The Rulers’ Gaze by Arvind Sharma is
yet another in the now-long line of books that critically look at, or attempt
to look at, the Colonial Legacy. Before I go deeper into the review – let me
lay it out : the subject matter is not an easy read; neither is it well
presented. This is along the line of those scientific papers that obfuscate
everything to the point where it drives even very well informed readers like myself
stark mad in frustration. Rated 3 stars : 5 for content, 1 for presentation,
average 3 stars. The problem is the vacillating arguments, constant diversion
of attention through proofs, links, arguments and what not. That the same proof
can be achieved in scientific and research papers without this tardy method has
been proven by some excellent papers that cock a royal snook at this style of
writing, so much in vogue in The West. High Time we forgot this needless
presentation style!
THE CONTENT
The content is a critical analysis
along the Saidian Theory : according to Said, orientalism (the Western
scholarship about the Eastern World) is inextricably tied to the imperialist
societies who produced it, which makes much Orientalist work inherently
political and servile to power. In my humble opinion, the content of the book,
the weak presentation notwithstanding, comprehensively proves that. This entire
book is a superb treatise on how power corrupts knowledge, and serves to add
tremendous value, bringing to light many tiny and large facts that were previously
not known to me despite my extensive reading on the Colonial Period. Full marks
to the content aspect of the book.
THE NEGATIVES
It {the content} isnt without its
weaknesses; at a couple of places, regrettably, I thought could spot places
where the author has allowed the narrative to falter. In particular, the
consistent reference to the First War of Independence as The Mutiny, and the
slightly dismissive tone towards its claims as a war of independence – Pg 312 {Parag
Tope, examined as an alternative in Pal etc} ; or the references to Sati
{Pg101-102, 315-16, and others}. In fact, the author seems to maintain it as a
Mutiny throughout the book, despite noting its widespread nature. What do I say
to that – why? Doesn’t the Author know that we all regard it to be the First
War Of Independence?
In the case of The First War of
Independence, there is a treasure trove of documents of the British which
themselves prove the reality. And yet – we find specific mention of the
debatable killing of Europeans, and not one mention of the Genocide committed
by the British! Yet again, in Sati, the author justifiably points out how the
British exacerbated the problem, while ignoring the import of the actual
numbers of Sati acts documented – 500, 600 or such like. Pavan Verma has given
precise numbers, proving that Sati was already a dying practice by the advent
of the British. Here, the book proves how it came back, but simply fails to analyse
the full perspective, which it does painstakingly for other aspects. Saidian?
THE POSITIVES
The book is a scholarly, well argued
and cogent analysis of the Saidian theory; this has been proven through the
writings on India by Greeks, Muslims and The British. Each of these 3 had vastly
divergent power equations with the local people during their time. The Greeks
had only a relatively fleeting contact, and weren’t overpowering conquerers; the
Muslims were conquerers but had a different local relationship with no oppression
to note, and The British, plain rapists and looters. The difference in the
attitude is evident in their writings, in themselves a proof of the hypotheses.
The content goes deep into large parts
of the the British interaction, pulling out in fascinating though not comprehensive detail of the multi-faceted impact of
British Rule. Sati {covered excellently by Pavan Verma}; Casteism {thoroughly
stripped bare by Maria Misra in her top thesis}, Education {Indicated by, among
others, Parag Tope}; Aryan Theory and more are gone into in relative detail.
The objective is not to educate the reader on these topics – for that consult
the books in the brackets mentioned. The objective is to analyse how a
distorted power relationship leads to a distorted and fictional or tainted
historical narrative by the ruling power.
This is brought out in fascinating fashion
as we read how the British narrative changed during their occupation – from traders
to minor power to major power to ruling power. The consequent increase in
rhetoric, falsehoods, exaggerations, racism and inaccurate presentations over
time can be seen quite thoroughly – something we first saw in Shashi Tharoor’s masterpiece
book on the British rule. The comparisons with Muslim writings and Greek
writings just serve to drive home the lesson deeper.
Perhaps the strongest emergence from
this is the realization of how deep the divide is, and how much the inaccurate
version is accepted worldwide. The obfuscation – sometimes deliberate – has impacted
the historical record in many, many places in our historical telling; something
we still feel today, as can be seen from the generally inaccurate impressions
still held by the Western writers, as well as some sections of Indian Society.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I can state that this is
not an easy read, given its irritating presentation style; and the needless and
highly overdone Greek comparisons. I am aware theorists, scientists and theoretical
researchers set great store by this style – I find it less than optimal, as it
lessens the impact and diverts attention. A better, more structured approach,
more user and reader friendly – something achieved in various writers’ books,
is more than needed. This is a common problem in most Western university origin
books, which have a fascination for this sub-optimal style – as it is the “Accepted”
style!
That the West holds the Greek Civilization
as the basis of Western philosophy and civilization is known; but the overtly
extensive usage of their writings on India, given
the fact of the relatively complete absence of Indian writings on the Greek
attacks [Sanyal, Thapar] and rule
is strange, to say the least. A far stronger lesson could have been driven by a
greater focus on the British writings vis-Ã -vis facts. But then – the true
facts of British Rule in India are way too gory for most Western Audiences –
and this is a book written in The West. That is the lesson that I can draw from
this, as also some facts mentioned in the negatives.
Furthermore, readers would do well to keep
in mind this is not a record of British
Rule in india, but rather an examination of and research on the link between
power and knowledge, in the context of the British Rule in India. Let us
not confuse the two. And in this basic premise – the book is a success, as it
brings out the reality quite well, the many negatives notwithstanding. And it
is this context that makes it a hard read – not for the average reader. This is
for an audience educated in this field, or in its context.
Could it have been better? Of course it
could have been better; but what is there is good enough for one read at least.
You will revise more than several incorrect impressions. The problem of the negatives
does nothing to take this simple fact away. I noticed them due to my extensive
reading on this subject, now in its 9th uninterrupted year spanning
dozens of books. And therein lies the
real issue – the inaccuracies that I have pointed out are still accepted as
Gospel in The West, when Indian books have emerged telling the true story in no
uncertain terms…. Cant the West write a single book [Parag Tope, Audrey Trushke notable
exception] that accepts the reality fully? That is the ultimate triumph of the corruption
of knowledge by power…..
Comments
Post a Comment