What China and India Once were: The Pasts that May Shape the Global Future A Review

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

What China and India Once Were: The Pasts the May Shape the Global Future
Ed, Sheldon Pollock and Benjamin Elman
New York: Columbia University Press
2018.

Add caption

Sheldon Pollock has waded into far too many controversies in India, and I must say that his interventions have served no purpose whatsoever except to distract people from the seminal contribution he made to the study of Indian Literary Culture and History in his Language of the Gods in the World of Men. Unfortunately, Sheldon Pollock has become a highly divisive public figure and his broadsides against India and its politics are not his primary call for attention. He is a distinguished scholar and the book edited by him and Benjamin Elman are important interventions in the study of the histories and pasts of China and India.

China and India share a common historical trajectory. Both were highly sophisticated civilizations with a long tradition of scholarship: Mandarin in the case of China and Sanskrit in the case of India. Both were victims of foreign conquest and both civilizations had to deal with questions of political legitimacy, administrative control, protecting the frontiers. While China realized quite early that the Steppes of Central Asia posed a considerable challenge to the stability of the Middle Kingdom and constructed the Great Wall as a physical barrier against invasion, Indian rulers unfortunately had no such wisdom. India was easy to invade as the path to the Gangetic Plain was open to any invader who crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains. China dealt with its perennial problem of devastating floods by constructing the Grand Canal which connected the Yellow River with the Yangtze River, running across China for a length of more than 1800 kilometers. Remarkably this waterway was completed as early as the Tang Period , in the 9th century. Significantly, the new capital Beijing was now accessible to the grain growing areas of southern and central China. Indian dynasties hardly encouraged any construction of comparable social utility and value. The Mughals the contemporaries of the Ching and earlier the Ming were content building tombs and the Timurid rulers though blessed with both curiosity and insight did not attempt anything quite so spectacular. Obviously, there are historical reasons for the difference.

The book reviewed herein looks at a variety of cultural practices from a comparative perspective. Flora and Fauna and its social value in China and India form an interesting part of the first chapter. The elephant became extinct in China fairly early in its history. whereas in India it flourishes until this day. Though none of the rulers seem to have had a conscious conservation policy, India attitudes towards nature was far more reverential than in China. Long distance trade was encouraged at least till the end of the Ming Era. In India, the long coast line spawned a range of communities which specialized in long distance trade: the Kutchi merchants and the Chettiyars come to ones mind immediately.

The advent of modernity both in India and China are beset with both conceptual and historiographical issues. The periodization derived from western perceptions defy smooth transition both in the case of India and China. It is now recognized that both these Asian giants are now re-entering the Global Economy and if Sheldon Pollock is to be believed on their own terms. China has completely transformed its economy while India still struggles with the age old issues of caste hierarchies social problems and of course poverty. China has succeeded in areas in which India has failed miserably. The One Party system seems to have helped China and India's raucous rowdy democracy has been a drag on the energies of the nation. Perhaps the time has come to rethink the developmental paradifms embraced by these two Nations.

One point on which the book is extremely insightful is the History and its uses in both these countries. China developed a strong tradition of writing Local and Dynastic History from the early Han Dynasty. In India, Historiography did not make much headway until the arrival of the Turks who brought with them their own models of Historical texts. Perhaps the lack of critical thought except in the speculative areas of Linguistics and Philosophy may have inhibited the development of Historical ideas in India.

This is a good book and policy makers interested in India and China must read it.

Politics over Sardar Patel's Legacy

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

The Patel Statue

There is no gainsaying the fact that History is being re visited today in India. Since Independence the State has propagated a version of history which, while serving the needs of the politically dominant party, the Indian National Congress and its central dynasty.has left a large number of gaping holes in the Narrative. Foremost is the question whether the Indian National Congress did enough to prevent Partition and its huge cost in terms of human life and suffering. Second, if Partition was inevitable as the "historians" of Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Leftist acolytes argue, can they tar all those who opposed Partition as "communal" elements "reactionaries" "obscurantists" and the list is endless. One reason for the lack of diversity in contemporary Historiography of India is the fact that the historical profession has been prevented from reassessing the role of the Indian National Congress in the Struggle for Indian Independence. The recent attempts on the part of the Modi Government to draw attention to the contribution of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and Sardar Vallabha Bhai Patel are step in the right direction.

First the Statue. One of the many canards that are being spread by the mainstream media is that Modi seeks to "appropriate" the legacy of Sardar Patel. It is unclear hos the mere dedication of a National Monument is appropriation of a legacy. Also there are those in the Congress party who say that since the Patels are restive and are no longer the backbone of the BJP in Gujarat, Modi is seeking to assuage Patel Asmita or Pride. Reducing Patel to a mere icon of caste identity is to distort and undermine the stature of Patel. But then who has ever accused the Indian National Congress and the Dynastic Fascists of caring for people's sentiments or historical accuracy.  The fact is the Nrendra Modi proposed the Memorial to Sardar Patel in 2010 long before he became Prime Minister and in 2010 there was no sign of Modi emerging as the Prime Minister of India. By distorting the very chronology there is attempt to politicize the Monument. Construction began in 2013 and this was also before Modi became the Prime Minister. Projecting History backwards in a teleological arrangement is the favorite tactic of the JNU bran of Historiography and of course, give it a political spin to make that distortion resonate with "progressive" opinion.

Then the cost. The cost of the memorial works out to be 2854 crores. A huge sum of money. The justification for this spectacular Monument lies in the manner in which Patel was treated. A fact that is little recognized in modern Historiography of India is that Patel was chosen by 12 out of 15 Provincial Congress Committees to head the Congress in 1946 and would have become Prime Minister in the Interim Government. Nehru forced Gandhi to seek the resignation of Patel. A repeat of the Bose fiasco all over and given the enormous respect Patel had for Gandhi he stepped aside and let Nehru become the Prime Minister. This singular fact is hidden from History. Further, as the first Home Minister of Independent India, Patel welded the fractious assemblage of princely states into a united country using a subtle blend of tact and force. Junagadh and Hyderabad are good examples of Patel's strategic thinking. The only state/riyasat that was out of Patel's purview was Kashmir which was handled by Nehru directly and it continues to fester till this day. Patle wrote a letter to Nehru about the designs of China and this too Nehru ignored. Further, Nehru the patrician educated in the White Man's land treated Patel with open hostility and took delight in publically humiliating the great statesman. This factor contributed to the early death of Patel in 1950 and Nehru went on to live for 14 long years after the exit of India's saviour. Given this History, there is need to rehabilitate the Memory of this great Statesman. Nehru awraded himself the highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna and many in India seek to have that honour revoked. Sardar was honoured on in 1991 during a brief respite from the pestilence called dynastic rule.

Netaji Subash Chandra Bose remains an enigmatic personality in Indian History. He created the Indian National Army out of the prisoners of war captured by the Japanese in Singapore and turned them into a major force to liberate India. There is no doubt, as Clement Atlee said that it was the Indian National Army that finally convinced the British to leave India after the War. And again Netaji was forgotten. In fact Nehru even conspired with the Soviets to have Netaji declared a "war criminal". The alacrity with which Nehru declared that Netaji had died in the plane crash in August 1945 shows that Nehru was not interested in Netaji returning back to India. The return of Netaji would have meant the end of Nehru's dream of founding a Dynasty and keeping the Office of Prime Minister within his family. Modi rightly acknowledged Netaji's contribution by raising the National Flag on the ramparts of the Red Fort. Finally the fact that Netaji established the First Government of a  Free Independent and United India has been recognized.

Thus there is a great deal of scope for a revision of the dominant hegemonic discourse on modern Indian History. The congress centric narrative rests on distortions evasions and hagiography. It is time to change that and Narendar Modi has begun the task.