ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Special/ Amartya Sen

There are good reasons to recognise the robustness of our culture. We are not fragile

Time to conclude. The millennium that is coming to an end has changed the nature of the world in many different ways. It is right that we should seize this occasion to reflect on what has happened and how we might interpret them. Aside from a multitude of separate developments, the beginning of the millennium was characterised by the rise of Islamic power in the world and the end of the millennium is distinguished by the asymmetric preeminence of the West in the contemporary world. Each development is a rich subject for investigation and assessment, not least in India.

Indian civilisation evolved substantially with the absorption of Islamic culture as an integral part of it. In viewing these changes, an attempt is sometimes made to see pre-Islamic India as being homogeneous and unmixed in a way it never was. The arrival of the Islamic influences only furthered a heterogeneity that was already plentifully present, and the result was an enrichment that can be seen in the arts, literature, music and culture in general. The integration is often so consummate that the internal diversity of many of the Indian traditions and practice is hardly noticed and can be brought only by a specific historical scrutiny (as I have tried to illustrate).

Rather different issues are raised by the phenomenon of the rising influence of the west that occurred in the world towards the latter end of the millennium. The asymmetries involved between the West and non-West raise legitimate matters of concern, but it is very important to be clear about the considerations that make some of these concerns cogent, while others remain far from it. The idea of 'Westernisation' is itself full of conceptual problems, and the need to resist cultural imperialism is often confounded with criticism of constructive influences that come proximately from the West.

The origin of an idea, or an object, or a practice may not itself be terribly significant, and what has to be examined is the contribution that the idea or the object or the practice can make as against the suppression it may bring about. This calls for a normative scrutiny -- the origin in itself is neither here nor there. Also, given the historical movements of knowledge, understanding and techniques across the borders, it is often extremely hard, if not impossible, to identify the origin of an idea. The full circle that the idea of the Trigonometric notion of 'sine' experienced in going from and then returning to India (an example I discussed) illustrates the difficulty in distinguishing the local from the global.

Towards the end of this talk, I presented some arguments in resisting two particular generalisations that are in vogue: first, the allegedly mystical or religious nature of Indian culture, and second, the allegedly sceptical view of human rights in non-Western traditions, particularly in the so-called 'Asian values.' I have argued why neither of these generalisations can be sustained by historical scrutiny.

I may perhaps end with one final remark. In the course of discussing the variety of topics that have figured in this lecture, I have had several occasions to emphasise the internal heterogeneity of Indian culture. I have also argued for seeing our civilisation as quite robust and able to take influences from outside without losing its identify, or its richness. Some of the cultural debates that are occurring today -- whether involving resistance to Western influence or involving the pining for societal or religious purity -- really turn on the view we take of the strength of the culture.

The alarmists of different kinds have a shared concept of Indian culture as terribly flimsy and brittle. This is where, I believe, my main difference is with the fearful: in the recognition of our ability to be welcoming to new influences without losing what we value and have reason to treasure. There are good reasons to recognise the robustness of our culture. We are not fragile.

Back

Amartya Sen, the world renowned economist, delivered this UNESCO lecture in Delhi recently.

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature