Who were the makers of modern India? The Brits- which is why it is a bit shit. Thankfully, Indians don't give a toss for modernity which is why India as a whole aint shit at all.
Ram Ghua takes a different view. He thinks the makers of modern India were nutters whose tongue was deeply inserted up the arsehole of the Raj.
Modern Hinduism owes much to Hindu Swamys and Acharyas and Sanyasis. It owes more to Mums getting kids to study STEM Subjects. If they don't they might end up as stupid as Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
Mehta and Guha and Chatterjee and Batterjee would, however, rather pay obeisance to worshippers of the White Man.
As a case in point, in 1823, Raja Ram Mohun Roy wrote to the Governor General, William Pitt, demanding that the East India Company stop wasting money on a Sanskrit college-
From these considerations, as the sum set apart for the instruction of the Natives of India was intended by the Government in England for the improvement of its Indian subjects, I beg leave to state, with due deference to your Lordship’s exalted situation, that if the plan now adopted be followed, it will completely defeat the object proposed; since no improvement can be expected from inducing young men to consume a dozen of years of the most valuable period of their lives in acquiring the niceties of the Byakurun or Sangscrit Grammar.
Pitt had spent a dozen years of his life learning Latin and Greek at Westminster and Christ Church. That hadn't done him any harm. The ICS officer was generally a good Classicist. Aurobindo was a fine Classicist- his Headmaster at St. Pauls was a great scholar who also had an MA in Sanskrit- and this stood they young Bengali in passing the ICS exam. One reason why the Brits were so effective in administering India was because District Collectors learned Persian and Sanskrit and vernacular languages. Having been trained from childhood in Classical philology, British officers easily acquired proficiency in Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic etc. Thus, they were no dependent on 'native informants' when it came to the ancient laws and customs of the country. Moreover, a habit of precision in the use of language, gave the Brits an edge over the Bengali blathershite whose inflated sentiments were seldom supported by reasoned argument.
For instance, in learning to discuss such points as the following: Khad signifying to eat, khaduty, he or she or it eats. Query, whether does the word khaduti taken as a whole, convey the meaning he, she, or it eats, or are separate parts of this meaning conveyed by distinct portions of the word?
This sort of exercise in conjugation arises in the study of any language. In some cases, there is a prefix or suffix, in others the word itself is different.
As if in the English language it were asked, how much meaning is there in the eat, how much in the s?
A Frenchman might well ask that question when seeking to master the language. The rules of grammar explain the categorical manner in which meanings arise when words are modified. But such category theory also arises in every application of Mathematics.
And is the whole meaning of the word conveyed by those two portions of it distinctly, or by them taken jointly?
Jointly unless there is a convention whereby they can be separated for a comic or other effect.
Neither can such improvement arise from such speculations as the following, which are the themes suggested by the Vedant:- In what manner is the soul absorbed into the deity?
A reasonable question. Pitt had received a sound Christian education. For him, there was bodily resurrection. For Roy there wasn't. Christians buried their dead. Hindus cremated theirs.
What relation does it bear to the divine essence? Nor will youths be fitted to be better members of society by the Vedantic doctrines, which teach them to believe that all visible things have no real existence; that as father, brother, etc., have no actual entity, they consequently deserve no real affection, and therefore the sooner we escape from them and leave the world the better.
But Christ said 'let the dead bury their dead'. Roy, it seems, had a complaint against instruction in Classical languages- in which he himself was proficient- and in the teachings of Religion though the fellow soon set up his own sect.
Again, no essential benefit can be derived by the student … from knowing what it is that makes the killer of a goat sinless on pronouncing certain passages of the Veds
or what it is that gives Holy Communion its efficacy
and what is the real nature and operative influence of passages of Ved, etc.
Why bother with the Lord's prayer? Indeed, why only defund a Sanskrit College? Pitt Sahib should kindly tell the King that all Churches and Public Schools and Universities where dead languages were taught should be closed down immediately.
Again the student … cannot be said to have improved his mind after he has learned into how many ideal classes the objects in the Universe are divided,
So quit teaching Aristotle already.
and what speculative relation the soul bears to the body, the body to the soul, the eye to the ear, etc.
Philosophy is useless. Ban it.
In order to enable your Lordship to appreciate the utility of encouraging such imaginary learning as above characterized, I beg your Lordship will be pleased to compare the state of science and literature in Europe before the time of Lord Bacon, with the progress of knowledge made since he wrote.
But that progress was made in Christian countries where Latin and Greek were taught at the better Schools and formed a large part of the syllabus in the Universities.
Comparing Roy with Macaulay we find that though the latter would, more than a decade later, also urge the end of subsidies for Sanskrit studies, yet, there is a vast difference between them. Roy had shit for brains and expressed a comical distaste for his own ancestral religion. Macaulay wrote sensibly enough and, moreover, stated that he was expressing the views of the natives.
Roy is not merely stupid. He is slavish. He says
If it had been intended to keep the British nation in ignorance of real knowledge the Baconian philosophy would not have been allowed to displace the system of the schoolmen, which was the best calculated to perpetuate ignorance.
Did Roy think some King or Governor General issued an order prohibiting 'the schoolmen' from 'perpetuating ignorance'? Did the Archbishop force everybody to take a dose of Baconian philosophy? Roy must have seen for himself that some people pursue knowledge of an empirical type for a utilitarian end. Others are content with metaphysics because their aim is soteriological. Most are more concerned with signaling rather than skill acquisition. Kings and Bishops can neither greatly retard or advance any type of instruction save if the revenues of a country are so ample as to permit a very large budget for Schools and Colleges.
In the same manner, the Sangscrit system of education would be best calculated to keep this country in darkness, if such had been the policy of the British Legislature.
But such education was not compulsory. On the other hand, since Roy had himself received it and had done well for himself nevertheless, it is difficult to see how any great harm could be associated with it. After all, the Hindus would want their priests to be educated men just as Christians wanted Vicars who knew Latin and Bishops who knew Greek.
But as the improvement of the native population is the object of the Government, it will consequently promote a more liberal and enlightened system of instruction, embracing mathematics, natural philosophy, chemistry and anatomy, with other useful science [s] which may be accomplished with the sum proposed by employing a few gentlemen of talents and learning educated in Europe, and providing a college furnished with the necessary books, instruments and other apparatus.
Alternatively, greedy clerks like Roy could disgorge some of their ill-gotten gains for this purpose.
In representing this subject to your Lordship I conceive myself discharging a solemn duty which I owe to my countrymen
of licking the arse of the invader
and also to that enlightened Sovereign and Legislature which have extended their benevolent cares to this distant land, actuated by a desire to improve its inhabitants, and I therefore humbly trust you will excuse the liberty I have taken in thus expressing my sentiments to your Lordship.
Roy profited handsomely by such servility. Moreover, he and Dwarkanath had an excuse. If the Brits left the Hindus would be at the mercy of the virile Mussulman.
Ram Guha, who considers Roy a 'Liberal' rather than a slave of the Brits, thinks Sir Syed Ahmed too was 'Liberal'. He quotes this speech of Sir Ahmed's delivered 2 years after the Indian National Congress was founded.
These wrong notions which have grown up in our Hindu fellow countrymen,
i.e. UP bhaiyyas, who being greatly in the majority, had their own plans for the Muslim minority- especially the highly educated sort who were over-represented in the Civil Service.
and on account of which they think it expedient to join the Congress, depend upon two things. The first thing is this: that they think that as both they themselves and the Bengalis are Hindus, they have nothing to fear from the growth of their influence.
The Bengali buddhijivi is as stupid as shit. Don't listen to him. The problem here is that the shrewd UP bhaiyya had no great use for brainy blathershites.
The second thing is this: that some Hindus—I do not speak of all the Hindus but only of some—think that by joining the Congress and by increasing the power of the Hindus they will perhaps be able to suppress those Mohammedan religious rites which are opposed to their own, and, by all uniting, annihilate them.
The Hindus did prevail in the matter of cow slaughter. Surely, that was the only thing they cared about? Everybody likes Eid and will turn up gladly for Iftar.
But I frankly advise my Hindu friends that if they wish to cherish their religious rites they can never be successful in this way. If they are to be successful, it can only be by friendship and agreement. The business cannot be done by force; and the greater the enmity and animosity the greater will be their loss.
This was the delusional aspect of the Muslim League in the cow belt.
I will take Aligarh as an example. There Mohammedans and Hindus are in agreement. The Dasehra and Moharrum fell together for three years, and no one knows what took place. It is worth notice how, when an agitation was started against cow-killing, the sacrifice of cows increased enormously, and religious animosity grew on both sides, as all who live in India well know.
The Viceroy saw 'gau raksha' as anti-British- which is also what some Hindus claimed. Aristocratic Muslims weren't keen on beef. That was more a lower middle class demand. On the other hand, it should be remembered that A.O Hume considered cow-protection vital to preserve or enhance agricultural productivity.
Still, it is true that Muslims felt they needed to step up cow killing to assert themselves. In Hindu majority areas, this was a mistake as some of their own Princes noted. The plain fact of the matter is that it was obvious, by the 1880s, that majorities would prevail. East Bengal would be Muslim. UP and Bihar would be Hindu dominated. Nothing could alter this outcome.
Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. At the same time you must remember that although the number of Mohammedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be thought insignificant or weak. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. Then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to flow from their frontier on the north to the extreme end of Bengal.
The problem here was that the Tzar had crushed the Uzbeks who had previously crushed the Pathans who were also being crushed by the Brits. Iran was in a parlous state. Even the Ottomans were having to surrender territory left, right and center. The Queen Emperor had more Muslim subjects than the Caliph. England was trying to swallow Egypt. Islam was spent as a military force. Pathans might invade Punjab or Kashmir. They wouldn't get much further and would have to be content with killing and enslaving fellow Muslims.
This thing —who after the departure of the English would be conquerors—would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it.
It was based on a fantasy of Pathans turning up when the truth was they'd be too busy looting Punjab and then looting each other to get past the Sikhs and Dogras and so forth.
Now, suppose that the English are not in India and that one of the nations of India has conquered the other, whether the Hindus the Mohammedans, or the Mohammedans the Hindus. At once some other nation of Europe, such as the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, or the Russians, will attack India. Their ships of war, covered with iron and loaded with flashing cannon and weapons, will surround her on all sides. At that time who will protect India?
This, again, was foolish. Even if England didn't want to rule India- or could no longer do so profitably- it couldn't let any other naval power gain bases on the Indian littoral so as to control vital sea-lanes. The problem with the Royal Navy's mastery of the Sea was that it was a free good for the Colonies. Indeed, without Imperial Preference, it would be a free good for England's competitors. England never solved the problem of how to finance Imperial hegemony of the Oceans.
Had India genuinely had any Liberals, this would have been the question which would tax their minds. There is little point relying on an Empire whose defenses are not incentive compatible. When you most need them, they will prove never to have existed. No Liberty can be built on such treacherous foundations.
Neither Hindus can save nor Mohammedans; neither the Rajputs nor my brave brothers the Pathans. And what will be the result? The result will be this—that foreigners will rule India, because the state of India is such that if foreign powers attack her, no one has the power to oppose them.
Since possession of India was important for British Naval hegemony, it follows that other Naval powers would act in concert against any one of their number monopolizing India. Japan had already been the beneficiary of what would become America's 'Open Door' policy towards China.
From this reasoning it follows of necessity that an empire, not of any Indian race, but of foreigners, will be established in India. Now, will you please decide which of the nations of Europe you would like to rule over India? I ask if you would like Germany, whose subjects weep for heavy taxation and the stringency of their military service? Would you like the rule of France? Stop! I fancy you would, perhaps, like the rule of the Russians, who are very great friends of India and of Mohammedans, and under whom the Hindus will live in great comfort, and who will protect with the tenderest care the wealth and property which they have acquired under English rule? (Laughter). Everybody knows something or other about these powerful kingdoms of Europe. Everyone will admit that their governments are far worse, nay, beyond comparison worse, than the British Government. It is, therefore, necessary that for the peace of India and for the progress of everything in India the English Government should remain for many years—in fact for ever!
To live in a Fool's Paradise it is necessary to believe that your English Fairy Godmother will protect you forever from everybody and everything. Should they fail to do so, imaginary Pathans will certainly do the job for you.
Roy & Ahmed were not Liberals. They were slavish fools. No doubt they did well for themselves. But so did a lot of people who just concentrated on making money rather than talking bollocks.
No comments:
Post a Comment