Contradictions of colonialism
DURING his Independence Day address to the nation, PM Modi asked the nation to observe five pledges for taking the country dynamically and comprehensively forward over the next 25 years. For the second of these five pledges, Modi said, ‘In no part of our existence, not even in the deepest corner of our mind or habits should there be an ounce of slavery. It should be nipped in the bud itself. Now, 100 per cent this slavery of hundreds of years has kept us bound, has forced us to keep our customs tied up, have developed distorted thinking in us. We have to liberate ourselves from the mindset which is invisible in innumerable things within and around us.’ There can be no quarrel with the basic premise of the argument that Indians should not be clones of any other people and should be proud of their civilisation and cultural traditions.
We have to acquire new knowledge, irrespective of its source, and then build on it within India.
Modi gave some prescriptions on how to translate this second pledge into action. Some of these are enumerated here: Under no circumstance should we try to look like others. We should set our own standards. Indian talent should not be shackled by language. Indians should be proud of all Indian languages. Indians should rely on their own ability and give up the colonial-era mentality. Indians should be proud of their heritage.
Again, prima facie, these are theoretically unexceptionable even if greater clarity is required in some of these prescriptions. For instance, what is meant by that we should not attempt to look like others? That foreign, especially Caucasian, standards of physical appearance should not be considered as ideal is obvious. Indeed, one of the deep inflictions imposed on colonial peoples was a sense of inferiority on account of their physical appearance, particularly those relating to colour. An emphasis that our own customs, for example, on social etiquette should be observed is also correct. That noted, does the PM’s advice extend to matters of dress?
Customs and norms relating to dress evolve. Some of India’s contemporary dress customs are clearly of indigenous origin but others are rooted in the western traditions but have become ubiquitous in India; they may have started during the colonial period but have continued over the past 75 years. Perhaps, the PM would reveal his mind more on this issue in the future. This is important, for some of his own ministers, on occasion, wear lounge suits and fashionable ties, especially when they are abroad. And, in this context, it is notable that Ambedkar’s statues often show him dressed in a suit and tie while holding the Constitution in one hand. He was one of the greatest Indians who dedicated his life to the social emancipation and empowerment of those who had suffered for millennia.
At a deeper level, though, lies the issue of how Indians responded to colonial attempts to fashion Indians as inferior copies of western people. Macaulay’s famous minutes of 1835 sought to change the policy of the East India Company from supporting educational institutions teaching in Arabic and Sanskrit and spending the funds allotted for this purpose to build schools where English would become the medium of instruction. As an arch colonialist, Macaulay considered Indian civilisation to be inferior. Interestingly, in his minutes, he also notes that there were Indians who had acquired a deep knowledge and fluency in the English language. He wanted this class to grow and noted, ‘We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.’
Did Macaulay really achieve his purpose? Indeed, it can be plausibly argued that those who acquired a knowledge of English never lost their Indianness, even if some aspects of their lifestyles was impacted by English tastes. Indeed, many of these persons became staunch nationalists and contributed to the political rejuvenation of India, helped in discovering the majesty and glory of India’s ancient heritage and, at the same time, sought to reform Indian society through the lens of equality and social justice. The idea that this class, as it developed, was somehow not authentic Indians is wrong, for it never lost its Indian roots.
Modi is right that Indians should take pride in all Indian languages. All of them have a rich legacy and have been, and continue to be, vehicles of Indian self-expression. He is also right that Indians should set their own standards. As he put it, ‘Brothers, how long will the world continue to give certificates to us? How long will we live on the certificates of others? Shall we not set our own standards?’ We should, but the fact is that it is only standards set by the advanced countries that are followed. This is especially so in the area of knowledge, and, particularly, in science and technology. It is here that we have to ask ourselves very brutal questions. How is India truly doing in the frontier areas of science and technology? Many Indians are excelling in these fields, but most of them are not doing so within India. We have to move rapidly ahead and a search for all the glories that our ancestors had achieved in mathematics and science and medicine may motivate us a bit, but beyond that, it will not help us to move on this path. We have to acquire new knowledge, irrespective of its source, and then build on it within India. Can such an approach be considered as a remnant of slavish mentality?
During the next 25 years, Indians will also have to confront the continuing contradictions of colonialism in some of our institutions. We are all proud of the professionalism and valour of our armed forces. They have demonstrated their patriotism time and again. But can we, at the same time, honour the memory of Mangal Pandey and let satisfaction be taken in the British heritage of some Army units? The great Army of the Indian Republic is qualitatively different from that of the British India.
