Admiring India, Undermining the Hindu Spirit Behind It – Firstpost

William Dalrymple suddenly became the darling of the right. One prominent right-wing think tank even invited him to give a talk about his new book: Golden Road. The book talks about “how ancient India changed the world” – a topic close to those whose heart is in the “right” place.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with dialogue around a book—in fact, this culture of dialogue with opposing views should be encouraged. The problem, however, may be that this intellectual exercise ends up legitimizing another point of view without proper discussion and critical examination. What you’re afraid of is that Golden RoadA book that has already become a bestseller soon after appearing in bookstores may become a cover for the spread of outright historical lies.

It is necessary to clarify at the very beginning that this is a good book that promotes Indian history. Dalrymple cannot claim—and neither does he—that what is written in the book has not been told in the past. The author wins in his writing style: a history book is written better if the author thinks like a historian but writes like a novelist. After all, history is about stories and the lessons that can be learned from them.

Dalrymple is undoubtedly a “gifted historian” who writes engaging prose. His research work for his books is almost impeccable. And in it you find closeness and warmth to your Karmabhoomithat is India.

But on the other hand, Dalrymple is a double-edged sword, often cutting both ways. This 59-year-old Scottish-born British writer is an unapologetic fan of Delhi, but his love is limited to the era of the “jinn”; other, non-Islamic characteristics of the city rarely attract his attention. The same bias is evident in his writings on the Mughals, especially the later Mughals. The decline of the later Mughals, which Sir Jadunath Sarkar laments in his extensive studies and which he considers one of the dominant reasons for the decline of the Mughals, is what worries Dalrymple most.

IN The Last Mughalfor example, Dalrymple writes: “…while Zauk led a quiet and simple life, writing poetry from dusk to dawn, rarely leaving the tiny courtyard where he worked, Ghalib was very proud of his reputation as a rake. Just five years before the wedding, Ghalib was jailed for gambling, and subsequently wore the affair – deeply embarrassing at the time – like a badge of honour. When someone once praised the poetry of the pious Sheikh Sahbay in his presence, Ghalib retorted: “How can Sahbay be a poet?” He never tasted wine and never gambled; his lovers did not beat him with slippers, and he never saw the inside of a prison.” In his other letters he plays heavily on his reputation as a ladies’ man.”

Likewise, in AnarchyDalrymple writes about the shameless plunder and depredations of the East India Company. He begins this book by saying that “one of the first Indian words to enter the English language was the Hindustani slang word for robbery: booty.” He then takes readers to Powys Castle, a “rock fort” built in the 13th century in the Welsh Marches. Powys, he said, “is simply awash with Indian booty, room after room of imperial booty recovered by the East India Company (EIC) in the 18th century.”

However, the same Dalrymple last year made a public appeal asking Britain not to return the loot to India! He said the Mughal treasures looted by the British might never be displayed if they were returned to India, which is currently ruled by a “Hindu nationalist government that does not display Mughal objects.” (Dalrymple’s biased mind did not allow him to see what was obvious: the stolen wealth belonged not to the Mughals, but to India.) He said: “You can go to Delhi and not see an exhibition of Mughal art at all at the moment. But it is beautifully displayed in the British Library, the British Museum, and the Victoria and Albert Museum.”

Dalrymple’s penchant for running with the hare and hunting with the hounds is evident in the narrative of his 2009 book: Nine Livestoo much. In one story, he compassionately narrates the story of “The Dancer of Kannur”, in which Hari Das, a Dalit from Kerala, is a “part-time jail warden for 10 months of the year”, but during the Theyyam dance season from January to March, he “transforms into an omnipotent deity” who is worshiped even by high-caste Brahmins. However, in the same book, his reverence for the sacred disappears as he invokes Romila Thapar’s idea of ​​”syndicated Hinduism” to intellectually discredit the resurgence of Hinduism in India. Dalrymple rather mischievously calls this the “Ramafication of Hinduism.”

Coming to Golden RoadDalrymple’s newfound love for ancient India may bring to mind American Sanskrit scholar Sidney Pollock, who was recently brought to the attention of a group of wealthy Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in New York along with India’s top administrative leaders. Sringeri Peetam in India and representatives of Sringeri Peetam in the USA will head the newly created department of the American University named after Adi Shankar. By 2014, they had raised $4 million for an endowed chair at the prestigious Columbia University. Pollock enjoyed great enthusiasm and support as he was considered an ardent supporter of the revival of Sanskrit. What these people did not realize was that the idea behind Pollock’s revival was, as Rajiv Malhotra writes in The Battle for Sanskrit, “to renew the study of Sanskrit as if it were an embalmed, mummified remnant of a dead culture.”

Pollock sought to revive the study of Sanskrit, but did not want any connections with the Sanskrit language and culture. He loved Sanskrit, but without its sacred cultural (Hindu) identity. Similarly, Dalrymple acknowledges India’s contributions but seems to have little enthusiasm for its Hindu roots. He spoke with pleasure about the connections of Buddhism in Central Asia, but lacked the same enthusiasm for Hinduism. Dalrymple’s love for India is obvious, but without its cultural/civilizational attachments. He wants to protect the physical infrastructure, but works hard to influence its soul.

Dalrymple tells the story of the great Buddhist scholar Kumarajiva (344–413 CE). Born to a Kashmiri man, probably a minister in the royal court of Takshashila, and a Kuchean mother, Kumarajiva studied Buddhism in Kashmir, but to study Vedahe decided to travel to Kashgar in the Xinjiang region. It is pertinent to note that the land where Kumarajiva went to study Veda was a center of Buddhism, challenging the dominant narrative of Hindu-Buddhist conflict put forward by colonial-leftist historiography. What further demonstrates the Hindu-Buddhist cultural continuum in the region is that it is “not very far” from the monastery at Miran, as Dalrymple himself writes in Golden Road“some of the earliest surviving fragments of text Mahabharata were recently dug up.”

A couple of quotes from Golden Road should reveal the true intention of the author. Dalrymple writes in the last chapter of the book: “The fate of Nalanda is much debated: it was in decline for centuries, and archeology shows that it was burned several times, some of these fires clearly dating back to before the arrival of the Turks. . In any case, the Tibetan monk Dharmaswami, who visited Nalanda in 1235, describes Turushka soldiers roaming the ruins while he and his guru hid in an abandoned monastery. There is some evidence that Nalanda continued to function in a much reduced form until the early fourteenth century, when the last Tibetan monks are described as coming to study philosophy in its ruins.”

Nalanda was “burnt several times” before the fury of Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1193 AD! The ancient Indian university survived Muslim attack and “functioned in a greatly reduced form until the 14th century”! Thus, from the above lines, two assessments can be made: although Muslims burned Nalanda once, Hindus have done so “several times” in the past; and also that the Muslim attack was not so serious as the university could survive for the next two centuries! How does Dalrymple’s assessment differ from, say, Romila Thapar and D.N. Ja?

In the same chapter, Dalrymple provides another gem of an assessment that reveals his state of mind. He writes: “During the Nehruvian rule in the 1950s and early 1960s, Indian school textbooks and most academic history books were written by left-wing figures who supported the Congress. These historians tended to downplay the violence and iconoclasm that came with the Turkish invasions, partly in the interests of what they saw as “nation building” after the horrific sectarian violence that took place during the partition. Today, under the current right-wing BJP government, the opposite is true: the destruction of Hindu temples is about all that many in India know about the complex but fascinating medieval period of Indo-Islamic history.”

Given the mindset promoted in the book, which admires the Indian physical superstructure but denies and denounces the innate Hindu spirit, it is astonishing to see how a section of the right is encouraged by this Golden Road. Perhaps the excitement is a result of intellectual obscurity and laziness: no one bothered to read between the lines, but instead became carried away by the book’s tagline: “How Ancient India Changed the World.” India’s colonial hangover may still be ongoing. A British historian highlighting the “greatness” of ancient India may still be a heady moment for some of us. Perhaps the more things change in Indian history, the more they remain the same.

The views expressed in the article above are personal and belong solely to the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.