Amartya Sen's this popular book has been on my list to read for while now but I picked his other book The Argumentative Indian, instead (wonderful talk on this book by Sen and Salman Rushdie). There has been a lot of debate on Indian contributions in science, astronomy, mathematics etc but no one would dare opening a debate on the argumentative tradition. I even see myself driven by dopamine and probably the nuances in FOXP2 gene, try to turn conversations into Plato's Republic. Yes, I can TALK.
Reading Indian history is usually hard and its usually written for western audience. This book is no different and I almost quit reading in the middle. But glad I didn't since the last part was the most fascinating. The first three parts have the usual rhetoric, emphasizing on the importance of Indian civilization, the catalyst being the historical tradition of freedom of speech. Armed with this historical evidence, Sen politely tries to debunk the popular belief that liberty and freedom was an original western phenomenon.
"When Akbar was writing on religious tolerance in Agra in 1592, Giordana Bruno was arrested for heresy, and ultimately, in 1600, burnt at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome."
Indian enlightenment happened long before the Renaissance and there are some compelling evidence that Akbar was seminal to the Age of Enlightenment as well. The modern pluralism bought about by Akbar, reverberates even today in Indian secularism but sadly I think, modern India failed assimilate Akbar's wonderful pursuit of reason.
"The pursuit of reason and rejection of traditionalism are so brilliantly patent as to be above the need of argument. If traditionalism were proper, the prophets would merely have followed their own elders and not come with new messages."
Of course, Ashoka was the greatest figure and without him, to say the least, the idea of India would have been very different. Being a big admirer of Ashoka, I was disappointed that not much is written about him in this book.
"I have enforced the law against killing certain animals and many others, but the greatest progress of righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favor of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings.”
The most beautiful part of the book is the identity of India. Being an Indian birth or any other nation doesn't necessarily mean we "discover" ourselves in the parochial nationalism and dwell perceptually on heritage. Identity is a rational and evolving process. Assimilating through reasoning different cultures makes who we are. There is a huge difference between assimilating and assimilating through reason. Eating hot dogs and watching super bowl wasn't exactly what Jefferson and Adams had in mind for an American identity. There wasn't a "1984" or Karl Max, when they debated liberty and freedom which was essentially against Monarchy and separation of church and state. Wearing Sari's, being a pseudo-moralist and watching Bollywood movies doesn't make one Indian either. The parochialism of identity leads to stereotyping for cognitive fluency. Understanding this symbiosis of reasoning and identity very essential for any pluralistic societies like India and USA. Significance of this every greater now within the raise of globalization.
Substantial part of the book is Bengali centric(sans the essential and radiant Tagore influence in India) and no, I am not ranting since Bengal is also part of India. The beauty of Indian history is every Indian state can write a similar book with completely different characters but not all have a noble laureate to sell more copies.
No comments:
Post a Comment