Home > 2004 Issues > May 23, 04

Bookmark Thank God: We are all hypocrats By M.V. Kamath Being Indian: The Truth about why the 21st century will be India´s; Pavan K. Varma; Viking; pp. 238; Rs 325 The worst critics of India and Hinduism are not foreigners or western missionaries, but Indians themselves. Give them a chance and they will damn their country and their religion to eternal perdition. Their self-hatred is unbelievable. In comparison to what they have to say, one is almost willing to forgive Katherine Mayo for what she wrote in Mother India, even if Mahatma Gandhi called it a gutter-inspector´s report. Nirad Chaudhuri went one step ahead of her in denigrating his country, but happily he went to live in what he considered was paradise on earth: Britain. So far as India was concerned, it was good riddance. Now we have Pavan Varma´s new book Being Indian, which makes one wonder whether Chaudhuri has entered into Varma´s soul surreptitiously. Being Indian is a sick book written by a sick mind, for all the valuable information it provides and all the research involved in writing it. The trouble with half-baked scholars is that they think they have the right to inflict their poorly considered views on others. In his preface Varma offers his apology if what he has written ?hurts the sentiments of some or appears to be contrary to their perception about themselves?. What is appalling is not what the Indians?mostly Hindus?think about themselves but what Varma thinks about them. The trouble with half-baked scholars is that they think they have the right to inflict their poorly considered views on others. To the best of one´s knowledge, Varma is no psychiatrist. He graduated with honours in history and subsequently studied law. He should have stuck to law and history, instead of meandering into fields where his expertise stands no scrutiny. Or, at the very least, he should have the decency to qualify his pompous judgements, scores of which darken the pages. Varma will argue that he speaks the truth and the truth shall make us free. He does neither. He merely blackens the character of Indians and of Hindus in particular, with a show of profundity that is as painful as it is unwarranted. Consider some of the statements that he makes:      * To most Indians private beliefs are never expected to come in the way of personal benefit.      * They (Indians) see no contradiction between this vague sense of moral superiority and the obvious immorality of their actions. This explains why Indians moralise so effortlessly... In fact, traditional Hindu society had no real concept of moral problems. Any action considered wrong in a certain context is condoned and even lauded in a different context.      * Altruism, the ability of an individual to act in the public good without a self-serving ulterior motive, is deeply suspect.      * The dialectic of deference and hostility explains why a person whose power is ascendant will always find enough Indians to salute him.      * The notion of ?objectivity´ in social interactions is quite alien to Indians.      * No Indian will ever admit to wrong-doing for the advancement of his personal interests... The absence of idealism and the rank display of opportunism that very quickly became the hallmark of Indian politics were not accidental... They were the result of a societal consensus on the primacy of ends over means.      * Educated Indians behave in exactly the same way in the pursuit of power as their poor or illiterate compatriots. Both well-to-do and poor Indians value the services of an effective patron over that of a principled politician.      * Contrary to the notion that Indians are ?spiritual´, they are really ?material-minded´. Hindu gods are not ascetics... Goddesses are invariably beautiful in a very earthly sense.      * Indians do not subscribe to antiseptic definitions of rectitude... their understan-ding of right and wrong is far more related to efficacy than to absolutist notions of morality... Business in India has rarely been hostage to morality... Indians are simply better at pursuing material gains than pondering moral deficits... And so on and on its goes. The sum total of Varma´s assessment of his fellow countrymen adds up to this: that they are hypocrites, cheats, people who would do anything to get what they desire and morality be damned, pretentious rascals who have no ?inclination for the intricacies of philosophy?, their preoccupation being ?with the ritual of religion and the rewards it can confer?. According to him, ?the belief that the world is in essence unreal, a victim of maya, does not inhibit Hindus from the full-blooded pursuit of material possessions?. Varma say that foreigners are often fooled because Hindus appear to be ?other-worldly´, when ?in reality they are not so much other-worldly as they are oblivious to anything in the world that is not of direct interest to them?. If Varma is to be believed, Hinduism has nothing to commend it. As he puts it: ?There is no binding or universal code of conduct in Hinduism that gives unequivocal primacy to the moral dimension of power.? And he quotes a foreigner, Richard Lannoy to prove his point. To Lannoy, ?India has no developed indigenous ethical system?it has concentrated more on the mystical apprehension of an ultimate reality which transcends good and evil than on differentia-ting between good and evil acts.? Varma argues that he speaks the truth and the truth shall make us free. He does neither. He merely blackens the character of Indians and of Hindus in particular with a show of profundity that is as painful as it is unwarranted. Dharma is an undefined and ephemeral ideal, too subtle (sukshma) to be etched in stone. The essential point is that Hindu tradition has always allowed for a conveniently fractured response to the moral imperative. As Varma puts it: ?There are no uncontested definitions of right and wrong. The only consistent concern is the end result.? What Varma is trying to say is that the Hindu (not a part of Hindus, but all Hindus) are not only immoral but are cynical as well. As he puts it: ?The consequence is a down-to-earth relativism, a flexibility of approach, a willingness to prune absolutism in the interests of a larger purpose?, that ?larger purpose´ or course being one´s self-interest. Towards the end of the book Varma has some nice things to say about Hindus, almost by way of explanation of his sins. One supposes that this book will sell, especially in the West with India-haters rubbing their hands in glee and saying: ?See, we always knew Hindus were scoundrels. And now a Hindu himself has admitted to it´. Varma, no doubt, will think what a fine job he has done to dissect Hindu character and show it for what it is. And equally, no doubt, there will be many ?secularists´ who will rush to his defence. Varma is presently Director of the Nehru Centre in London. One would like to know who recommended him to that vital post, and on what grounds. The earlier he is recalled to India and relieved of his post, the better it would be. To put it mildly, he is a disgrace to his profession and to his country. A man who has no respect for his country and its past and even less respect for his religion has no moral right to represent it either. (Viking, 11 Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110 017)

Previous Page (43/51) - Next Page (45/51)