POSTED BY Buzz ON Apr 27, 2012 AT 23:24 IST ,  Edited At: Apr 27, 2012 23:24 IST

Who should write about India? Last week, Patrick French wrote about Writings on India in the Hindustan Times:

there is a growing antagonism towards the idea of foreigners engaging with India, a latter-day literary swadeshi predicated on the theory that Indians should be doing it for themselves, rather than listening to what outsiders have to say. It is a view that arises out of a justified sentiment, namely that for too long India had to endure books by foreigners which distorted its culture and history. But today, the denouncers of the foreign hand on the keyboard are more often than not vigilantes in search of a crime. In my experience, the people who hold this view most strongly are those who have studied at universities in Britain or North America, and in some cases still live outside India. The kind of career made by David Frost, Daljit Dhaliwal or Fareed Zakaria in the United States would be impossible in India. Although foreigners are occasionally regarded as entertaining and even interesting, they remain a curiosity. I think it’s fair to assume that when Fareed Zakaria, the Mumbai-born son of the Congress party stalwart Rafiq Zakaria, presents his weekly show on CNN, he is not greeted by catcallers asking him what right he has to discuss American politics. He does not face intellectuals in Washington DC who pose, in all seriousness, the preposterous question: Who should be allowed to write about America? Yet this is precisely the debate that recurs, time and again, in India, spurred by people who would not think of applying the same rules to themselves in an overseas context. The British journalist Edward Luce recently published a book titled Time To Start Thinking: America and the Spectre of Decline. Even those American reviewers who disagreed with his thesis did not think to question Luce’s right to write the book. As Francis Fukuyama wrote about him: “In a tradition stretching back to de Tocqueville, sympathetic foreigners are often the keenest observers of American life.”...

India’s writing elite is fundamentally pro-establishment, and dislikes the way the nation has changed. Global power is shifting. It is a different world now, one in which many writers of Indian origin make a living abroad, and the richest person in England is Indian. Contrary to what we are fed, Indian voices are not stifled, but vociferously heard. Literature should not be constrained by parochial rules of engagement, self-censorship or the pious, self-affirming orthodoxies of social media. Creativity should not be stifled by finger-wagging. Let the “Who should write about India?” question be consigned to the dustbin of history. Let Xuanzang go free, to write the books he wants. Let India accept the rest of the world, as the rest of the world accepts India.

And, yesterday Aatish Taseer responded in the same newspaper, arguing that there have been many distortions of India by foreigners:

there have been many: old and new, they range from mangoes and slum dogs to apologising histories of the Mutiny; there are the correspondents with their povertarianism and exaggerated fears of Hindu fascist take-overs; and there are the orientalists, who would turn hard gritty India into a fantasy of sweetmeats and fakirs. All problematic, all irritating enough. But the foreigners are not to blame; what is to blame is India's historic and continuing dependence on foreigners for an idea of herself.

Patrick French - though serious writers, like him and Katherine Boo, whose book could not have had a better reception in India, have little to fear - is right: there is defensiveness these days, there is over-sensitivity and perhaps a degree of xenophobia too. But in a country which has bended so easily to the will of foreigners in the past, and where foreigners are still invisibly able to occupy positions of great power, both politically and intellectually, a little xenophobia is not such a bad thing.

French writes: "Let India accept the world, as the rest of the world accepts India." I would say that India, if anything, accepted the world too easily, too unquestioningly; it allowed the world to shape its idea of itself. And if now, in a different time, there is a pushback, it is only to be expected, and even welcomed, so long as it is the accompaniment to intellectual labour.

Read on at the Hindustan Times: A vibrant entity

POSTED BY Buzz ON Apr 27, 2012 AT 23:24 IST ,  Edited At: Apr 27, 2012 23:24 IST
Follow us on Twitter for all updates, like us on Facebook for important and fun stuff
TRANSLATE INTO:


Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression
13/D-132
May 06, 2012
09:53 PM

Regret typo in previous mail.

'him' in second para refers to Atish Taseer.

Atul Chandra
mUMBAI, INDIA
12/D-130
May 06, 2012
09:50 PM

Problem with us Indians is that we very quickly turn every debate into lofty issues of principles and ideals.

This propensity has been used to hilt by those who have aimed to put us on mat on various issues as well delineated by him to turn us into apologetic gellys unable to protect ourselves paralysed by the implanted guilt

The point made by Atish Taseer is simple direct and very meaningful-it speaks of the reality that if you are dead what purpose will all your great learnings and ideals make. Also it is an indirect appeal to all Indians to at least now put themselves to the task of understanding ourselves and our history through our own efforts.

Moreover, he also made the point that xenophobia has to be 'little' so let us not blow it out of proportion.

Atul Chandra
mUMBAI, INDIA
11/D-44
May 01, 2012
08:05 AM

>> Who decides what is balanced and intelligent? You?

Of course. Everyone has a right to decide for himself/herself if the author is balanced and intelligent, or not.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
10/D-38
May 01, 2012
06:23 AM

Varun,

>>  say something, if not laudatory, at least balanced, empathetic and intelligent. Brass, Nussbaum, Crossette, Margolis and a whole slew of commentators in cyberspace, do not seem to be capable of such a feat.

Who decides what is balanced and intelligent? You? (Haven't we been through this before?)

Anwaar
Dallas, United States
9/D-30
May 01, 2012
03:51 AM

>> It's not really a question of being thin or thick skinned, but of desiring to read something fairly sophisticated or multi-faceted

Great post.

Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
Order by
Order by
Short Takes
click for more
recent tags
BJP
Dinanath Batra
Education
Gujarat
Levity
Maps
Movies
Muslims
Our Netas
Parody
Politics
Sania Mirza
School Text Books
Schools
Telangana
Tennis
TRS
 
bloggers
A. Sanzgiri
Boria Majumdar
Buzz
Dr Mohammad Taqi
Freya Dasgupta
G. Rajaraman
K.V. Bapa Rao
Maheshwer Peri
Namrata Joshi
News Ed
Omar Ali
Our Readers Write Back
Poster
Prarthna Gahilote
Shefalee Vasudev
Sundeep Dougal
Sunil Menon
ARCHIVES
Go
SMTWTFS
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
recent comments


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: