Posts
In the preface, it is stated that the book explores 'cultural change in the British Indian Empire as expressed in numerous movements.'
The title of the first chapter is "Concepts and Context".
The chapter has only two sections namely, "The Conceptual Frame Work" and "Traditions of Protest".
The first section, "Concepts and Context" is very crucial. In the first paragraph, the soul or the main mind frame as used by the historian to which he had subjected his data, is given. Before saying anything further, let me emphasis the vital part of the paragraph.
The historian had resolved to say that the Indian social and religious groups or to use Cambridge historic construct highly sacred for them by now, the social and religious groups of South Asia, adopted 'new organizations' fashioned in their traditional social and religious ingredients and 'modified by British culture'. They started organizations which were new to South Asia. The new thing about them were 'elected officers, weekly meetings, annual published reports, bank accounts', activities to raise fund, annual meetings, executive committees, sub committees, bye-laws and constitution. Along with above features of 'new' to South Asia, came hospitals, schools, orphanages and relief programmes. All the features of 'new' given in the preceding two lines were brought by British people which the historian had called 'British Culture'. In this very paragraph, there is mention of 'printing' but not all that emphasized in the very paragraph. Later in the various chapters, printing, as introduced by British culture has been projected as major agency of change.
Whatsoever is said in the first paragraph is the soul of the whole book. On first reading, this paragraph may not impress or attract. Read the whole book. You are ought to come to the conclusion which can be best put up in words in an order in which it is given in the paragraph. If you skip it or fail to identify it, you may discover or invent your own conclusion about this work but that will never help you to fully comment and analyze this book. If the first paragraph is not understood on first reading, there is hopefully a possibility that as a reader if one progress through the reading of the book, the significance and meaning of the first paragraph becomes apparent.
(CONCLUDED)
***********************************
Edit Report: Concluded on March 13, 2011. Further cleaning can be undertaken.
In the second paragraph, the historian has given his perception of the terms 'socio', 'religious' and 'movement'. He has not defined the term reform. For him, socio refers to 'reordering of society'. The religious refers to the type of 'authority used to legitimize given ideology'. The movement refers to 'an aggregate of individuals united by the message of a charismatic leader'. In the last line of the paragraph, he defines the mechanism which is to be detailed in the book. Therein, he also explains the title of the book. He writes, "a socio-religious movement advocated modifications in social behaviour, justified such advocacy be one or another form of religious authority, and then built an organizational structure it maintained over time."
The second paragraph leaves many gaps. It has been written as per the requirement of the craft of history. But, from this paragraph, one gets disturbed by finding a drift and lack of logical progression. For example, where is the definition of 'reform'? Can it be called a social change as Geraldin Forbes had pointed out in her book 'Women in Modern India' - a book under the same project? Therein, Forbes has attributed this twist to the meaning of the concept to the British authors, but both of them, Forbes and Jones both, are American scholars writing on South Asia. Then again, the historian has adopted a construct as a historic process and that as a fact as such that it were individuals who came under the influence of religious leader. In the 19th century India, was this possible that an individual showed dissent and then congregate to form a movement? the Indian society was not such that an individual can be identified. Take all the people discussed in this book. They were not being followed by an individual. They were followed by communities. Hence, framing of the concept suffers here.
As far as building of organization structure is concerned, they could be identified, recognized and authenticated. But getting organized on social level is not a mechanical process. Establishing of a trust body or getting an association registered can be established in nineteenth century colonial 'India. There were definitely something a 'mirror image' of "British culture". But, if it is desired to be conveyed that it was a 'new' development that organization building started, then it is an extraordinary attempt to interpret. To counter, I suggest a case. For example, the raising of Khalsa Panth can be given here as a case in argument. Then, there is a thesis of R. C. Majumdar about the corporate world in ancient India wherein he showed that how getting organized at social, political, religious and economic level had been a trait of people of this continent. The organization factor was there in India. The new thing was that the British model of organization and administration was readily adopted. In any case, the historian has given his perception. However, there should have been some more efforts to frame this paragraph.
The Third paragraph brings in the construct of 'colonial milieu'. This construct has attracted me a lot. I had read this book way back in last decade of twentieth century. I readily adopted it after learning the meaning of milieu from the dictionary. In this paragraph, the historian has briefly explained about the development of milieu as it emerged and its various shades and processes of interaction. Here again, he has stressed on 'individual'. In addition to that, I will like to quote a line which is, "The experience of those who were conquered and then administered by the English varied sharply, depending on the time and the circumstances that saw them incorporated in the new colonial world."(p 2) The line is the main thesis of the Cambridge School history about India as a part of their South Asian thesis. The 'varied' factor is derived from their basic core assumption that India was not a single identity. Then a qualifying line which follows the above quoted line also deserve identification. It reads, " Their reactions were also shaped by the regional culture in which they lived, by their place in the social hierarchy, and their membership in a particular religious community." Now here in, the individual is referred to his social existence and his social existence is related to the community with which they are identified in the society. Now here is the contradiction. In this line, the historian has identified what actually is the historic reality of the Indian continent. There was no individual but the social groups. Similarly, the historian identifies the regional culture as an identity. In case of society, he identifies social hierarchy. The social hierarchy was related to the social group and not the the individual. He has throughout the earlier paragraphs talked about the individual as the object of the historic change but here he is giving a social fact where in individual identity is not allowed. In addition to that, another factor given in the same paragraph is also new to me. The historian writes that during the course of the events of the rise of the English trading company as an political over India, the social culture of Britain was also undergoing the change. Now, two parallel forces were at work. However, in the book, the historian while discussing the acculturative movement, has only studied the Indian response. He has not undertaken any study to emphasis that how, on the same occasion, the British world was also undergoing a change and how that change worked on the responses of the British Colonial Milieu in India. He has kept that as a constant and the constant was the the rise of the British organization and later the crown which had taken over the control of the masses on the Indian continent and changing it under its impact. In short, the single paragraph tells about a construct 'colonial milieu' and the core theory of Cambridge school historians about India as a part of the South Asian studies.
The fourth paragraph gives two main construct which are 'transitional' and 'acculturative'. All the chapters are divided under these two headings. Each chapter begins with 'colonial milieu' precept and then the history of the Indian subcontinent is given in two sections under the two constructs of transitional movement and acculturative movement as mentioned before. The historian has defined only 'transitional' construct in this paragraph.
In the fifth paragraph, the historian has defined 'acculturative' construct. The historian imparts colonial period the credit of raising acculturative movements.
In the sixth paragraph, he has explained the logic of construction of each chapter which is based on geographical divisions. He has emphasized that the time period has to be given importance while dealing with geographical divisions of the society. However, before that he has emphasized that it was the British colonial milieu which is to be understood and considered for every interpretation. This is one of the approach for which this work would not sustain for long time. However, that can only happen if a history of India is written totally for India and preferably by historians who are born and brought up in India. Otherwise, the same 'in reaction to English writers' type of history will continue to come out of the works of Indian historians and English writers will continue to use their own inventive genius for producing constructs.
In the seventh paragraph, I was just got struck by a single phrase and that is 'indigenous Hindu-Buddhist' civilization. What is the meaning of Hindu-Buddhist? What is its significance? Is it right to suggest it as a historically correct phrase? The term Indo-Islamic has historic evidences. Even Anglicized India can be sustainable. But which is 'Hindu-Buddhist'? What history goes behind this construct? In any case, the section ends with this paragraph. The content of the paragraph narrates the history of India. However, the term 'Hindu-Buddhist' remains unexplained and bit unacceptable. I had once listened to a scholar on Buddhism from Punjab University Chandigarh (Dr. J. K. Sharma). He joked about the undue stress that the western scholars placed when they emphasized on Buddhism without its Indian origins.
The seventh paragraph is significant for a theory given by the historian. he has given three layer theory on the creation of social movements. The three layers consisted of indigenous Hindu Buddhist indigenous civilization, Person Arabic Civilization and British Culture. The three layers created counter effects which are conceptualized by two terms and they are 'protest' and 'dissent'. No doubt, with the advent of British culture in 18th and 19th century, the 'protest' and 'dissent' were more clear and identifiable.
Traditions of Protest
In the beginning, I would like to state that this section stands alone in the whole book. It is the finest essay. It can be given a new title and that can be the History of Religious Movements in India. It this essay is plucked out of the book, chiseled here and there, then a finest essay may emerge. If is an essay by an established historian, Kenneth W. Jones, the author of The Arya Samaj. It can not be improved further. One may change phrases. One can use terms like Advait and Adivitya Advait to it more Indianized but it is the finest essay.
I also accept that there are many facts about which I do not know. Actually, the historian talks about South Asia. Their perspective is wider. I read about India. I am not looking beyond Hindukush. But there were forces which came from trans-Indus region. they were influenced by sources to their west. The Cambridge School has a bigger view.
Some of the points require emphasis. The essay begins with recognition to four civilizations in Eurasian land mass. The four civilization developed with it their own historic religions. The religion played a role of legitimization on one hand and on the other, the role of protest and dissent.
The main religions which are relevant to this book were Mazadism, monotheism of Zurvan and teachings of Mani or simply Manchaeism. Judaism, Christianity which had a chequered history, unnamed below surface religious movements and finally Perso Arabic civilization and the religion of Prophet Mohammad or Islam. The Islam also experienced the aspect of protest and dissent. The Sunni, Shiah, Sufism, Khawarjis, Wahabis and Bahaism are mentioned. From the page 9 onwards, the religion the Indian continent as originated in India but termed as Hindu Buddhist civilization religion has been discussed.
One of the peculiar and fascinating observation by the historian is that he had called Islam and Christianity brought to India by two imported civilizations. On the other hand, India has been given a new definition. India has been interpreted as the product of three cultures namely, Indus Valley, Aryans and Adivais. This is a thesis which is not acceptable to a set of historians. The thesis is the major premises of all the discussion about South Asia by the western scholars. the rest of the essay is a masterpiece.
Another peculiar feature, which can be discerned through out the book is the trend of giving references. In 'Traditions of Protest' section, the author has started giving references to other authorities. A peculiar feature of the whole book is that many topics have references to a single primary or secondary source. The author himself have pointed out in many foot notes that he ahs used a single source for the topic. It is other things that in Bibliographical Essay, which is a prominent feature of New Cambridge History project, the author writes, "The sources in this study were diverse and scattered through variety of forms: ... " He has counted unpublished manuscripts also in his sources. In the same essay, while counting different sources, he has marked out J. N. Farquhar's 'Modern Religious Movement in India (1919) for special reference. This he had done for numerous topics wherein a topic has one dedicated secondary source. For me, it is a feature peculiar to this work and I wili mention and mark out such topics where ever such topics appear.
Finally, as a closing remark, it can be said that the chapter explains about the transitional movement, acculturative movement and colonial milieu as concepts. The section 'Traditions of Protest' is a stand alone essay.
(CONCLUDED)
***********************************
Edit Report: Concluded on March 13, 2011. Further cleaning can be undertaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment