Indian History Class...
One of my more annoying classes this year is a course on the history of modern India.
At the beginning of the year, I assumed that it would be cool to learn about "modern India"... unfortunately, I now realize that I was conned into a class that is exclusively about colonial India... under the British Raj.
This is only a bad thing because there are so many varying interpretations about so many issues, including the causes behind independence, reasons behind partition, etc. Every view can only come across as biased or inaccurate.
Anyways.. another thing I don't like about any "India class" is that every one of them glorifies Gandhi, as if he was the sole cause behind Britain realizing their moral lowground, and therefore their need to "leave India".
I think Gandhi was probably a well-intentioned guy, but I don't see how anybody can agree with his approach. His approach rested on the basic assumption that the "Indian people" were inferior to the British, and I, personally, can never accept that premise. Not only do I question his approach, but I also question the historical accuracy of his role. There were thousands upon thousands of others fighting against British rule and the British, after World War Two were retreating from their colonial possessions anyway. Gandhi was nowhere near as important as he's shown to be, his stand against the British was simply a convenient way for the British to leave India.
His inferiority complex is well-documented and even accepted in most western portrayals.
We [Indians] can only be granted the responsibility of freedom once we learn to civilize ourselves first. [like the British] - From his Autobiography, I believe.
No. Freedom is the right of everybody, even if they don't agree with your definition of what's "civilized". His renunciation of 'violence' was hypocritical because he [rightly] supported the British war efforts in Europe. And violence is *gasp* sometimes neccesary to fight against a colonial power in order to attain independence, i.e. the American Revolution. The Amritsar Massacre (hundreds killed) was far worse than the Boston Massacre (5 killed?). Violence of course, should never be the first response... it should only be used as a last resort... and sometimes, it is neccesary, particularly in self-defense (something Gandhi was against as well).
The only reason the American "occupation" of Iraq is moral is because they intend to leave eventually, and on the whole, in my opinion, they have good intentions (well far better intentions than Zarqawi (sp?) guys anyway) The British colonial effort, although sometimes noble in their intentions, was completely different because a) they intended to stay indefinitely, b) their efforts at implementing democracy were disingenuous and c) they made no secret about their desire to exploit Indian resources.
Anyways.... I've gone way off track. One of the reasons I like Christopher Hitchens, the author, is because he challenges so many deeply held beliefs and perceptions - i.e. his attacks on Mother Teresa and his transformation into a pro-war liberal hawk. I hope that someone tries to do something similar with Gandhi. I've only encountered one glowing, one-sided, pro-British portrayal of his life. And I'm not qualified or knowledgable enough to adequately portray the "other side" to Gandhi... although I have seen a few people try.
At the beginning of the year, I assumed that it would be cool to learn about "modern India"... unfortunately, I now realize that I was conned into a class that is exclusively about colonial India... under the British Raj.
This is only a bad thing because there are so many varying interpretations about so many issues, including the causes behind independence, reasons behind partition, etc. Every view can only come across as biased or inaccurate.
Anyways.. another thing I don't like about any "India class" is that every one of them glorifies Gandhi, as if he was the sole cause behind Britain realizing their moral lowground, and therefore their need to "leave India".
I think Gandhi was probably a well-intentioned guy, but I don't see how anybody can agree with his approach. His approach rested on the basic assumption that the "Indian people" were inferior to the British, and I, personally, can never accept that premise. Not only do I question his approach, but I also question the historical accuracy of his role. There were thousands upon thousands of others fighting against British rule and the British, after World War Two were retreating from their colonial possessions anyway. Gandhi was nowhere near as important as he's shown to be, his stand against the British was simply a convenient way for the British to leave India.
His inferiority complex is well-documented and even accepted in most western portrayals.
We [Indians] can only be granted the responsibility of freedom once we learn to civilize ourselves first. [like the British] - From his Autobiography, I believe.
No. Freedom is the right of everybody, even if they don't agree with your definition of what's "civilized". His renunciation of 'violence' was hypocritical because he [rightly] supported the British war efforts in Europe. And violence is *gasp* sometimes neccesary to fight against a colonial power in order to attain independence, i.e. the American Revolution. The Amritsar Massacre (hundreds killed) was far worse than the Boston Massacre (5 killed?). Violence of course, should never be the first response... it should only be used as a last resort... and sometimes, it is neccesary, particularly in self-defense (something Gandhi was against as well).
The only reason the American "occupation" of Iraq is moral is because they intend to leave eventually, and on the whole, in my opinion, they have good intentions (well far better intentions than Zarqawi (sp?) guys anyway) The British colonial effort, although sometimes noble in their intentions, was completely different because a) they intended to stay indefinitely, b) their efforts at implementing democracy were disingenuous and c) they made no secret about their desire to exploit Indian resources.
Anyways.... I've gone way off track. One of the reasons I like Christopher Hitchens, the author, is because he challenges so many deeply held beliefs and perceptions - i.e. his attacks on Mother Teresa and his transformation into a pro-war liberal hawk. I hope that someone tries to do something similar with Gandhi. I've only encountered one glowing, one-sided, pro-British portrayal of his life. And I'm not qualified or knowledgable enough to adequately portray the "other side" to Gandhi... although I have seen a few people try.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
7:44 PM
1 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home