Modi right to ditch English; we now need to decolonise our minds by
| Rajeev Srinivasan Jun 11, 2014 12:58 IST |
The fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to speak Hindi with his foreign visitors is a clear statement of principle: there is no need to apologise for Indian-ness, nor is there the need to consider English the be-all and end-all. I liked this view in Firstpost that this helps put the Indian back in Indian-ness. The fact that a number of MPs took their oaths in Sanskrit is further evidence that the age of the unquestioned kowtowing to foreign tongues is coming to an end.
Vive la difference, as the French might say.
I have long felt that languages are subversive, and that sometimes they are masks of conquest. Over time I have begun to feel that, in particular, English is enormously harmful in subtle ways. Now this is a hard thing for me to admit since English is the language that I prefer to write in, and so in a way I am sawing away at the branch that I sit on, quite Kalidasa-like.
Nevertheless, the memes that we absorb with the language essentially deracinate us, because they are so alien. For instance, it was intriguing to hear recently from British Prime Minister David Cameron that “the UK is a Christian country” and that he was intent on propagating his religion (“David Cameron: I am evangelical about my faith”, see The Guardian, 17 April 2014). This is about as bluntly unsecular as one can be: he was declaring that his country not only had an official religion, but that he would go to some length to give primacy to that religion.
In contrast, would any politician in India dare comment even on the fact that looting Hindu temples and transferring their wealth to the state was inappropriate? The government has in fact launched an attack on the Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple in Thiruvananthapuram with the possible intent of grabbing the billions in gold and antiques and gems in its vaults.
But no such thought ever enters the European (Christian) mind. To say that the Vatican has immense wealth that should properly belong to the masses would be considered blasphemy.
The notion that Britain is a Christian country is not new. Years ago, I read the brilliant Raj Syndrome: A Study in Imperial Perceptions by Suhash Chakravarty ,which, with voluminous research, showed that there was, in practice, little difference between the church and the imperial regime (as I described in my column The Predatory State).
I felt a sense of déjà vu when the famously secular The Economist magazine tweeted “ the Arab Muslim world is reacting negatively to a forthcoming movie about Noah, sacred history’s first boat-builder” (emphasis added, and in case you doubt me, below is a screenshot of this tweet timestamped 5:42pm, 13 Mar 2014). This is a plug for its religious blog, Erasmus, which generally talks – very positively of course – about Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity.
I shall focus on The Economist because I read it regularly, and it probably is the standard-bearer among wide-circulation English-language publications.
A screenshot of The Economist's tweet It amused me because ‘sacred history’ is a deliciously creative euphemism for ‘Christian mythology’: so concrete and real-sounding! The word ‘mythology’, I have noticed over time, is reserved by Anglophones for any non-Semitic stories, eg. Greek, Norse, Hindu, Buddhist, Roman, etc.
Whereas when it comes time to describing their own mythology, Anglophones use ‘scripture’, and never ‘mythology’. But I think ‘sacred history’ is even better, implying there is ‘real’ history and then ‘sacred’ history. Which is true: there is history, and then there is myth.
The problem is that the Anglophone West, and their friends in India, have a tendency to conflate – often with malice aforethought – their myth with history. For instance, let’s take the founding myth of Christian dogma. There is no clear evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed.
No relics, no artifacts, no contemporary historical records, nothing. Nada. Zip. (Well, to be precise, there is the historian Josephus Flavius, but if you believe him, then you must also believe his history of the Essenes which tell you that the reported teachings of Jesus were all in the Essene Gospels of a couple of hundred years earlier).
Similarly there is the beloved myth of St Thomas who, ‘sacred history’ says, arrived in Kerala around 70CE, converted Nambudiri Brahmins, and was murdered in Chennai by Brahmins with a spear, and his skeleton is in Chennai. There are only three problems with this: Thomas never actually went to India, there were no Nambudiris in Kerala at the time, and the Vatican itself certifies that Thomas’ remains are in Ortona, Italy. But this has not stopped the myth from becoming “truth by repeated assertion”.
There is also a nice little embellishment I heard from Shashi Tharoor, that a Jewish girl with a flute greeted the man on a Kerala beach. Those little details… sheer genius!
There were Jews in Kerala around the time: so the plausibility quotient goes up. For a history-centric set of religions – as in the Semitic/Abrahamic religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, along with the quasi-religion of Communism – it is important that major historic events that are supposed to have taken place are treated as true history, things that actually happened.
Hence the desperate attempt to confuse ‘real history’ and ‘sacred history’: in other words, an assertion that myth is real. Or, in other words, a ‘sacred lie’. Correspondingly, there is also the subtle denigration of Hindu history as myth.
The Aryan invasion mythology is one such attempt – Hindu ithihasa (ithi-hasa: thus it happened) does not jell with the 4004 BCE creation mythology of the Abrahamics (Bishop Ussher’s 4004 BCE genesis date is the basis of Max Mueller’s assertions). Therefore, the Hindu ithihasa must be myth. QED. In fact, the exact opposite is likely to be the truth: ithihasa as history, Aryan invasion as myth.
The work of Bart Ehrmann, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, including his book Forged, suggest that there is a great deal of forgery, extrapolation, errors, etc. in the New Testament.
This is unlikely to be ‘history’. The work of Thomas Thompson, a retired Professor of Theology at the University of Copenhagen and a leading archeologist, especially The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, is notable.
It suggests that the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) version of history “is not supported by any archaeological evidence so far unearthed, indeed undermined by it, and that it therefore cannot be trusted as history”.
This is ‘sacred history’? (By the way, Thompson was made unemployable in US academia by Catholic theologians, and so worked as a school teacher, janitor, and housepainter, until the Israelis, and later, Danes, invited him to tenure-track positions.)
So this ‘sacred history’ business is very dubious, but The Economist perseveres. Though years of reading it carefully I have noticed that they use the term ‘Holy Land’ very often (isn’t this rather non-secular, and highly ethnocentric? An outsider certainly wouldn’t consider the West Asian desert particularly holy.).
And for a Hindu or a Buddhist, his ‘Holy Land’ is India. So whose point of view is it? Similarly, ‘Holy See’: why not simply say, ‘Vatican’? Given the reality that it is the biggest, oldest, multinational organisation out there, and that it has a dual status as a country (with its own UN seat) and a religious entity, the Anglophone use of ‘holy’ strikes me as much the same as a vacuous formal title, such as ‘Lord’ or something.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/modi-rig ... ef_article 
, nobody highlighted an important point that was slipped by Modi in his speech 
