extent of our classical heritage. This is the difference between genuine progress and  pathetic imitation.

Substance and style are the two eyes of any great literature. It is next to impossible to convey either from  one language to another. The next best is to create something new in another language: we have the great examples of Kamban's Ramayana, and Villiputturar's Mahabharatam! One K.R.Jamadagni translated Kalidasa's Raghuvamsam into Tamil verse! Bharatiyar's Panchali Sabatam is an admirable modern version of the episode from the Mahabharata, faithful to the original.  The great treasures of Sanskrit literature,and works from other Indian languages, are waiting to be translated into literary Tamil or idimatic English. But alas, we lack not only good translators, but also enthusiastic readers!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 33.LITERATURE AND LIFE

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

33.LITERATURE AND LIFE

Great literature defies time. It also destroys national boundaries, crosses cultural constraints and language limitations and barriers. One of the basic characteristics of greatness is universality. The literature -be it poetry, drama, novel or short story- may deal with the lives of local characters-real or imaginary, historical or contemporary- or local events, but it involves ideas and emotions which appeal to humanity as a whole. Great minds everywhere have appreciated good thoughts wherever they come from and have restated them in the local language and idiom. This has been happening from time immemorial. Our Veda says: let there be no barrier to the flow of good thoughts from every side!

With the introduction of English education in India, we became familiar with English literature, and through English with the rich literary and cultural traditions of Europe. But, we did not have much direct exposure to the rich and varied literary  treasure of other European languages, which themselves had inspired and contributed to the great English literary efforts: Italian, Spanish, French, German. We learn from the lives of English poets how they read deeply of the literature of Europe, and were eager to get exposure to the fine arts of other countries in Europe, even though they had political conflicts. But we ourselves did not cultivate direct contacts with them. We saw everything only through English eyes. And we were fascinated by what we saw. We forgot to relate it to what we ourselves had, and acted as mere imitators.

The Europeans were appreciative of India too! When they first came into contact with Sanskrit literature, they were simply swept away by its majesty and beauty. The Germans and the French were quick to recognise the philosophical aspects of the Upanishads, and the literary excellence of our classical literature. Even the English appreciated them in the 18th Century, though the company officials who came to India were not  all men of letters.But there were some eminently scholarly persons like Charles Wilkins, Charles Hamilton, William Jones.  Warren Hastings, then Governor General, gave a foreword to the first English translation of Bhagvad Gita,by Charles Wilkins in 1784 and he wrote:

It is not very long since the inhabitants of India were considered by many as creatures scarce elevated above the degree of savage life; nor,I fear, is that prejudice wholly eradicated, though surely abated. Every instance which brings their real character home to observation will impress us with a more generous sense of feeling for their writings;and these will survive  when the British dominion in India shall have long ceased to exist, and when the forces which it once  wielded of wealth and power are lost to remembrance.

 Many passages will be found obscure and many will seem redundant; others will be found clothed with ornaments of fancy, unsuited to our taste;and some elevated to a tract of sublimity into which our habits of judgement will find it difficult to pursue them ; but few will shock either our religious faith or moral sentiments.

Warren Hastings also observed a Brahmin meditating in Benares and remarked about the similarity between the Hindu way and "the methods of training approved by the most ancient form of Christianity". (Of course it is now established that these ancient Christian traditions had themselves been borrowed or taken from Buddhist sources.) This coming from one who was laying the foundations of British rule in India!

But the company officials and the Christian missionaries got alarmed at such open admiration, and made strenuous efforts to stifle such scholarly interest. Two developments made matters worse. Noticing the similarity between some Sanskrit words and those in European languages, some ventured into the dreary desert sand of philology, which became a bogus science, proposing Indo-European language guesses, ultimately taking the shape of the fancy Aryan theory. Another was the studied effort to suppress Indian learning and sources of knowledge with full official patronage and power, resulting in the introduction of Macaulay scheme of education in 1836. And it is this system which is still ruling us, making us all Macaulay's children!

But Europe caught on . The Gita was translated into French and German and spread throughout Europe. It greatly influenced the Romantic poets and philosophers. William Blake even made a painting of the Brahmin! And it reached the Transcendental poets and philosophers of America, sending an Emerson and Thoreau into raptures.

While the alarmed and crooked Jesuits and other Christian missionaries in India were inventing false stories and spreading them, learned Europeans were studying the original sources, scanty as they were and writing about the glory of India. Voltaire wrote:

I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy,astrology,metampsychosis,etc..

            1775

The Greeks ,in their mythology, were merely disciples of India and of Egypt.

If India,whom the whole earth needs, and who alone needs no one, must by that very fact be the most anciently civilized land, she must therefore have had the most ancient form of religion. (1773)

 We have shown how much we surpass the Indians in courage and wickedness, and how inferior to them we are in wisdom. Our European nations have mutually destroyed themselves in this land where we only go in search of money, while the first Greeks travelled to the same land only to instruct themselves.

While politicians and  academic tin horns are governed by greed and ruled by prejudice and pet theories, savants are able to see into the heart  of things and appreciate the essence of any culture, because they are themselves cultured. Thus, Andre Malraux who could read the Gita in the original (unfortunately, many of us who claim either to follow it or oppose it, cannot) wrote in 1957:

......the fundamental evidence of the West, whether Christian or atheist, is death, whatever meaning the West gives to it, whereas India's fundamental evidence is the infinity of life in the infinity of time:'Who could kill immortality?'.

It is such a tragic irony that the first English Governor General of India was conscious of the greatness of the Gita and of the fact that the empire, which he was founding, was bound to end one day, whereas Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India was an anglophile and totally impervious to any national  religious or spiritual influence! And our leftists and pseudo intellectuals and self-styled secularists are celebrating Nehru's legacy!

Some may say that the Gita is after all philosophy, or a religious book, and not literature! Such people have no idea either of the Gita or of literature! The Gita is neither a religious book, nor a philosophical manual. In itself, it is just a guide to action in a perplexing situation, based on pure psychology. It enquires into the psychological basis of human action and its motivation, the complication it leads to and ways to avoid it. And any conviction ultimately constitutes a religion- even atheism is a religion! And any subject can become literature if the language is appropriately elevated! It is only in the modern day that junk writing is read as literature, like junk edibles are treated as 'food'. Serious writing in any language is ultimately philosophical in the sense it raises some basic question on some aspects of life. While 'Sphie's World' is philosophy in the form of a novel (like 'Zen And the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' is philosophy in the guise of a travelogue) all great literature in all times and climes have been philosophical- eg. For Whom The Bell Tolls, Moby Dick, Jaws, Siddhartha, down to the stories of Paulo Coelho! Why is a story like 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' still read 50 years after its publication, if it does not appeal to a permanent streak in human nature everywhere? And who can say Galbraith's 'The Affluent Society', Gunnar Myrdal's 'Asian Drama' or 'Parkinson's Law' is not literature, because they are not fictional stories?

Or take Shakespeare. Who would read his plays as mere stories except school children? In that case, they may as well read  the Lambs and be done with it! Shakespeare uses poetry, history, story to convey some deeper meaning, though he is not religious or didactic. And that makes him all the more effective as a teacher.  People would regard his tragedies like Hamlet or Macbeth as being philosophical. But take a light comedy like As You Like It. There we come across a passage such as:

"Who doth ambition shun
And loves to live in the sun
Seeking the food he eats
And pleased with what he gets,
Come hither,come hither, come hither
Here shall he see 
No enemy
But winter and rough weather."

Is this poetry or philosophy? Or take another:

"All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like a furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide,
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again towards childish treble,pipes
And whistles in his sound.Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."


What is this if not the purest philosophy? And it does not occur in a manual of philosophy! In fact, not many philosophers will be able to express these truths  so simply, and so impressively. There are of course many pieces of Arunagirinatha expressing more or less the same ideas and even images! And our own Sankara gives a somewhat shorter poem:

Balastavat kreeda sakta:
Tarunas tavat taruni sakta:
Vruddastavat chinta sakta:
Pare brahmani ko pi na sakta:

Meaning: the child whiles away its time in play;the youth is after the opposite sex;old age is full of worries; none has time to think of the Almighty.

Elsewhere he says:

Ma kuru dana jana yauvana  karvam
Harati nimeshaat kala: sarvam.

Do not get puffed up about your wealth, retinue or youth. Time snatches away everything in a trice.


Historically, all cultures have only treated works of a serious nature as literature. The business of life was so hard, time on hand so limited, there was simply no time to read anything frivolous. People's need for relaxation or recreation was always met by some religious festival or activity. In ancient Greece, even the Olympic games and staging of tragedies were part of the festival honouring Apollo or other gods. Reading fictional accounts as literature started in England as the pastime of literate ladies in certain circles because they were not employed  and confined to homes. The first authors were also women, because serious writers considered writing such books somewhat below them. Books were then costly but circulating libraries came up to lend them books. In fact, it is these libraries, and publishers influenced by them who found out that people liked such light stuff and started catering to them. It is very much like what we see today in magazines or movies: they claim to cater to what people want and in the process debase the taste further. But with all that kind of stuff, the great poets and writers like Dickens and Hardy could write serious stuff and command great following. Dickens made public readings of his works both at home and in America. It is estimated that over a million people had heard him read his works in England  alone. And many of them were illiterate. Such reading to illiterate listeners took place by others even in petty shops. But who can claim that Dickens's novels were light? Even Karl Marx had said that his novels raised more questions of social concern than the writings of politicians, while Bernard Shaw contended that one novel of Dickens- Great Expectations- was more seditious than even Marx's Das Kapital! But this is the point: it takes a great mind to appreciate the finer aspects and deeper issues. If the great literary figures of the past are still read, while a new 'best seller' surfaces almost every week (and disappears quickly in the next), there sure is something in them that is more than mere story.

It is a characteristic of our age that with all the so called scientific and technological advance, so  much spread of education and literacy, so much of frivolous writing is treated and read as literature.  .  

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 32, ANCIENT AND MODERN.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

32. ANCIENT AND MODERN LITERATURE

There was no word in the English language to denote what today we call 'literature', before the 14th century.

...... that body of writing containing what we now call 'literature' encompassed without division texts that today we categorise as religious, historical, legal and medical. Poets were certainly popular figures, but their business was often primarily to commemorate historical events.

From: English Literature in Context. Ed: Paul Poplawski.CUP, 2008.

Literature means any piece of writing- in prose, poetry, drama,etc- that is deemed to have some artistic merit, or simply that which people regard as being important. Today  it has come to mean mainly work of imagination. Poetry often deals with nature or human situations and relationships; there are prose essays of various types. However, prose is mainly used to write fiction, and it is this which is the major form literature has taken. The word literature is also used in the sense of writing on any subject, so that we may talk of literature on the history of classical music; it is also used to designate promotional writing such as the one we get with a new gadget. However, in academic usage, literature mainly means writing considered to be having some artistic value and commanding public regard. 

Ancient literature of all people was mythological, religious or covering legends of historical events or figures. They are studied for their antique value as Classical pieces, but not as serious literature. They are regarded as works of imagination, involving unbelievable miracles. Modern literature too is mainly work of imagination, but modern people regard themselves as superior. This is one example where plain stupidity  parades as modern scholarship, because stupidity can be expressed  in or covered up by clever language and become the governing fashion.

It is often said that ancient lore is full of vulgar tales.But much of modern fiction is not only vulgar, but repugnant to good sense, food only for the depraved and degenerate minds.  Vulgarity has pervaded all fields and forms of entertainment, and serious literature that we have lost all sense of vulgarity. Most movies or TV serials cannot be viewed in the company of children and youngsters at home. Gutter overflows on the streets, but dirty stuff invades our homes (or visits as honoured guests through expensive, latest-tech TV sets ) 24X7.

Even ads are quite vulgar. We are not only tolerating, but celebrating vulgarity in the name of art or freedom. Only dogs used to display their love in public, but the new generation youngsters, supported by English newspapers, want to claim that freedom for themselves. These have all their counterparts or forerunners in serious literature.

How has this situation come about?

Literature and other art forms are a reflection of the state of society, and its basic belief systems-not just its intellectual perception. This belief system in the Western society was largely based on Christian morality and beliefs. By the later half of 19th century, such beliefs were called by the collective name 'Victorian' in England. 

In mainstream Victorian society, one could say that there was a broad consensus on Christian morality and on the existing social and political order.........Victorian writers and readers could largely assume a common culture and a shared language of values, attitudes and cultural reference.........The relatively stable Victorian consensus gave its major writers their own relatively stable sense of moral or intellectual authority at the heart of public opinion. (Paul Poplawski)

In the 20th century, these values and attitudes were dubbed  hypocritical, puritanical and narrow-minded.(Just as American youth revolted against the older generation in the United States, triggered by,among others, the Vietnam War.) A.C.Ward, literary historian of the period wrote:

From 1901 to 1925 English literature was directed by mental attitudes, moral ideals, and spiritual values at almost the opposite extreme from the attitudes,ideals and values governing Victorian literature. The old certainties were certainties no longer. Everything was held to be open to question, everything from the nature of Deity to the construction of verse forms. (Quoted in Poplawski.)

The modernist trend is supposed to include many separate elements- all isms in the modern world- such as: naturalism, symbolism, imagism, futurism, cubism, vorticism, expressionism, surrealism, etc. Whatever they may mean or be made to mean, ultimately they all involve attitudes to sexuality, gender relations, religion and morality, authority of scriptures or institutions. In short, the writer wants to say whatever he desires in the name of creative and artistic freedom. 

Not that these were not dealt with by Victorian writers.They did, but largely within the bounds of Victorian mores and sensibilities. Even when they questioned some of the values, they did it keeping other values! Take for instance Hardy's novel "Tess of the D'urbervilles" which was severely criticised when it first appeared in book form in 1891. Its story involves, in the words of that fine scholar M.H.Abrams: 

....the heroine, having lost her virtue because of her innocence, then loses her happiness because of her honesty, finds it again only by murder, and having been briefly happy, is hanged. Hardy concludes:"The President of the Immortals, in Aeschylean phrase, had ended his sport with Tess."

                -
 See: 'A Glossary of Literary Terms' by M.H Abrams, under the heading 'cosmic irony'.

The tragedy is unbearable here to any sensitive heart, but see the way Hardy phrases it.(and Abrams notes it.) The incident of loss of virtue occurs in the last chapter of 'phase the first' of the story titled "The Maiden." And the next phase begins, "Maiden No More". That is all that is said. Just imagine what a modern writer would have done with such a juicy or spicey incident! And how it would have been named!

This is the real point about old literature we consider classics. They do deal with bold themes, but there is no gory detail or vulgarity. And the incident itself is not the main point of the story. The story deals with broad themes and bigger issues and this incident is the trigger. The modern reader, used to plain, graphic details, may not even understand what has happened! The issue Hardy wished to raise is the nature of a society which cannot render justice or show kindness to an innocent girl, who loses her virginity in spite of herself. She is not a bad girl, or a loose one. And about personal misfortune too he raises the basic question: why does something bad happen to good people? Where was her guardian angel? Where was the Providence in which  she believed? Was it a case of the sins of the fathers visiting upon the children, as the good old Book had surely claimed? (Exodus,20:5). These questions have been answered neither by philosophy, nor theology.

Good old literature aimed to elevate human thought and behaviour. Literature was the teacher and guardian of morality. Story was for teaching morals, not for entertainment or for its own sake- as modern artists and writers claim. But this is the modern attitude in anything; just do it! So the scientists just go and make the atom bomb because they can do it! They invent deadly chemicals which are not found in nature or which nature cannot deal with , because they can do it! They meddle with genetic engineering and modify the food molecules, because they can do it! And their sins will wait upon the children! Every new scientific invention has brought on unexpected and unsolved problems to the succeeding generations.

The main characteristic of modern literature- whether English or Indian languages- is the depiction of loose morality and its elevation as the modern thing to do. In the process they interpret old literature in absurd ways. Take Shakespeare's sonnets for instance. in some of them, he definitely deals with his love for a male friend. This vexes our modern scholars. Who can that be? What can that mean? They are not satisfied unless they can establish that it shows the 'gay' side of his character, even though he was married and had children. They would at least talk of "putative evidence of at least homosociability". (See:Evans Shakespeare Editions, Hamlet; 'Shakespeare's Life' by J.J.M.Tobin) These so called scholars deliberately overlook the fact that in Shakespeare's times and society, friendship and deep bonding were always with members of the same sex, as people did not mix freely with the opposite sex, except in specific manner and situations. What kind of mucks are these scholars, spinning out such fancy theories and forcing them on young minds!

I have often wondered whether a decent man would write or even imagine something indecent! Whether a decent man or woman would openly discuss something sinister or disagreeable in great detail, in plain language, with his or her own children, not yet grown up? And yet many of them write such stuff for public consumption.

I detect plain greed for the filthy lucre behind such writers. And their own dirty minds. Most publishers would publish such books without scruple because they too are after money! It is like some of our self-styled 'art' movie makers. They can find only dirty subjects for such movies and all their art consists in treating it in as obscene a manner as possible, in the name of art, and creativity and freedom. They portray perversity in the name of art. Cecil B.De Mille was honest enough to admit over half a century ago: When people said he had 'sexualised' the Bible in his famous movie "The Ten Commandments", (1956) he is reported to have said that he had one eye on the Bible and the other on the empty seats in the theatre!

Under the influence of spreading modernism, even the literature in our languages is becoming plain vulgar. The periodicals contribute to the situation in no small measure. On the one hand, the educational system is diluting standards and spreading literacy; on the other, the growing fascination with technical education results in the serious neglect of humanities and arts subjects. Consequently, our youngsters have no exposure to any classical literature -of East or West. That is why I often plead that people read classical literature- be it prose or poetry, East or West. In the ultimate analysis, I believe that the division between ancient and modern is more meaningful than that between East and West. Ancient literature dealt with the same issues of fundamental importance to humans living upon earth, involving its meaning and purpose, though they dealt with different aspects or from different angles. They were concerned with values, East or West. But modern literature has no value other than momentary titillation for the reader, and monetary return for the writer and publisher, in both East and West. Neither the reader nor the writer  has any  sense of value or standard or direction. It is like boarding a nice ship on a long voyage upon the deep seas- but no one knows or cares where it is headed! How can you wish them Bon Voyage?

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 LIGHT. 30.INDIAN SUPERIORITY.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

30. INDIAN SUPERIORITY!

Nations and people differ so much among themselves in ever so many respects. Every nation and society has some peculiar features of its own.These are quite natural and have grown over the centuries. A society may not consider them to be special or peculiar to them, unless comparison is made with others. Then, these peculiar features may be taken as signs of superiority. Naturally, every country or society feels it is superior to others in some respects . Differences are used to define superiority.

Some historical forces have distorted the picture. Jews' lands were occupied by  Christians, Arabs and Palestinians and they were driven out. They dispersed all over Europe.(The word 'diaspora'  refers primarily to them).  But they were hated everywhere and were made to live in ghettos or marked areas. The locals felt superior. (Like the Hindus, Jews do not believe in conversion and cannot add to their number through conversions.)When Christianity became powerful in the Roman Empire, they claimed superiority over all the ancient religions whom they designated 'pagan' and persecuted . Under Reformation, (16th Century) the authority of the Pope was defied, Protestantism and other rebel groups rose, gained powerful support and in many countries Catholics were treated as inferior. This problem continues even today.Islam too added to the picture, though even among them some are considered superior to others.

Once European nations established colonies, the colonial powers naturally felt themselves  superior. Spanish and Portuguese colonisers (Catholics) killed millions of native people in South America, looted their wealth, and wiped out their religion and culture almost entirely, all in the name of Christ.In North America, the  mainly non-Catholic Anglicans  did the same thing to the natives and confined them to reservations, after appropriating their land mainly by fraud and plain deceit. Christ was of course behind them too! Missionaries make it out that Christianity is a religion of love, but they have spread only by violence.The Belgian thinker Francois Perin wrote in 1996:

Europe's ancient civilization, chiefly developed on the shores of the Mediterranean, was not submerged by a religion of love, but indeed forcibly destroyed by a fanatical Church.

Anatole France said they were "the crimes of the whole military and commercial Christianity."

Chinweizu, an African writer has these words:

White hordes,......fortified in an aggressive spirit by an arrogant, messianic Christianity...motivated by the lure of enriching plunder......sallied forth from their Western European homelands to explore, assault, loot, occupy, rule and exploit the rest of the world.

Where did Christianity succeed without the sword, asked Vivekananda. Not surprisingly, history of Christianity is not taught in their schools!



In India, the English were  brutal, but also more subtle. They came to trade,gained favours, intervened in local disputes and  snatched power from the indigenous rulers in many devious ways, made them puppets , and swindled them. Will Durant, the world-renowned American Scholar wrote:

The British conquest of India was the invasion and destruction of a high civilization by a trading company, utterly without scruple or principle, careless of art and greedy of gain, overrunning with fire and sword a country temporarily disordered and helpless, bribing and murdering, annexing and stealing, and beginning that career of illegal and 'legal' plunder which has now gone on ruthlessly for one hundred and seventy three years....

England has year by year been bleeding India to the point of death....The British ownership of India has been a calamity and  a crime....year by year it is destroying one of the greatest and gentlest peoples of  history.  (Written in 1930)

In 1901, a British historian William Digby wrote:

Modern England has been made great by Indian wealth, wealth never proffered by its possessor, but always taken by the might and skill of the stronger......England struck down the ancient industries of India, and during a whole century has done naught that is worthy to constitute India a land of varied industries.

But their main method was to establish their superiority by the process of education and lure of office- indigenous eduction was replaced by English education, such people were offered govt jobs. They wrote our history, allowed the missionaries to convert in all possible ways. The result of two hundred years of English eduction in India is that most educated Indians have lost all sense of self respect, developed an inferiority complex about their own culture, languages and traditions, and become shameless and senseless imitators of their former rulers and their current successors in all possible ways. And they call it modernisation! It has grown to such an extent that in every Indian city or town, you will find the youth not even willing to wear the traditional Indian dress, and taking to Western outfits. (Muslims are an exception;  in the South, even young Hindu girls sport the Muslim dress: salvar kameez!)

Strangely, this feeling of inferiority has grown after Independence, especially in the last 50 years. One index of it is the demand for English medium education  even from the primary classes- even from the KG! Mother tongue is studied only because it is made compulsory; once that stage is past, almost no one studies it on their own!

I have been saying that Indian languages have historically lagged behind and cannot compete with English as medium for higher education. But Sanskrit was the language of high science, no less than high culture. To quote Will Durant again:

India was the motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages; she was the mother of our philosophy, mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is, in many ways, the mother of us all.

French Scholar Sylvain Levi said:

From Persia to the Chinese Sea, from the icy regions of Siberia to the islands of Java and Borneo, from Oceania to Socotra,India has propagated her beliefs, her tales and her civilization. She has left indelible imprints on one fourth of the human race  in the course of a long succession of centuries.She has the right to reclaim in universal history the rank that ignorance has refused her for a long time and to hold her place among the great nations summarising and symbolising the spirit of Humanity.

And all this happened without war, violence and bloodshed. Hu Shih, a scholar and former Chinese Ambassador to the US once said:

India conquered and dominated China culturally for 2000 years without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.....Never before had China seen a religion so rich in imagery, so beautiful and captivating in ritualism, and so bold in cosmological and metaphysical speculations. Like a poor beggar suddenly halting before a magnificent storehouse of precious stones of dazzling brilliancy and splendour, China was overwhelmed, baffled, and overjoyed. She begged and borrowed freely from this munificent giver.

Yet, our educational system continues to adopt the same methods imposed on us by colonial powers with even greater force! Our youngsters are led to believe that India was always poor, that its poverty was due to its religion and philosophy and that she is in need of Westernising! We not only do not know our past, but are effectively screened from knowing it by an educational system which is de-Indianised. Our history books (written by govt.sponsored leftists) portray the Hindus and their civilisation in as bad a light as possible. Especially strong is their attempt to portray the Muslim rule in glorious terms. But the fact is, all world's historians know, are otherwise. Will Durant, the celebrated author of the world-famous  monumental multi-volume study, "The Story of Civilization" clearly states:

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the BLOODIEST story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

 But our languages are excellent literary medium, and the vehicles of our own culture and history. Imagine the state when one is not able to understand any literary work in Classical Tamil in the original, when it is his mother tongue and has been learned for 10 or 12 years!  Sanskrit and Tamil are the worst hit because they are India's most ancient and richest and real classical languages (though other languages may claim and get that label for political reasons.)

Imperial powers may feel superior because they colonised us. But we have quietly asserted our own superiority  in some ways, though it is not obvious.
The Muslims conquered every country where they went and forced Islam on them.They do not allow minorities at all; minorities have no rights. They ruled India too for 800 years, but they have not been able to make India Muslim! They could only divide India! India is the only country in history which has withstood  the Muslim onslaught for so long! Naturally, there must be something in us which made it possible! That is one mark of our superiority!.

When European (German and French) scholars took up the study of Sanskrit and for the first time got acquainted with our ancient literature, they were stunned and dazzled by its range, depth and sublimity. Arthur Schopenhauer, the German philosopher,wrote about the Upanishads:

From every sentence, deep, original, and sublime thoughts arise, and the whole is pervaded by a high and holy and earnest spirit....In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads.It is destined sooner or later to become the faith of the people......The study of the Upanishads has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death.

The American Transcendentalist philosopher Emerson wrote on the Gita:

I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.....It (Vedic thought) is sublime as night and a breathless ocean. It contains every religious sentiment, all the grand ethics which visit in turn each noble poetic mind.

Emerson's follower, Henry David Thoreau said:

In the morning, I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in comparison with which  our modern world and its literature seems puny.

World renowned American author Mark Twain wrote in his book "Following the Equator" in 1897: 

So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked,.....Land of religions, cradle of human race, birthplace of human speech, grandmother of legend, great grandmother of tradition. The land that all men desire to see and having seen once even by a glimpse would not give that glimpse for the shows of the rest of the globe combined.

Our ancient literature is surely a sign of our superiority. No other country or people in the world have a such rich treasure of literary wealth so well preserved. But we must study them! What is the use of owning an ocean if we cannot swim? Because of economic necessity, we have to take up secular education; that should not be neglected.But that will only make us an economic animal, a bread-earning machine. We must also become MEN! . Only culture will make us so. That comes only from the mainsprings of our civilisation. We have to renew our contact with the genius of India and recover it.

 Even if we are not able to go the original sources direct, the works of Sri Aurobindo provide an illuminating  exposition of authentic Indian thought in the most elegant and sublime English prose and poetry ever written. I mention Sri Aurobindo because  he studied in England, had mastered Greek  and Latin, became  fluent in French and German, and knew Italian, besides being a master of English and Sanskrit.  His writings have a rare charm and power not experienced elsewhere.No Indian  and few Englishmen have written like him. It is not easy reading, but exceedingly rewarding.

Sucessful assimilation depends on mastery;but we have not mastered European conditions and knowledge, rather we have been seized, subjected and enslaved by them. Successful rejection is possible only if we have intelligent possession of what we want to keep.

India can never cease to be India or Hinduism to be Hinduism, if we really think for ourselves. It is only if we allow Europe to think for us that India is in danger of becoming an ill-executed and foolish copy of Europe. 

-Sri Aurobindo.(Essays Divine and Human, 1994; p.41 and 44.) Originally written in 1912.

Note:
1. The quotations cited in this piece are all taken from: Michel Danino:"Indian Culture and India's Future" , D.K Printworld, New Delhi 110015,2011.
This is a wonderful book, no Indian should miss.

2. The following books of Sri Aurobindo are essential reading:

• The Renaissance in India.
• Essays on the Gita.
• Secret of the Veda
• Hymns to the Mystic Fire
• Isha Upanishad
• Kena and Other Upanishads
• The Life Divine
• Synthesis of Yoga.
• Essays Divine And Human
• The Future Poetry
• Savitri

(Please read the original and not any translation.)

The following books will also be helpful.

- Is India Civilised? by Sir John Woodroffe

- The Lost River by Michel Danino

- Invasion That Never Was by Michel Danino

-  The Politics of History by N.S.Rajaram