2015, സെപ്റ്റംബർ 25, വെള്ളിയാഴ്‌ച

Surveys, Media, Colonization and Proselytization, Chapter Five.



The British and Their Rule

For making the translations and dictionaries, the British did not have enough knowledge of our languages or of Persian & Arabic which were used in the Muslim ruled areas. The British assumed that “words in one language, bearing a variety of significations, are given through the medium of words in another, having also various meanings and many directly contradictory.” So, they “translated by words in a third, which in many significations, differed totally from both”.(1) The British, must sure have given the meanings they want the people of our “Good old bhAratham” should learn in order for them to achieve their (the Europeans’) goal of colonization and Proselytization. Proof for this can be seen in them if we go back in linguistics to before they arrived. One such word is “God”, which they assigned to a range of words (in the languages they encountered in the country), which represent varied range of divinity.

The British did teach Persian and Arabic in their educational Institutions for their would-be officials to learn. They considered Persian as a very key language and thus paid much attention to teaching of that language and considered it “the most prestigious and best supported” and “those young officials who did well in Persian were frequently slated for the best beginning jobs, which often led to lucrative and influential positions in the central secretariat in Calcutta.” In addition, they did consider learning these three languages equal to learning of European classical languages (Latin and Greek), as an ‘emblem of the educated’ and that they believed can lead to ruler ship. (2)

Also there was “considerable curiosity about the ‘religion’ of the ‘Gentoos’ among the Europeans”. There had been efforts to learn SamskRutham, “particularly by Catholic missionaries in the seventeenth century.” However, the study of SamskRutham turned out to be difficult. So, they termed it as a “secret language of Brahmins”. It is seen that “James Fraser, J. Z. Howell, and Alexander Dow had all made unsuccessful efforts to learn Sanskrit.” And whatever knowledge “the British had of the learning and “religious thought of” the so-called ‘Gentoos’ (Hindus) “came from discussions with Brahmans and other high-caste Indians, or from Persian or ‘Indostan’ translations of Sanskrit texts”.(3) We can easily imagine that the knowledge they got from these discussions and translations cannot be accurate. All they did was again “re-present” our culture into the “forms and subjects” of their culture; that too without having any clue what they represent and/or what the meaning of them. Also, they did this with the help of mostly wrong translations. But even now our own people are depending on those “half-baked” translations mostly.

The present history written mostly for establishing, standardizing and legalizing group differentiations in the community by the Europeans who were also missionaries, say that SamskRutham is the language of Aryans and they brought it from Europe when the “Aryan invitation” or “immigration” happened. This theory originated by Germans was continued by the British. We can be sure that they did think that way, because they did write that Indian classical language, SamskRutham, was a “secret language” invented by the “Brahmins to be a mysterious repository for their religion and philosophy”. They also claimed that Brahmins were Aryans. (4) This is how SamskRutham become “Sanskrit” and a “secret language” of the “Aryan Brahmins”. Then it became a “dead language” for Europeans as they were not successful in learning it to the required standard. So, it was good for them to make it a dead language for them and propagate it so it will become a dead language for a lot of our people also. This made the introduction of “British Education System” easier. However the original theory by Karl William Friedrich Schlegel was that the language “Sanskrit” and the people who used that language (Germans) went from our “Good Old bhAratham” to Europe. The theory also said that there was lot of tribes joined in this migration and thus the ethnic diversity of Northern Europeans. They also said that there was a second wave of migration from “Good Old bhAratham” and they founded the civilizations of Grease and Rome. (5) Even before that some historians did write that the Biblical Jews are from our own ancestry. They wrote that “These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." Another historian, Clearchus of Soli wrote; "The Jews descend from the philosophers of India. The philosophers are called in India Calanians and in Syria Jews. The name of their capital is very difficult to pronounce. It is called 'Jerusalem.'" And "Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ, and whose accounts from new inquiries are every day acquiring additional credit, says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins.) The same set of historians or at least some of them say that the biblical “Abraham” is the Creator we refer to as “BrahMAvu” or "BraHMa". His concert “Sarswathi” is shown as “Sara”, Abraham’s wife. (6) That means whatever they have in the bible is from our ancestry or a by-product of it, may be a corrupted version. They also wrote that, this language was brought by Aryans when they invaded or migrated to our “Good old bhAratham”. (7) If that is the case, how is it that when another group of the same Aryans came later they did not know this language and they had to try to learn it and even they generally failed to learn them.

For some of the westerners denigrating our culture was a requirement as they needed to show it as inferior. However a very few did learn some of our languages and culture in very proper way and did write and talk on it extensively. One of them was John Z. Howell, who was a British official. He, in his thirty years' experience as an East India Company official, had learned some of the languages and used to allude at conferences and talks with “many of the most learned and ingenious amongst the laity” of the west, about the greatness of the “Tenets of the Gentoos.”(8) He also wrote an extended account of the “Tenets of the Gentoos,” published in 1767. (9) [Note again that it is not ‘Hindus’ but ‘Gentoos’].

Before Howell, some of the European Missionaries did denigrate our culture as “a race of stupid and gross idolaters and superstitious”. However, in his writings Howell criticized all such his predecessors’ views that we were “a race of stupid and gross idolaters and superstitious”. “Most of the more recent accounts”, he argued, were by those of the “Romish Communion,” [a Christian group] “who had a vested interest in denigrating Hindus, as they wanted to convert them to Catholicism”.(10) This is another proof from one of their own people that degrading and denigrating the people of the land were with the aim of Proselytizing. This practice still continues and the numerous stories they generate and propagate through the media and the incidents they give undue publicity and negative alterations do sure confuse, mislead and divide our people. The survey report published by the Indian Express on November 29, 2014, is such a report of a survey. Such reports, along with the ‘propaganda for demoralizing’ by denigration can and will steer people into a state of confusion and inferiority complex. This in turn will lead them to a stage where they feel ‘joining them may be a better idea’. Once joined, they become more critical of what they left out of their despair and inferiority complex and the urge to show that they are superior.   

John Z. Howell stated that “stigmatized Roman Catholic religious tenets as more idolatrous”. He castigated most others “who had written only on ‘exterior manners” of the customs and systems of ours only as “casual observer or traveler” a kind of “traveler-writer”. Howell suggested, that they should get beyond their “own ‘ignorance, superstition and partiality’ and the provincialism involved in thinking that anything ‘beyond the limits of their native land’ was greatly inferior to their own”. (This is what most Europeans did. They wrote superficially and that too with very limited knowledge of our braHMavidya.) He castigated those “traveler-writer” for writing that the people, in the “East or West-Indies, worship ‘this stick’, or ‘that stone’, or ‘monstrous idol’; only serves to reduce in our esteem, our fellow creatures, to the most abject and despicable point of light”. He further stated that if they were the writers “skilled in the language of the people he describes sufficiently to trace the etymology of their words and phrases, and capable of diving into the mysteries of their theology; he would probably be able to evince us, that such seemingly preposterous worship, had the most sublime rational source and foundation.”(11) Yes it was aimed to reduce self-esteem, demoralize and create inferiority complex in our people compared to the westerners.

In his words, the “traveler-writer”, “who without these essential requisites, (as well as industry and a clear understanding) pretends to describe and fix the religious tenets of any nation, whatever dishonestly imposes his own reveries on the world; and does the greatest injury and violence to letters, and the cause of humanity.”(12) Here even a person, who understands that our braHMavidya is much superior to their religion, is still under the misconceptions that braHMavidya is only just another religion; (but sure he accepts it as a superior one). We can see a lot of our own “religious” experts and “self-styled Swamis” also doing the same thing. This is due to the belief that religion is the Ultimate and most of our own people are also under this misunderstanding. This happens because still most Indians study braHMavidya in the language of the west and with the aid of the linguistics the Europeans created and as they “re-presented”.  Even the organizations known collectively as “Sangha ParivAR” also have the view that it is only a religion, “but a superior” religion. However I am of the opinion that this view is wrong and until changed and asserted that our braHMavidya is not a religion, but much more than a religion which is “The Science of The Absolute”; we shall continue to be in “Spiritual Slavery” or at least we are at a great ‘Spiritual disadvantage’ as we are now. This is the reason Swami Vivekanandan declared at Chicago on 11th September, 1893 that “I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions.(13)  (Now “The Science of The Absolute” is not the correct translation of braHMavidya; this is as close as it can get, as the English language is very much inadequate to explain the ponderous resources of braHMavidya.) Yes, it is the Mother of all religions. But the children are very erratic and even trying very hard to denigrate, destroy and demolish their own Mother and remove her from the face of this Universe.

It should be noted that even those who understood the superiority of our braHMavidya is still considering it as a religion. It is because of the ‘comparative attitude’ created by early “European Indologists” which is still being continued by newer generations of the “European, American and their “hired” Indian Indologists”. In my point of view “Our spiritual heritage is not a religion. It is neither a cult; a creed, a dogma; nor a one-way single path to heaven. It is multiple lane Super highway for mOKSham, which is the merger of jeevAtHman with paramAThman. It is not even just a religion as such; nor is it just a way of life. It is the complete and comprehensive collection of divine knowledge of the Absolute Truth, which, when learned and practiced; can lead people to the experience of the Absolute and the Ultimate Bliss. It is a continuously evolving and absorbing science (shAstRam); The Science of the Absolute, a flexible body of Divine knowledge centered on the quest of the jeevAtHman (for the English speaking world, we may refer this as ‘soul’) for its' birthright, 'the divine realization'. In addition, it makes provisions for all jeevAtHman in this quest. Yet, it remains immeasurable as it safeguards the very purpose of all life forms everywhere and in all things. We may say ‘SanAthana DhaRMam’ is its quality and/or qualification. Under no circumstances categorize it as a religion, or just as a way of life or just as a culture. It is much Greater and Spiritual than all of them together. The wise called it ‘The Science of Spirituality’, ‘The Science of the Absolute’, ‘The Science of the Self’ or ‘The Science of the Soul’. It is braHMavidya. We may call it AdhyAtmavidya also, but not a religion.”

The need of the British to learn SamskRutham had an immediate practical necessity for a better controlling force for the governance of the land they called India. Warren Hastings, in his writing to the Court of Directors stated that “it would establish the Company's system of governance on a most equitable, solid and permanent footing.” The plan was based on “principles of experience and common observation, without the advantages which an intimate knowledge of the theory of law might have afforded” the British. He also stated that they “have endeavored to adapt” our ‘Regulations to the Manners and Understandings of the People’, and the Exigencies of the Country, adhering as closely as” they are able to our “ancient uses and Institutions.” The other reason for learning SamskRutham was probably their “curiosity to unlock the mysterious knowledge of the ancients.”(14)

Hasting’s theory was that “Indians should be governed by Indian principles, particularly in relation to law. The practical question arose as to how the British were to gain knowledge of the “ancient uses and institutions.” He averred, that we “Had been in possession of laws which continued unchanged, from remotest antiquity.”(15) He argued that, “the Laws of the Koran with respect to Mahometans, [meaning Muslims] and those of the Shaster [meaning ShAstRam/Shastra] with respect to the ‘Gentoos’ shall be invariably adhered to.(16) Even though the teaching of SamskRutham to the British officers was tried, it did not succeed. So, the learning of SamskRutham to accumulate the knowledge was almost abandoned by the British. Instead the “British Education System” was forced on the country, through which they gained control and that control still continues. They collected information for that ‘controlled governing’ of the land in their own way. While doing so they did create much more divisions than there was before, and also made the existing divisions more problematic. The misunderstanding that our ancestors “Had been in possession of laws which continued unchanged, from remotest antiquity” may be the reason for them to give ManusmRithi so much of importance. Or it may have been intentional to place the ManusmRithi in the minds of people so that misleading them was much easier to achieve. Perhaps that is what give a very negative imprint in the minds of our people. In fact Proliferation of smRithis did start much earlier, from our own people who imposed lots of ill treatments of sections of our own people by that proliferations. (17) This was even more intensified by the false notion of untouchability. The rejection of people who were abducted, raped, illegally married by the Muslim and Christian invaders was another ill treatment by our own people. Lots of our own ancestors reacted by rejecting their relatives by abandoning to the mercy of invaders. As the refusal of our own people in not accepting them back and thus abandoning the people who went through the inhuman treatment of foreign occupational forces made them bitter against their own relatives and they even become more dangerous than the invading forces. (18)

Bibliography

1.    (i) Letter from William Davy to John Richardson, dated 8 March 1780, in John Richardson, A Dictionary, English, Persian and Arabic (Oxford, 1780). (ii) Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 23.

2.    Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 24, 25.

3.    Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 25. 

4.    Alexander Dow, “A Dissertation Concerning the Customs, Manners, Language, Religion and Philosophy of the Hindoos,” in The History of Hindostan, 3rd ed. (London, 1792), l:xxvii; reprinted with a commentary in Peter Marshall, ed., The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 107-39.

5.    Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra INVENTING THE ARYAN RACE Page 19, 20 and The Language and Wisdom of the Indians, by Karl Wilbelm Friedrich Schlegel

6.    (i) History of the Jews, the Jewish scholar and theologian Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), (Book I:22.)  (ii) Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)  (iii)  Martin Haug, Ph.D., The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religions of the Parsis, Page 16.  (iv) http://viewzone.com/abrahamx.html

7.    Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra INVENTING THE ARYAN RACE Page 19, 20 and Karl Wilbelm Friedrich Schlegel - 1860. 

8.    Marshall, British Discovery, p. 46 - notes (a) and (b). and Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 25.

9.    Interesting Historical Events Relative to the province of Bengal and the Empire of Indostan, By John Z. Howell, (London. 1767). And Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 25.

10.  Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 25 and 26.

11.  Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 25 and 26.

12.  Marshall, British Discovery, p. reprinted ibid., page. 48-50. And Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 26.

13.   The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Volume 1, Page 3.

14.  Letter from the Governor-General and Council to Court of Directors, Fort William, 3 November 1772, printed In Great Britain. House of Commons, Reports from Committees of the House of Commons, 4: East Indies, 1772-3 (reprinted London, 1804):345-46.

15.  George R. Gleig, comp., Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable Warren Hastings (London. 1841), 1:400.

16.  (i) Colonialism and its forms of knowledge by Bernard S. Cohn, Page 26, (ii) Reports from Committees of the House of Commons . .. 1772-34;348-50. Page  348 (3.1) (iii) J. D. M. Derrett, “Sanskrit Legal Treatises Compiled at the Instance of the British,” Zeitchrift fur Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 63 (1961):72-117; idem, “The Administration of Hindu Law by the British,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 4 (1961):10-52; idem, Religion, Law and the State in India (London, 1968); (iv) Marc Galanter, “The Displacement of Traditional Law in  Modem India,” Journal of Social Issues 24 (1968):65-91; (v) Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, “Barristers and Brahmans in India: Legal Cultures and Social Change,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 8 (1965):24-49; (vi) Ludo Rocher, “Indian Reactions to Anglo-Indian Law,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 92 (1972):419-24.

17. ഭാരതചരിത്രത്തിലെ ആറു സുവർണ്ണഹഘട്ടങ്ങൾ, അദ്ധ്യായം 9 വിനായൿ ദാമോദർ സവാർക്കർ.

18. ഭാരതചരിത്രത്തിലെ ആറു സുവർണ്ണഹഘട്ടങ്ങൾ,  അദ്ധ്യായം 11, വിനായൿ ദാമോദർ സവാർക്കർ.

(Will continue; Copyright © Udayabhanu Panickar)

അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:

ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ