The V.S. Naipaul-Girish Karnad flap, to borrow a phrase from legendary ball player, Yogi Berra, is “déjà vu all over again,” recalling countless arguments about Indian secularism, Muslims and Hindus, Indian history, authentic Indian identity, the obligations of Indian literature, and so on. It follows in a long tradition of Naipaul, he of legendary irascibility, attacking and being attacked by writers and intellectuals of diverse national origin. And it keeps alive the magnificent legacy of every Indian literary festival worth the name involving at least one tamasha that ensures public ka paisa vasool.
The controversy shows the restricted terms in which Indian identity and history are typically debated in Indian public forums. This applies as much to the substance of Karnad’s attack on Naipaul as it does to Naipaul’s bigoted views on Islam and Muslims. It also extends to the views expressed by defenders of both figures. Indians may be argumentative, as Amartya Sen says, but for the most part we seem to devote our time arguing about a small number of issues and endlessly repeating the same arguments.
The controversy reveals that the discussion on Indian identity continues to be trapped within the conceptual frame—a prison-house, really—of invaders and alienness and their inverted mirror images, the indigenous and the authentic. In discussions of the Indian past and present, from the lunatic fringes of the Hindu and Muslim right to the radical left for whom even other Marxists count as compradors, the notion of invasion figures as a “metahistorical” theme, to draw on Hayden White’s phrase. It is a master trope that permeates the entire spectrum of discussion, from dubious histories of India spun by partisans on Wikipedia to much of the historical scholarship produced during the post-independence period. Aryan invasions, Muslim invasions, British colonial invasions. Invasions by multinational and global financial capital. Territorial invasions but also invasions of objects, culture, and values.
The metahistorical claim is seen in specific arguments, proposed by right or left, that an alien faith, religion, ideology or political structure (“Islam,” “nationalism,” the “colonial state”) has corrupted some natural, indigenous order of things that stands for the authentic. A case in point is the left critique of the Hindu right that emphasizes the “semitisation” of Hinduism under the right. Liberals who advocate the free market as a panacea for India’s ills argue that the natural capitalist abilities of Indians were stymied by the failed import of socialism in independent India. Sectarian Muslim organizations share with sectarian Hindu organizations the idea of Islam as the religion of the sword of invaders. For the former, the tragedy lies in the incomplete conquest of India by Muslims. For the latter, the tragedy lies in the very existence of Islam, by definition seen as a marauding faith.
Karnad—like Naipaul—has every right to express his views on any topic of his choice— invasions, Islam, or Indian music. And in this particular case, he was responding to Naipaul’s pet themes in presenting an alternate vision of Indian history. Karnad’s marvellous sense of dramatic timing also deserves admiration (file under carpe diem, example of), whatever one might think of the symbolic value and appropriateness of his outburst. But in several critical respects Karnad’s understanding of Indian history is bedevilled by the same vexed assumptions that he identifies in Naipaul’s rants against Indian Islam and in Naipaul’s reductive conflation of Indian and Hindu history.
For one, Karnad’s insistence that Naipaul necessarily needs to write about Indian music if he wishes to accurately represent the richness of Indian society is troubling. It is a narrow and prescriptive account of both the vocation of the writer and of Indian society, a claim about the moral duty of an Indian writer and about the soul of Indian cultural life. It is, paradoxically, an essentialist argument about syncretic or composite forms of Indian culture as the most authentic incarnations of that culture. Parenthetically, one might also ask if Karnad, by implication, believes that hearing-impaired Indians can never quite experience Indian life in its fullness?
In the same vein, Karnad seeks to disqualify Naipaul’s eligibility for the award on the ground of Naipaul not being Indian. In excluding Naipaul from the ranks of Indians, Karnad seeks recourse here to a peculiarly legalistic definition of Indianness, puzzling for someone who otherwise in his speech appears to valorise a broader, civilisational, model of Indian identity.
Naipaul’s Indian origins, whatever his views on India, cannot be denied. If India can embrace as part of her globally dispersed progeny wealthy NRI (Non-Resident Indian) and PIO (People of Indian Origin) expatriates who buy in to the myth of “India Shining,” surely a writer who falls into these categories should not be disqualified because his pet theme is “India Shitting.”
Karnad’s comments also reveal the problem with a certain vision of Indian secularism, one that is routinely articulated and authorised by progressive intellectuals and activists as well as by representatives of the state who claim to be the guardians of India’s secular heritage. This vision of secularism tries to force fit Indian history into a profoundly essentialist, exceptionalist, and ahistorical political claim about the inherently secular character of Indian society. Indian society, in this view, is shaped by a deeply-entrenched principle of secular coexistence—one that runs deep in our soil and suffuses the very air we breathe; a principle that has been dutifully followed by most indigenous rulers and leaders, Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh, save for a few aberrations like Aurangzeb, Savarkar, and Jinnah. Partition and the few hundred communal riots recorded in colonial and postcolonial India, likewise, are exceptions to and violations of this naturally occurring secularism. In contrast to an overarching Hindu identity, a secular syncretism that ranges across the religious and non-religious domains of Indian social life becomes the embodiment and hallmark of authentic Indianness. The classic statement of this view is Nehru’s Discovery of India, a formidable product of the imagination, a marvellous statement of Nehru’s faith in certain ideas, as Sunil Khilnani suggests, and an important political statement—but, as a historical work, fundamentally a fantasy.
That there was a Muslim conquest of some Indian territories is not in dispute. That some Muslim rulers destroyed temples is not in doubt either. What is just as incontrovertible is the fact that these actions do not exhaust the history of Islam in India. Equally importantly, if not more so, Muslim Indians bear no responsibility, and are not accountable for, the actions of these rulers. They owe no explanation, let alone apology, to anyone for anything that any other Muslim has done. Extending the argument, we do not need to recognize Muslim ‘achievements’ in music, architecture, food, or literature to recognize, defend, and fight for the inalienable Muslim right and claim to be Indian. Syncretic and non-syncretic Hindus and Muslims are Indians, as are Hindus and Muslims who might dream, respectively, of akhand Bharat and a shari’a-governed India in a revived global Caliphate. Westernized Indians who may not speak a word of any language other than English and may be utterly uninterested in bhakti or sufi poetry or Hindustani or Carnatic classical music are also authentically Indian. Resolutely one-dimensional Indians are also Indian and their lives are appropriate subjects for works of fiction or non-fiction. None of these people need to explain their Indianness or apologize for their way of being Indian. To Naipaul, Karnad, or anyone else.
To clarify, my point is not that there is no indigenous historical basis for secularism in India. Neither am I contending that the achievements of political secularism are meaningless. To the contrary, I believe they have been vital—and will continue to be so—in ensuring the survival of that impossible imagined political community called India. My twofold argument, may be stated such: secularism in India, as in the US or France or Turkey, is historically specific, historically grounded, contested, inconsistent, subject to interpretation, shaped by, and shaping in turn, the relationship between state, law, and society; and that, consequently, the history of Islam in India or the history of Hindu-Muslim relations cannot be written as a subset of the history of secularism in India and cannot be subsumed within it. The complexities simply cannot be flattened out into a neat political narrative of the impeded unfolding of secular reason in Indian life.
The shortcomings of Naipaul’s writings on India do not need to be revisited here at length. An Area of Darkness, for example, is the worst kind of Orientalist tripe. It is the kind of book that might have been written by a disgruntled Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love, had she been bummed out on her spirituality-seeking trip to India. Karnad’s staggering intellectual, literary, and creative abilities, and his progressive political credentials, likewise, do not need to be stressed.
There is, however, one interesting commonality between Naipaul and Karnad. That commonality tells us something about who has the authority to speak for and about India, whether to defend or vilify it. It says something about whose views on India get published in books and newspapers. It reminds us of who gets heard at literary festivals and seen on television screens around the world. This shared aspect of their lives reminds us of the credentials needed to be recognized both within India and outside India as an expert on Indian society, art, culture, politics, religion, history, or music. By implication, it also tells us which perspectives and voices on India remain unheard and ignored. Naipaul and Karnad, both of Indian provenance if not of citizenship, happen to be graduates of Oxford University.
Rohit Chopra is Assistant Professor of Communication at Santa Clara University, USA.
What is the locus standi of non muslims like chopra and Girish Karnad, to speak on the muslim mind vis a vis secularism in India. Let some muslim write about their perception on the advent of Muslims in India and historical perspective.
Ramki >>The obsession with 2002 riots and India Shining campaign of Congress/Left supporters
Ramki >>The obsession with 2002 riots and India Shining campaign of Congress/Left supporters
When is Cong, bothered about 2002 riots? Does it want people to rake up 1984 Delhi? I thought "Shining India" campaign was that of NDA, but since by now it is clear that all crooks are together, may be Cong is also behind it. After all did not MMS issue a strong statement expressing displeasure when Modi was denied US Visa- one of the few times he has expressed himself strongly? FYI, Gujarat riot cases are fought by victims and their supporters, looking for justice so that there can be a closure.There is no need to give credit to Cong or BJP just to score some points.
As a persistent, right of center, proud conservative NDA/BJP supporting Hindu, I have no hesitation to admit that not all Muslims who ruled India from 11th to 18th century were evil persecuters. We had a great mix of some good (Akbar et al), some funny but tolerable ( lodhis) and ugly lot .
But the problem with the Karnad-Naipaul debate is that Karnad has his own policial axe to grind and he is looking for every opportunity to villify the conservative hindus and he has no basic decency and decorum. You can chose to hate any faith and chose to be an ultramarxist and break idols of hindu gods in your own bedroom, but that does not mean you should be a lying intolerant bigot who looks to hijack platforms to spread agenda with ulterior motive.
Behind karnad the writer is a demon of an indecent characterless person who actually works for establishment... just the kannada version of mallika sarabai .
R Saroja >> I sometimes feel that this obsession with distant past is the flip side of unwillingness/inability to deal with present and recent past.
The obsession with 2002 riots and India Shining campaign of Congress/Left supporters is the flip side of the inablity to deal with the essentially failed corrupt governance record of UPA which started as a project to have a Congress government backed by Left.
Jay >> If we are into the politics of civilizational antiquity, then one only needs to go back a few centuries and he will discover that the so called "Hindus" were also invaders and that Sanskrit is also a foreign language unlike Tamil !
The AIT has been already proved by genetic studies which have shown that Indians, of all castes, regions and groups have a common genetic h, eretage . And BTW when you speak Hindus as invaders, what exactly do you mean? A Dark Skinned practising Hindu from Southern TN who happens to belong to the thread wearing caste , is he an invader? Do you have proof for all that? And BTW, the oldest civilization, Indus Valley Civilization is seen to have evidenced worship of Lord Shiva, who is now a part of the Hindu trinity of deities..
Jay >>The Dalit, Buddhist and Jains may not agree with the version of history touted by Hindu fundementalists who seek to con people into believing that Hindus are the original inhabitants of this land and their pristine civilization has been damaged by Muslims.
Dalit, buddhist and Jains do not have their own unified agreement on history. A UP Dalit will not agree to learn Tamil since he believes that Hindi should be the national language. A TamilNadu dalit will find no need to have Hindi as even a national language, since it has no real history. And a Buddhist from Sri Lanka does not even believe in giving living space to fellow Dravidian black skinned, but hindu and christian Tamils..
Jay >> The Muslims contrary to popular belief did not come to India to proselytize, they came for conquest and a better life just as Aryan tribes had come to this geography now called India. There can be little doubt that they have made a positive contribution in many fields from administration to architecture, music, literature, art, culture, social norms and even the promotion of social tolerance.
By grouping Muslims as one unified group, you show 1)Ignorance 2) Political agenda 3) Ability in distorting truth. There were many kinds of Muslims who came to india - ones who wanted to trade, ones who wanted to learn, ones who wanted to rule but loved the idea of tolerance and ones who wanted to spread their faith by murdering rest. And for positive contribution, yes Muslims have contributed a lot (mainly in architecture) but so have people who lived before, including the Vedic era Hindus, unless you believe that
Jay >> Lets not forget that for milinea India was a caste ridden society where the Dalits were virtually enslaved by the upper castes and demonized in their literature.
From 500 BC right till 1947 AD, India was mostly (80%) ruled by Buddhist, Jain, Muslim and British rulers and India is a socially divided society where one cast enslaved all the rest, then what exactly were the Buddhist , Jain, Muslim and Christian (british) rulers doing , why did they not set all that right?
Jay >>Incidently many Punjabi's are of Greco-Bactrian origin and the conservative sections of the Hindus still regard them as tainted, if not for anything else then for some unknown reason which has got lost in history.
Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism was never fixed on one version, we had many version of hinduism, and bhakti era hinduism has transcended race, caste and notions of pollution and purity, which is why Southern India (where bhakti movement was strongest) and Western India (Guj/Rajastan) have had a society where OBCs (Trading, Ruling classes) have dominated the social structure and unlike what leftists claim, the caste system's rigidity was not universal, generally caste system was most rigid in Gangetic plains and away from that the OBCs and Adivasis got to rule themselves with their own interpretations of hinduism, where by the vedas were effectively substituted by deities and rituals replaced by bhakti traditions.,
Jay>> The so called "Hindus" themselves have been a fractious lot, inter-sect warfare was common
And there were also sect warefares among Catholics and protestants and shia sunni and Jains and Buddhists also disagreed on many issues, so what are you trying to tell? Inter sect warefare did not change the basic fact that from 500 BC to 1947 AD, much of india was ruled by Jain, Buddhist, Islamic and european rulers...
Jay>> and had Nehru and Ambedkar not reformed Hindu society by bringing the Hindu Code Bill, the Hindu women of this country would be much worse off than their Muslim cousins.
Hinduism is not a religion driven by single book (bible/quran) or single seat of power (vatican) but is locally interpreted so please dont sell fiction by telling that w.o Hindu Code bill, 550 millino hindu women would be living in purdah. India's diversity is Hindu diversity and well before the code bill, india had matriarchial societies right among hindus and purdah did not exist in peninsular india and we have history of women even participating in wars in ancient india.
Jay>> Islam and Christianity may not be shining symbols of egalitarianism but atleast that was their promise.
Yes, abrahamic religions promiste egalitarianism, for their own faiths, but fundamentalist versions promised everything else for those who chose to be heathens, infidels and pagans. But before jumping in to call me a hate mongering fascist, it is all about interpretation and Hinduism also can be interpreted to be egalitarian through bhakthi traditions and concept of yugas and the falliblity of even the "gods" that were worshipped.
Jay >> Buddhism and Jainism practised equality but were promptly dispatched from this soil.
Yes, Buddhism''s promise of equality is seen in present day srilanka where right in 21st century the majoritarian sinhalese society waged a war to wipe out the non buddhist (hindu mostly and some christian) tamil minorities. And for jainism, do not forget that Jainism existed as a dominant faith along with buddhism in India because of patronage by rulers and once Muslim rulers came, both faiths dwindled -whereas Hinduism survived because of bhakthi movement that decentralised the faith and transfered the authority to local rulers and local priests
Jay >>It was not without reason and thinking that Nehru put the 'chakra' into the Indian flag. We cannot start history at the point in time which we wont to start it at to get a particular narrative.
yes Nehru put the chakra into Indian flag and we have had 58 years of his and his progeny rule and it is time to ask hard questions as to why India is still lagging so much on HDI and other social fronts. Or maybe we should blame RSS for that as well .. in that case, tell us why Islamic Kashmir and non hindu(sikh) punjab has these social issues..
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT