The Argumentative Indian” by Dr. Amartya Sen
It is true that tolerance [1] has not been advocated by all in the Asian traditions. Nor has that advocacy typically covered everyone though some, such as Asoka, in the third century BCE, did indeed insist on completely universal coverage, without any exception). But much the same can be said about Western traditions as well. There is little evidence that Plato or St Augustine were tolerant and less authoritarian than Confucius. While Aristotle certainly did write on the importance of freedom, women and slaves were excluded from the domain of this concern (an exclusion that, as it happens, Ashoka[2] did not make around roughly the same time).The claim that the basic ideas underlying freedom and tolerance have been central to Western culture over the millennia and are somehow alien to Asia is, I believe, entirely rejectable.
The allegedly sharp contrast between Western and Asian traditions on the subject of freedom and tolerance is based on very poor history. The authoritarian argument based on the special nature of Asian values is particularly dubious. This supplements the more basic argument, presented earlier, that even if it had been the case that the values championed in Asia’s past have been more authoritarian, this historical point would not be grounds enough to reject the importance of tolerance and liberties in contemporary Asia.
Discussion of Asian values draws attention to an important issue underlying attempts at generalization about cultural contrasts between the West and the East, or between Europe and India, and so on. There are indeed many differences also within India itself, or within Europe. And there are also great differences between parts of the Indian intellectual and historical traditions. One of the things that goes deeply wrong with grand contrasts between ‘our culture’ and ‘their culture’ is the tremendous variety within each of these cultures. My old teacher Joan Robinson used to say; ‘Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true’
It is not that cultural differences are of no importance, but the contrasts do not come in the tailor-made form of some immense opposition between, say, the West and India, with homogeneity inside each.
The problem is, of course, even larger when there are attempts at generalization about ‘Asian’ values. Asia is where about 60 percent of the world’s entire population live. There are no quintessential values that apply to these immensely large and heterogeneous populations which separate them out as a group from people in the rest of the world. Those who have written on the importance of cultural divisions have been right to point to them, and yet the attempt to see these divisions in the over-aggregated form of East-West contrasts hides more than it reveals.
Indeed, generalizations even about an individual religious community within India (such as the Hindus or the Muslims) or about a language group (such as the Bengalis or Gujarat is or Tamils) can be very deeply misleading. Depending on the context, there may be more significant similarity between groups of people in different parts of the country who come from same class, have the same political convictions, or pursue the same profession or work. Such similarity can hold across national boundaries as well. People can be classified in terms of many different criteria and the recent tendency to emphasize some contrasts (such as religion or community), while overlooking others, has ignored important differences even as it has capitalized on others.
The difficulties of communication across cultures are real, as are the judgmental issues raised by the importance of cultural differences. But these recognitions do not lead us to accept the standard distinctions between ‘our culture’ and ‘their culture’. Nor do they give us cause to overlook the demands of practical reason and of political and social relevance in contemporary India, in favor of faithfulness to some alleged historical contrasts. I have tried to show that the contrasts are often not quite as they are depicted, and the lessons to be drawn are hardly the ones that the vigorous champions of ‘our culture’ claim them to be.
There is much to be learned in all this from Satyajit Ray’s appreciation of cultural divides, along with his pursuit of communication across these divides. He never fashioned his creation to cater to what the West may expect from India, but nor did he refuse to enjoy and learn from what Western and other cultures offered. And when it came to the recognition of cultural diversity within India, Ray’s delicate portrayal of the varieties of people that make us what we are as a nation cannot be outmatched. While reflecting on what to focus on in his films, he put the problem beautifully:
What should you put in your films? What can you leave out? Would you leave the city behind and go to the village where cows graze in the endless fields and the shepherd plays the flute? You can make a film here that would be pure and fresh and have the delicate rhythm of a boatman’s song.
Or would you rather go back in time-way back to the Epics, where the gods and the demons took sides in the great battle where brother killed brother[3] and Lord Krishna revivified a desolate prince with the words of the Gita? One could do exciting things here, using the great mimetic tradition of Kathakali[4], as the Japanese use their Noh and Kabuki.
Or would you rather where you are, right in the present, in their heart of this monstrous, teeming, bewildering city, and try to orchestrate its dizzying contrasts of sight and sound and milieu?
The celebration of these differences-the ‘dizzying contrasts’-is far from what can be found in the labored generalizations about ‘our culture’, ‘our modernity’ distinctly unique and immune from the influence of ‘their culture’, their modernity’. In our heterogeneity and in our openness lies our pride, not disgrace. Satyajit Ray taught us this, and the lesson is profoundly important for India. And for Asia, and for the world.
Above is a gleaning from the book titled “The Argumentative Indian” composed by Dr. Amartya Sen.
Footnotes by bunpeiris
[1] Tolerance: religious tolerance of ancient Sri Lanka
The third of Anuradhapura's great monasteries, Abhayagiri lie on the northern side of the city. The great monastery was founded by King Vatttagamani Abhaya (Valagambahu) (104-76 BC) in 88 BC. King Valagambahu had lost his throne to an army of marauding Dravidian invaders from South India. Whilst escaping from the city, the king was taunted by a Jain priest of the Giri Monastery, who shouted: "The great black Sinhala lion is fleeing". An Indian Jain monk having a Jain hermitage in then capital of Buddhist Lanka itself, is an outstanding indication of the religious tolerance of ancient Lanka. In spite of the religious tolerance in the island, the contempt of the Jain monk towards the Sinhalese & the Sinhalese king brought nothing but the downfall of Jain monastery. The king even while fleeing, vowed to regain his kingdom & built a Buddhist monastery over the Jain hermitage. Fourteen years later, the lion-hearted king rescued his island from the marauding Dravidian invaders, razed the Jain hermitage to the ground & established a Buddhist monastery. Written by bunpeiris
http://www.mysrilankaholidays.com/abhayagiri-dagoba.html
[2] Ashoka
It was at the summit of this hill that then king of Lanka, the famous Deer Hunter, King Devanam Piya Tissa (307-266 BC) pursing a stag to the top of the hill, found himself confronted by Arahat (supremely enlightened Buddhist monk) Mahinda, the son of the one & only Indian emperor to bring whole of India under a single standard, the Great Mauryan Emperor Asoka. It was following the mass conversion at this summit that Buddhism spread throughout Lanka with state patronage. Written by bunpeiris
http://www.mysrilankaholidays.com/mihintale.html
[3] The great battle where brother killed brother: Mahabaratha
It is very interesting to remember the opening and closing lines of this great epic. It begins with: "Vyasa sang of the ineffable greatness and splendour of Lord Vasudeva, who is the source and support for everything, who is eternal, unchanging, self-luminous, who is the Indweller in all beings, and the truthfulness and righteousness of the Pandavas." It ends with: "With raised hands, I shout at the top of my voice; but alas, no one hears my words which can give them Supreme Peace, Joy and Eternal Bliss. One can attain wealth and all objects of desire through Dharma (righteousness). Why do not people practise Dharma? One should not abandon Dharma at any cost, even at the risk of his life. One should not relinquish Dharma out of passion or fear or covetousness or for the sake of preserving one’s life. This is the Bharata Gayatri. Meditate on this daily, O man! when you retire to sleep and when you rise from your bed every morning. You will attain everything. You will attain fame, prosperity, long life, eternal bliss, everlasting peace and immortality." Copied from http://www.mahabharataonline.com/
[4] Kathakali
There was never a dancer of the class of Bollywood actress, ever-resplendent Madhuri Dixit, who had trained for eight years in Kathak, one of the eight forms of Indian classical dances. Such was the spell binding effects of Madhuri, following the filming of the 1992 Bollywood movie Beta (Hindi: son), Anil Kapoor, confessed that he had to shake himself up, remind himself that he was a professional actor, not to fall into a trance when a ravishing Madhuri Dixit, red hot in the dark night rocked, rolled, floated, bubbled and sizzled: Dhak Dhak Karne Laga (Hindi: heartbeat). It was a heartbeat on overdrive. Beta won four Filmfare Awards including Best Actress Award for Madhuri Dixit. "For me it is not just about shaking my hands and feet or moving to a rhythm. It just comes from my soul. It's a very spiritual thing for me whether it is a Western number or an Indian one" said Madhuri Dixit. Written by bunpeiris
http://www.bollywoodmoviesz.com/
Bookmark & Share
It is true that tolerance [1] has not been advocated by all in the Asian traditions. Nor has that advocacy typically covered everyone though some, such as Asoka, in the third century BCE, did indeed insist on completely universal coverage, without any exception). But much the same can be said about Western traditions as well. There is little evidence that Plato or St Augustine were tolerant and less authoritarian than Confucius. While Aristotle certainly did write on the importance of freedom, women and slaves were excluded from the domain of this concern (an exclusion that, as it happens, Ashoka[2] did not make around roughly the same time).The claim that the basic ideas underlying freedom and tolerance have been central to Western culture over the millennia and are somehow alien to Asia is, I believe, entirely rejectable.
The allegedly sharp contrast between Western and Asian traditions on the subject of freedom and tolerance is based on very poor history. The authoritarian argument based on the special nature of Asian values is particularly dubious. This supplements the more basic argument, presented earlier, that even if it had been the case that the values championed in Asia’s past have been more authoritarian, this historical point would not be grounds enough to reject the importance of tolerance and liberties in contemporary Asia.
Discussion of Asian values draws attention to an important issue underlying attempts at generalization about cultural contrasts between the West and the East, or between Europe and India, and so on. There are indeed many differences also within India itself, or within Europe. And there are also great differences between parts of the Indian intellectual and historical traditions. One of the things that goes deeply wrong with grand contrasts between ‘our culture’ and ‘their culture’ is the tremendous variety within each of these cultures. My old teacher Joan Robinson used to say; ‘Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true’
It is not that cultural differences are of no importance, but the contrasts do not come in the tailor-made form of some immense opposition between, say, the West and India, with homogeneity inside each.
The problem is, of course, even larger when there are attempts at generalization about ‘Asian’ values. Asia is where about 60 percent of the world’s entire population live. There are no quintessential values that apply to these immensely large and heterogeneous populations which separate them out as a group from people in the rest of the world. Those who have written on the importance of cultural divisions have been right to point to them, and yet the attempt to see these divisions in the over-aggregated form of East-West contrasts hides more than it reveals.
Indeed, generalizations even about an individual religious community within India (such as the Hindus or the Muslims) or about a language group (such as the Bengalis or Gujarat is or Tamils) can be very deeply misleading. Depending on the context, there may be more significant similarity between groups of people in different parts of the country who come from same class, have the same political convictions, or pursue the same profession or work. Such similarity can hold across national boundaries as well. People can be classified in terms of many different criteria and the recent tendency to emphasize some contrasts (such as religion or community), while overlooking others, has ignored important differences even as it has capitalized on others.
The difficulties of communication across cultures are real, as are the judgmental issues raised by the importance of cultural differences. But these recognitions do not lead us to accept the standard distinctions between ‘our culture’ and ‘their culture’. Nor do they give us cause to overlook the demands of practical reason and of political and social relevance in contemporary India, in favor of faithfulness to some alleged historical contrasts. I have tried to show that the contrasts are often not quite as they are depicted, and the lessons to be drawn are hardly the ones that the vigorous champions of ‘our culture’ claim them to be.
There is much to be learned in all this from Satyajit Ray’s appreciation of cultural divides, along with his pursuit of communication across these divides. He never fashioned his creation to cater to what the West may expect from India, but nor did he refuse to enjoy and learn from what Western and other cultures offered. And when it came to the recognition of cultural diversity within India, Ray’s delicate portrayal of the varieties of people that make us what we are as a nation cannot be outmatched. While reflecting on what to focus on in his films, he put the problem beautifully:
What should you put in your films? What can you leave out? Would you leave the city behind and go to the village where cows graze in the endless fields and the shepherd plays the flute? You can make a film here that would be pure and fresh and have the delicate rhythm of a boatman’s song.
Or would you rather go back in time-way back to the Epics, where the gods and the demons took sides in the great battle where brother killed brother[3] and Lord Krishna revivified a desolate prince with the words of the Gita? One could do exciting things here, using the great mimetic tradition of Kathakali[4], as the Japanese use their Noh and Kabuki.
Or would you rather where you are, right in the present, in their heart of this monstrous, teeming, bewildering city, and try to orchestrate its dizzying contrasts of sight and sound and milieu?
The celebration of these differences-the ‘dizzying contrasts’-is far from what can be found in the labored generalizations about ‘our culture’, ‘our modernity’ distinctly unique and immune from the influence of ‘their culture’, their modernity’. In our heterogeneity and in our openness lies our pride, not disgrace. Satyajit Ray taught us this, and the lesson is profoundly important for India. And for Asia, and for the world.
Above is a gleaning from the book titled “The Argumentative Indian” composed by Dr. Amartya Sen.
Footnotes by bunpeiris
[1] Tolerance: religious tolerance of ancient Sri Lanka
The third of Anuradhapura's great monasteries, Abhayagiri lie on the northern side of the city. The great monastery was founded by King Vatttagamani Abhaya (Valagambahu) (104-76 BC) in 88 BC. King Valagambahu had lost his throne to an army of marauding Dravidian invaders from South India. Whilst escaping from the city, the king was taunted by a Jain priest of the Giri Monastery, who shouted: "The great black Sinhala lion is fleeing". An Indian Jain monk having a Jain hermitage in then capital of Buddhist Lanka itself, is an outstanding indication of the religious tolerance of ancient Lanka. In spite of the religious tolerance in the island, the contempt of the Jain monk towards the Sinhalese & the Sinhalese king brought nothing but the downfall of Jain monastery. The king even while fleeing, vowed to regain his kingdom & built a Buddhist monastery over the Jain hermitage. Fourteen years later, the lion-hearted king rescued his island from the marauding Dravidian invaders, razed the Jain hermitage to the ground & established a Buddhist monastery. Written by bunpeiris
http://www.mysrilankaholidays.com/abhayagiri-dagoba.html
[2] Ashoka
It was at the summit of this hill that then king of Lanka, the famous Deer Hunter, King Devanam Piya Tissa (307-266 BC) pursing a stag to the top of the hill, found himself confronted by Arahat (supremely enlightened Buddhist monk) Mahinda, the son of the one & only Indian emperor to bring whole of India under a single standard, the Great Mauryan Emperor Asoka. It was following the mass conversion at this summit that Buddhism spread throughout Lanka with state patronage. Written by bunpeiris
http://www.mysrilankaholidays.com/mihintale.html
[3] The great battle where brother killed brother: Mahabaratha
It is very interesting to remember the opening and closing lines of this great epic. It begins with: "Vyasa sang of the ineffable greatness and splendour of Lord Vasudeva, who is the source and support for everything, who is eternal, unchanging, self-luminous, who is the Indweller in all beings, and the truthfulness and righteousness of the Pandavas." It ends with: "With raised hands, I shout at the top of my voice; but alas, no one hears my words which can give them Supreme Peace, Joy and Eternal Bliss. One can attain wealth and all objects of desire through Dharma (righteousness). Why do not people practise Dharma? One should not abandon Dharma at any cost, even at the risk of his life. One should not relinquish Dharma out of passion or fear or covetousness or for the sake of preserving one’s life. This is the Bharata Gayatri. Meditate on this daily, O man! when you retire to sleep and when you rise from your bed every morning. You will attain everything. You will attain fame, prosperity, long life, eternal bliss, everlasting peace and immortality." Copied from http://www.mahabharataonline.com/
[4] Kathakali
There was never a dancer of the class of Bollywood actress, ever-resplendent Madhuri Dixit, who had trained for eight years in Kathak, one of the eight forms of Indian classical dances. Such was the spell binding effects of Madhuri, following the filming of the 1992 Bollywood movie Beta (Hindi: son), Anil Kapoor, confessed that he had to shake himself up, remind himself that he was a professional actor, not to fall into a trance when a ravishing Madhuri Dixit, red hot in the dark night rocked, rolled, floated, bubbled and sizzled: Dhak Dhak Karne Laga (Hindi: heartbeat). It was a heartbeat on overdrive. Beta won four Filmfare Awards including Best Actress Award for Madhuri Dixit. "For me it is not just about shaking my hands and feet or moving to a rhythm. It just comes from my soul. It's a very spiritual thing for me whether it is a Western number or an Indian one" said Madhuri Dixit. Written by bunpeiris
http://www.bollywoodmoviesz.com/
Bookmark & Share
Posts
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment