My journeys abroad was to make sense of myself, to see from the outside what can't be seen from the inside. Perhaps predictably, but at once ironically, I ended up in England, mother country of modern Indian imagination, hawking - as I can't find a better word - English manners and experiences to the fawning middle classes. Admired simply as I live in England, it became increasingly difficult for me to leave, as all suggestions of my intent to return were invariably met by premonitions of something being wrong, as no one really ever wants, or should want, to return. Even the rather satisfying moments of canvassing India's economic progress were almost always punctured by grossly embarrassing proclamations of 'special relationship', in full knowledge that the affectations flow only one way; in my stock of trade, Kolkata wants to be London without ever London wanting to reciprocate.
Therefore, 'self-colonialisation' as a concept appears real from my vantage point. I recognise that I live in a rapidly changing world, where technologies and mindsets are rapidly reconfiguring for an economic, political and even geographical shift. As the promises of end of history recede into oblivion, and the fault-lines of flat world come into view, a new imagination is emerging to challenge the order of the world. An Asia pivot in ideas, the Eurasian Plain appearing at the centre of the world after a half-millennium hiatus and with the young and hopeful East confronting a self-doubting West, new possibilities of discovery and understanding excite me; and yet, the phenomena of 'self-colonization' keeps the supposedly broken edifice firmly in place, limiting what could be thought or imagined, bottling the idea of freedom in a decorous, official way, from which there seems no escape.
There are indeed those who sees globalisation, and this reconfiguration, as a top-down process, with the Americans, rather than the English, setting the agenda. This is entirely reasonable, as the global turn is inextricably linked with WTO, global flow of Capital, Internet and the like. However, I am all too conscious of being a child of that same process - a migrant of the global age, after all - and therefore, the description of it as a passive process of domination appears too pretencions from where I stand. Therefore, rather than envisioning globality as manifestation of will of a hegemonic power, American or a disembodied one of financial capital, this appears to me to be one of complex collaborations, many players trying to create multiple possibilities, each giving in a little to gain more, adjusting rather than constantly dominating, living in a dynamic form rather than one of unquestionable superiority. And, in this setting, there are no gunboats in the horizon, or, rather, they are exceptions rather than the rule; rather, the architecture of subjugation is very much a voluntary servitude, a process of signing up, or rather a sequence of sign-ups, in a never-ending quest for the crumbs.
This, then, was our tryst with destiny: A walk back to the past horizons, or discovery of a labyrinth without an escape. The Indian imagination, defined by the Queen's language and limited by the contours and frontiers of imperial geography, has become an ex-nihilio affair, or, at least, one that emerged from a dark age of non-beingness. In an active act of remaking, we have torn India out of the geographic continuum of Asia - to which it belonged for centuries - and erased a good eight-hundred years of history to start with the reign of Hastings or Bentinck as year Zero of Civilisation. In a geographic sleight of hand, the porous Himalayas suddenly rose up as a defining end-point of our being, and the Ocean, the limiting frontier for centuries, has become the theatre of connections. Giving up the philosophical traditions of non-attachment, we discovered an India of rituals and religion, just as the English saw: And, just as they imagined, we curated ourselves in castes and sects, arraigning ourselves as indicted, into little cubby-holes of identity. Dislocated from Asia, Disconnected from history, Disengaged from ourselves and defined as an individualised mass of consumers, all too eager to spend lives as little clerks in the service of Threadneedle Street, or some other street in the Anglo-sphere, colony is no longer a top-down affair, but the centre of our very being.
This makes a mockery of the debating chamber arguments such as Shashi Tharoor's, as the common-sense list of follies of the empire hide the collaborative nature of the same. While demanding an apology from Britain makes a good pitch, the deeds of an English speaking Indian inflicted on his own countrymen are certainly more troublesome. And, yet, unless those are tabulated and accounted for, no new possibilities can emerge. Blaming the English, and with them, their language and culture and science, is popular, but this is only a trick to deflect from the issue of self-colonisation, the unquestioning acceptance of the morals of the empire and the unabashed attempts to continue its business of relegating a billion people in the margins of consuming misimagination.
And, escape, as I must look for one, is not tearing the English out of our imagination, nor in renunciation of its language or science, but to reclaim back India's own history and reconnect back to Asia, to visualise it not as a disconnected 'sub-continent' hanging precariously into an Ocean, but an integral part of Indo-Persian continuum, more of a bridge between greater Eurasia and the ever-connected Oceania, a civilisation formed as a theatre of connections, built around the opposite of the 'exceptionalism' that shapes the Anglo-American imagination: An 'anti-exceptionalist' civilisation - universalist is certainly the better word - India is not shaped by an unfulfilling quest of artificial uniqueness, but the peaceful realisation of being at one with the world. And, with history, without broad-brushing the defeats, the violence, the injustice it contains, but looking beyond the momentary and at one with the broad swathes of time, defined by Man's journey to be in harmony, with one another, and with the world. This view, unfashionable now, subsumes the Colonial Past, not forgiving its injustices but exposing its temporalities and limiting its legacies, provides a possible - and only, in my view - route of escape from the perpetual servitude of 'self-colonialisation' that we inflict on ourselves.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.