|
IV
Just as the bodies of races physically conflict, so do their cultures. Victory over the soul is greater than that over the body. Military and administrative control affects chiefly the latter. A cultural conquest means the subjection and, may be, destruction of the psychic possessions of the Racial Soul which is then transformed into the nature of that of the victor. Language affords a notable example of such cultural dominance. A people who abandon or who are compelled to abandon their language for that of another lose themselves. Language is the means by which cultural ideas are expressed and handed on. There are certain ideas and feelings which can be expressed by particular languages alone. Thus it is not easy to write metaphysics in Latin; whereas Greek and Sanskrit are highly efficient for this purpose. There are many terms in Sanskrit for which it is impossible to find an adequate, English translation. In short, only a raee's own language can express its soul. Those who speak a foreign tongue will tend to think foreign thoughts: those who think in foreign thoughts will have foreign aims and tend to adopt foreign ways and so forth. For these reasons dominant peoples have sought to impose their language on subject races as the completion of their conquest. We may here call to mind the attempted enforcement of the German language on the Polish people ; and in the British Empire the opposition to the Dutch language in South Africa and to the French language in Canada. Lately it has been made (so I read) an offence to teach any subject in French in the English provinces in Canada. It is hoped doubtless thereby to supplant in time French culture by that of the Anglo-Saxon. In this country there is no law which compels anyone to learn English; but compulsion exists all the same for those who would pass through School to University, who would qualify for Government service or for any professions. Such direct or indirect imposition of culture is in the nature of things. Dominating races must necessarily affect others. Those who complain of it waste their time in what is futile. Instead of complaint they should maintain themselves and their own. Failure to do so is the biological sin. What fails to find defenders is not worth preservation. Nothing is ever wholly and lastingly lost which is worth such preservation. What is absorbed is without the value which attaches to that which has the power to independently exist.
In the earliest times food and desire for loot, and sometimes woman, were probably the chief impelling cause of battle. Now, conflict of races and their cultures is due to various causes—racial, religious and political. The first is at present rather of a negative, and the two others of a positive character. The racial cause manifests. largely as a force passively resisting assimilation. Its most powerful manifestation is that in which it is combined with religion and politics or either.
The world is composed of beings which as classes and as individuals differ from one another. Man differs from man according to different colours and each coloured division is subdivided into various races. We call such differences of classes types. These types are varying aspects of the One Cosmic Mind. Being projected from Its Unity, it is reasonable to suppose that this projection was not without cause and that though types do, at one time or another as all else, disappear, yet Nature intends and devises means for their perpetuation until the purpose for which they have been created, shall have been served. How are these racial types preserved ? The answer is—By what is called Racial Antagonism-There is nothing " wicked " in pure Racial Antagonism for those who know no better. The antagonism is natural. Nature preserves her types by estrangement, distrust and even hatred and not by love. For this reason, Western races of strong vitality will not cross with Africans or Asiatics. The stronger the vitality, the greater is likely to be the antagonism. The stronger the antagonism of a type, the less is the likelihood of its being influenced or absorbed by another. Until he receives a spiritual initiation, man is thus the enemy of man. This is the natural or animal law. There is then learnt a higher spiritual law which at first tempers, and ultimately abrogates, the other through the knowledge that all men are kindred expressions of the One Self.
Racial antagonism, however, is not today (at any rate upon the Eastern side acute except where it is augmented by religious or political conflict. It undoubtedly exists; but I myself doubt whether an Asiatic positively hates or fears a white man simply because he is white. When he so hates or fears him, it is because of the latter's assumption of superiority; and because of his past political aggressiveness which puts the former's country, wealth and culture in danger. Thus, the early European visitors to Asia were well received. So, again, the first travellers to Thibet were freely admitted into that land. When it was, however, discovered that a country into which a Western entered was in danger of being taken by his people, a natural racial antagonism was re-inforced to such extent by political considerations that a state of positive enmity was aroused and thus Thibet was closed to the Western world. In the same way, the white man's contempt for the man of colour is largely due to the former's assumption of superiority and the latter's subservience and acknowledgment of it: a superiority which, so far as material force is concerned, has been justified for about the last two hundred years. When, however, an Eastern coloured people showed themselves the fighting equal of the Western, then racial antagonism did not stand in the way of exterior respect and political alliance. Even racial antagonism yields to political interest. Racial antagonism is thus, from the cultural aspect, rather something which resists attempts at assimilation than a force which seeks to impose itself on others. A meaner form of Racial Antagonism is racial jealousy which manifests itself, amongst others, in the orientalists of lower mind and which is the cause of their constant belittling of things Indian. A Russian friend of mine and a great traveller told me some years ago that all the orientalists he had come across in this country and many elsewhere disliked, notwithstanding and perhaps because of their study, India and all its ways. As the religious and political factor did not come into play I asked him to what he attributed it, when he answered racial jealousy.
In earlier times the religious factor was of great importance. Thus we read of Crusades, Jehads and persecutions. These animosities still exist as between Christian and non-Christian religions, as also between Christians themselves; notable instances of which are the quarrels of Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and of Hindus and Mahomedans in this country.
The vital question of Religion which is the most important element of culture may be considered either from its own •standpoint, or from that of racial and political interests. In more sincere ages the Christian religion was sought to be propagated on its own account, that is because of its supposed truth, and this is still the fact in the case of sincere believers.
In the first case the meaning and nature of the conflict is clear. The Christian missionary still carries on warfare against Hinduism; which one of them has recently stated to be "A great philosophy which lives on unchanged whilst other systems are dead; which as yet unsupplanted has as its stronghold the Vedanta the last and most subtle and powerful foe of Christi-anity." ("Christian thought and Hindu Philosophy" by A. H. Bowman). After many centuries of occasional missionary effort and a century of constant labour there are in this country not quite 4,000,000 Christians, and some 311,000,000 Indians who are still what they were; though it is the fact that a considerable number of the latter have been influenced both by the sacred personality of Jesus and by certain modern Western ideas which (it has been pointed out) have come to the East in such close association with Christianity that it is not always possible to distinguish between one influence and the other.
Jesus, however, did not bid His disciples preach His word abroad to serve any political or racial interests. It is true that good may follow in the train of right and religious living. But the vulgarity of turning religion into a means of money-making and Empire-building has been reserved for our political and commercial time. It is a greater abuse of what is sacred when these manoeuvres are worked by persons who have no religious faith in the doctrines which, for other motives, they seek to propagate.
Institutional Christianity is not necessarily the same as the teaching of Jesus. It contains elements drawn from Western civilizations anterior and subsequent to His earthly manifestation, and is now associated with secular aims and ideals which are rather the product of modern social and intellectual developments than of His essentially unworldly Yoga doctrines; even though in some cases they may perhaps be harmonised. His teachings are what He in fact taught. " Christianity " is what others thought He had taught; and it is worth just as much as their thought is worth and not more unless it be held (as Catholics do) that to the Church has been given a power of infallible interpretation. Such universal truths as were taught by Jesus will, when rightly interpreted, find ready acceptance in India which also proclaims them. The essentials of Jesus' teaching were said before Him and have been taught by others. The strength of" Christianity consists in the personality of its founder. Acceptance of the Christian Religion will (if it all) the more speedily come when Christianity, is no longer associated with the notion that it is the religion of a ruling western people and when its doctrines receive an independent interpretation by the Indian mind. That interpretation will lead to something far -different from what a witty Irish writer calls a "jolly theology" with its Christ in the character of "a good sportsman" the " Padre " a " good fellow " and I may add in India the dog-cart the station club, and so forth. Meanwhile it does not accept western interpretations of Jesus teachings from the hands of those who have a very imperfect understanding of what they mean. This country will honour only the Christian Sannyasi whether living in or withdrawn from the world. In ancient times men were not hired to preach Hinduism. Those who did were actuated by love and duty only. Nor did nor does it try to thrust itself upon unwilling people or make their miseries or worldly ambitions its opportunity. At present the religious conflict is largely due to the fact that Christ's doctrine, comes to this country in a Western guise, which, is no essential' part of it; a guise which often misinterprets it. Thus an Indian might find in the Bible (as many Westerns now do) support for his theory of Re-incarnation and knowing what a Yuga is he would not understand "aeonian" loss to be the equivalent of eternal damnation. It has been well pointed out that even the late Pratap Chunder Mozoomdar who was most western in culture and Christian in piety wrote of" " the Oriental Christ" and not of the Anglicised or Western Christ. In addition to-this, conflict is provoked by the fact that some missionaries have sought to de-nationalise their converts. Mukhyopadhyaya (if they succeed by a rare chance in attracting a Brahmana) becomes Muggins or the like. Dhoti and Chudder yields to shirt and trousers; and the eating of beef erects a barrier against relapse into-Hinduism. A different treatment is to be found amongst some Catholic missionaries who have gone great lengths to accommodate themselves to Eastern principles and practices including caste in this country and ancestor worship in China.
Many instances might be given of the exploitation of Christianity in support of political interests. It was in this sense that it was said by a French minister. " Anti-clericalism is not an article of export:" for religion attacked at home was found to serve French Colonial aims and the maintenance abroad of French interests. And in other countries the Cross has been made synonymous with the Flag, and the Flag with Trade, whether to use President Wilsons recent words " the persons to whom it was taken welcomed it or not." What Asiatic or African has been consulted ? In Europe Christianity has been for many centuries a strengthening (though for some time past a diminishing) force politically; consolidating and giving strength to European civilization. There are, it has been said, (" Conflict of Colour," 119) those " who still believe that as it will be in our day impossible to bar out the hordes of Asia and Africa, the only safeguard for Europe and the white man still lies to-day as in the past in Christianity; and that the impossibility of allying themselves with other creeds is perhaps the reason why instinctively the great movement towards Christianising the coloured world is growing stronger and stronger in Anglo-Saxon countries as a sort of forlorn hope launched to capture an almost impregnable position." And so also it has been alleged that the Christianising of the Negro, weaning him from the militant bent of mind he assumes under Islam will, as diminishing racial and political danger, have in the future much greater political importance than it has to-day. The author cited is not ashamed to supply an example of political Christianity of his own and to confess that " the part which the white man is politically called upon to play in Africa is the part of " Delilah and no other " for if he says the black man " is Christianised, his destructive strength is stripped from him, as was Samson's when his locks were cut." Elsewhere, that is in countries which have a real civilization and religion of their own, as in India, he thinks the hope of a general Christianisation is illusory for " it is there looked upon as a disintegrating-force, a purely European thing, aiming at destroying the most essential parts of social fabrics which have been slowly and painfully built up through the ages." He adds that "it is a strange fact which has often attracted the attention of unbiassed observers that Asiatic converts to Christianity are not only denationalised but (save in rare cases) are not morally benefited the very effect of breaking away from the support of their natural environment being an unnatural one and therefore visited with bad effects."
Mr. William Archer, who is not a Christian, writes in a somewhat similar strain: ("India and the Future")—For him Christianity is only a "half way house" to civilization; for nothing is apparently quite civilized unless it bears his "rationalist " approval. He says, however, that whilst he would himself "disown" the religion in his own land, it is good for India which he regards as an essentially unspiritual country. Its acceptance by the Indian people will bring them " half way " to true "civilization." Until they are "according to a liberal interpretation leavened with Christianity (in which he, himself personally disbelieves) they will be " unfit for freedom." That is, after the "half way house" stage is reached, the notions then acquired must be further " liberalized " when there will be competency for freedom. Freedom is, of course, political freedom for the political motive and standpoint is that of his book. The true religious missionary propagates his religion because he sincerely believes it to be the truth and that the truth will benefit India. Mr. Archer would, for political motives, foist upon it a " half way house " in which he himself disbelieves, in order that the Indian people may be thereby " civilized " enough for political freedom. Until that point of time, which seems from what he says to be remote, they are apparently not to have it. Because of the political service which missionaries thus render by the assimilation of West and East Mr. Archer says " that it did not long take him to throw off a vague prejudice against the missionary which he brought with him to this country."
A Japanese author Dr. Enryo Inouye in a recent article shows that the Western has his imitators in this also in the far East. He writes:—" Religion has always paved the way for extension of Western nations overseas, and why should it not do the same for Japan? In Africa, India, China and the islands of the South Pacific, Christianity always preceded the flag and opened a way for the development of the nations preaching the new religion. We have imitated the occidentals in other ways; why not in this way ? While Christianity is losing force in -the home lands of its propagandists, it is gaining force and influence in the countries overseas. It looks as if it were the policy of Western countries to take away from the forces of Christianity at home and apply the extra force to lands abroad to make way for the greater influence of the countries represented ; and this is especially true in the Orient." He, accordingly, advocates that the Japanese people should give every attention to the propagation of Buddhism in foreign lands " to prepare the way for our national influence and as the first step for the empire's future enrichment" The Buddha is thus made into a kind of political bagman.
The Commercial note so characteristic of some forms of modern Western Christianity is seen in the "Church Advertising and Publicity Department" of " The Associated Advertising Clubs of the world;" the report of the twelfth convention of which has just been published (Lippincott). The Executive Secretary's paper on the "First successful Church Advertiser" asserts that " the Church was born with advertising plastered all over it" and closes with the assertion that " Christ did not do His own advertising. He created the talking points on the interests of the new Church. Great was the Company which published them. And the first successful advertiser was the one of this Company to get out and plaster the country side with posters reading " Repent come and see one who claims to be the Christ. Hear Rabbi Jesus the teacher who has all the other Rabbis guessing." Another clergyman writes "Why the world needs our goods " (that is Christianity); and others continue with papers on " Delivering the goods advertised" "Preparing the copy" for "Church advertising is the display window of the biggest business on Earth " and so forth. There is one thing in the West which is happily missed in the East (unless where the European has introduced it) and that is vulgarity in these and other matters. This " playing the role of Delilah," " half way houses," the whole vulgar policy of " Church Advertisement" and of Bibles, Bottles and Battalions" will like other falsities fail of any good effect.
The religious factor in the conflict of East and West is becoming however of less importance in comparison with the conjoined racial and political factors. In the first place, Hinduism in the persons of its higher adherents has never been disposed to intolerance. Indeed in its higher form it has been so tolerant that it has been charged with being " indifferent to the truth. "Fanatical" or "indifferent" the blow is delivered both ways. The lower mind in India as elsewhere is not always free from narrowness but it has been in considerable degree influenced by the wide outlook of Vedantic teaching. On the other hand, whilst there is still some talk of "heathen darkness," tolerance has become more widespread in the West. Large numbers have ceased to be " Christians " in anything but name; and believing Christians either from disposition or necessity have largely drawn in their horns of aggression. What are called " liberal" ideas are spreading. It is thought that religion is a private affair, that liberty of conscience is sacred, that the religion which any civilized country has evolved is presumably the best for it; that if there be a revelation at all it has not been confined to-one people, nor to the adherents of one faith and that religion, the essence of which is the upholding of our common humanity, should not be made a ground of conflict and of enmity between men. It is noteworthy that just as racial antagonism displays itself most strongly when combined with causes of political conflict, it is the same with religious antagonism. Thus in Ireland, the feeling between Catholic and Protestant would not be so acute as it is, were not the question of Home rule involved; and in India the differences between Hindu and Mahomedan are commonly said (with what truth I cannot say) to have increased since the recognition of separate Electorates and the struggle for Government patronage. So dominant are politics now-a-days that even religion is made to serve their purpose.
I do not here desire to discuss practical politics but certain general principles of universal application only with a view to ascertain their bearing on the cultural question now under discussion. The very fact of political dominance of one race over another involves either an unconscious or conscious influence on the latter's culture. Just as a commanding personality (whether he wills it or not) affects the men who-surround him; so does a dominant race affect the people subject to it. In some cases the influence is automatic; in other cases it is predetermined. In either instance the result is the cultural assimilation of the subject race to that of its governors. If that subject race is savage it is both for its good and for the profit of the ruler that it should be rightly civilized. As Macaulay , speaking for a commercial people, said " to trade with civilized man is more profitable than to govern savages." As regards India he expressed the opinion that it was a doting policy which would keep " millions of men from being our customers." Mr. W. Archer is of opinion that the lesson which this country has to learn is " to want more wants." There is nothing " spiritual " about this doctrine nor is it, as so crudely-stated, a sound and satisfying one, at any rate from the point of view of those addressed. The Vishnu Purana more truly says that by feeding your desires you cannot satisfy them. This doctrine will not be found of benefit from any but the trader's standpoint. It is however the fact that the adoption of the counsel to "want more wants" may lead to the increased purchase of English motor cars, Scotch whiskey and so forth. The pockets of such a "civilizer" are filled when he gets the uncivilized to learn this part of his lesson. So on the banks of African rivers naked savages are taught to "want more wants " in the form of Brummagem beads and the, likes; they on their side parting with ivory to the white trader. It is on the other hand absurd to suppose that the Indian hugs his miserable poverty.
Conquered savages without culture, properly so called, take over that of their masters. But in the case of a country like 72 India which (pace Mr. Archer) is already civilized the problem is not so simple. Two courses are open: either to leave the governed race to itself, subject only to the natural influences which flow from contact; or to deliberately undertake a policy of " education " in accordance with the ideals of the Rulers. In this country we see both courses in operation. Politically there are advantages and disadvantages attending either of the policies. If the people be left to themselves, as I understand is more or less the case in the Dutch Indies, there is always a certain danger from the continuance of interests, aims, and ideals alien to those of the rulers. On the other hand if the ruling race educates its subjects in its own culture, it must follow that in the degree such culture is acquired a claim to equality and governance will be made by the latter which the former may not, at any particular moment, be disposed to concede. On and before such cession of power certain advantages from the point of view of administration are gained by the cultural assimilation of the ruling and ruled races. This policy necessarily involves a time when all "inferiority" ceases to exist; and the two races either then enter into a partnership of administration, or the foreign ruling-race altogether gives place to that which it formerly governed. These two possibilities are kept in view and present policy is framed with reference to them. Mount-stuart Elphinstone said of India "A time of separation must come and it is for our interest to have separation from civilized people rather than a violent rupture with a barbarous nation." Sir T. E. Colebroke enjoined that meanwhile " we must apply ourselves to bring the natives into a state that will admit of their governing themselves in a manner that may be beneficial to our interests." He also added " as well as their own and that of the rest of the world;" a qualification which means little, if anything, should the first aim be kept in view and acted upon. For if the subject interest be different from the ruling one the latter must be served according to the first part of this passage. If the former interest be the same as the latter there is no distinction at all. Cultural assimilation is thus a perfected form of conquest initiated by force of arms. Whilst it, in some degree, helps administration during the continuance of foreign rule; when that rule ends it considerably compensates for the loss of it by the amalgamation of material interests, aims and ideals which it effects. The cultural assimilation acts as a compensation for lost political control. Much the same results are attained by both. Whilst a foreign " administration exists the subject people may be directed by external control in a direction which subserves the former's interests. But when that administration ceases, such people may serve the same class of interests of its own accord, if it has; been first culturally assimilated with its former masters. The cultural conquest is so complete as to render political control (which in fact can be no longer kept) unnecessary for the furtherance of the former ruler's interests. Thus if the English were in a body to leave India to-morrow they would leave an uneffaceable, and in several respects good cultural influence upon it. But in order that that influence should be both lasting and complete, assimilation (according to the policy discussed) must be brought to that stage in which political control may safely be surrendered without danger to the interests of those who formerly had possession of it, as also of the general civilization of which theirs was a particular form.
The cultural and political aspects are different sides of the same question. Again looking at the matter from the Indian standpoint; whilst political Home-rule might be attained through adoption of the civilization of the foreign ruler, there would in such case no longer be a Home (in the Indian sense) to rule. Those who then ruled themselves would be an alias of their departed rulers; a people who in the language of Macaulay would be Englishmen in everything but colour. His well-known observation is a classic statement 76 of cultural assimilation. There are already a certain number of this type whom their more national countrymen call "Black Englishmen." If Indian culture has value and is worthy of preservation (a matter which those who inherited it must determine) it is obviously their duty to resist any such cultural assimilation as threatens it. As I have said before and here repeat, the question of political loyalty must not be confounded with the right to the possession of one's soul even if the complete possession of it may (as I think it will) have in the future a political effect.
The British Government has given some support to Indian culture in its encouragement of Sanskrit and otherwise. Such is the air of suspicion in this country that some of its well-meant endeavours in this direction have been charged with being a machiavellian plan to keep the country enslaved and in ignorance. Such is the value which these persons attach to their culture. To the Western orientalists (imperfect in understanding though they may sometimes be) this country is indebted. The State has adopted what it thought to be a policy of " neutrality" as regards Indian religion and has not consciously interfered with Indian law or custom except when the latter was deemed to be not consonant with humanity. The fact that English is the language of the ruling race has made its acquisition a practical necessity. For though there is no law compelling its acquirement, all by force of circumstances must learn it if they would not rest employed in humble services. The teaching of English and its literature has immensely forwarded English ideas to which there has been hitherto no sufficient counterpoise in the shape of the study of Indian literature. This can not however be subject of complaint against the State until a demand is made for it which is refused. In fact the Indian people (I mean the English educated section) have only in recent years commenced to value what is their own. Were this not so, it would not have been necessary in the case of some to place Indian culture under their nose and to say " Look, see; this is your own. It has value. Respect it." In one case (of which I am informed) there was Indian opposition in an Indian university to the appointment as lecturer on Indian philosophy of a mere native Pandit." It was apparently thought that even Indian philosophy requires an English education before it can be taught and understood. Even now-there are Indian professors of philosophy who have knowledge of European and American philosophical systems and know little or nothing of the Sangkhya and Nyaya or Vedanta. There are also persons who I believe take it more to heart if they are told that they do not speak good English, than if surprise is expressed at their not knowing their own language or knowing it properly. As regards Art it is only recently that the same section of the Indian people have taken any interest in its Indian form; and that largely through the initiative and aid of Europeans.
Education again is almost entirely in State hands and has hitherto been substantially of an English character. If attention has not been paid to Indian culture it is due primarily to the fact that the English educated sections of the community have not, as a rule, made any demand for it-Some of them are quite content with " Indian Etons" and the like. How can the State be expected to understand or to teach Indian culture ? "Why should it give that for which there is no demand? It gives that which it considers best namely its own ; and which if accepted will also, it thinks best, serve its particular interests and the general interests of its own form of civilization. The English moreover naturally suppose that that for which the Indian shows no appreciation is not worthy of it. It is for the latter if he values his culture to insist that it shall receive at least equal, if not preferential, treatment.
Again the presence of a powerful but alien civilization, naturally and without any State interference whatever, affects-every department of Indian life. The joint-family and caste system seem to be weakening. Whether and how long they will exist only the future will show. The village life as it was is ceasing to exist. With the crowding into towns English habits are acquired as also English modes of living. The old collectivist spirit has to some extent given way to individualism and so forth. Some of these changes were perhaps " inevitable " though I do not like the word. In the flood of change care must yet be taken that one is not swept off one's feet. Similar changes are of course at work in the West. M. Le Play in his books on the working men of Europe found in 1864—1878 the agricultural and family system to be almost everywhere undermined. And this is of course still more so in the present. Christian writers note with complacency the influence of the " Christian Spirit" in disintegrating Hinduism. But similar forces are at work in the west disintegrating Christianity.
Lastly the so called " neutrality " of the State as regards Indian religion has in fact worked against it. As the French Catholics long ago pointed out to their anti-clerical Government there can be no such thing as neutrality where religion is ignored. True neutrality is to recognise and support all religions impartially. Indian religion has in the past been mainly learnt, where it has been learnt at all, from the mother; herself as a rule lacking the education which is her right. As the schools and universities have hitherto ignored it, the youthful mind has followed its teacher's example. For the sake in part of cheapness, and also in part of efficiency, Indian boys are sent to missionary schools or schools conducted by Christians, from which some students have returned to their homes in the belief that their parents (if they themselves had any belief) were dark " heathens." In this way the Indian Dharma is being lost and often no other definite conception of life and its duties has been acquired in its stead. For formal Christianity (it is admitted) has not made headway amongst what are called the educated classes. Many of these have shown themselves ignorant of, and indifferent to, the principles and practices of their country's religion. If it be replied that these are not taught in the State schools, those who have any regard for their religion should either insist upon a change in this respect or start schools of their own. I am fully aware that there has come in recent times a change in Indian opinion as regards some of these matters but it has yet in general to be materialised; and I am now speaking of the past which has produced the present of which this book is a short review. Valuable work for instance is now being done by Sadhus in spreading a knowledge of one of the crest-gems of Indian literature the Gita; and the next generation may see (if the spirit which prompts this movement prevails) a wider appreciation of, and adherence to, the principles of the Vedanta and of its practical application in the various schools of Agama—the Tantra Shatras. There may also be an Indian form of Christianity. Thus on the whole the influences at work have not been, and under the circumstances probably could not have been, such as to encourage the propagation of Indian civilization. To some extent these Western influences have worked for good; in some cases they have had ill effects. One of the worst effects is the vulgarization of the refined Indian life as it existed in ancient times. I cannot think it good for India that it should altogether surrender its distinctive self. Others have co-operated in this work besides the State namely missionaries by spreading Christian and Western ideas; and lay writers and others who believe that the acceptance of Western principles of civilization will be for the good of this country as of their own. All these forces, whether official or private, will work, if not opposed, for the cultural assimilation of Indian to English civilization. It is obvious that, whilst in this the-English are carrying out their Dharma, India has a Dharma of her own to follow. For unless She admits that Her civilization is without value, and is ready to throw it on the scrap heap of things past and gone, She must uphold it. It is nothing to Her whether it be more politically advantageous to Her Western rulers that She should liken Herself to them or not. This is not Her's but their concern. As the Gita says, each to his own Dharma. "Better one's own Dharma than that of another however exalted."
What form the future may take we can not with certainty say. But of this I am convinced that if we each do our duty by our country and our forefathers and maintain what is best, and has not suffered corruption, in our respective cultural inheritances, the result of such rivalry cannot be other than good. Healthy rivalry is better than a cultural Olla Podrida. Nature Herself will effect the elimination of unnecessary differences. A good result is not likely to be attained if India wholly surrenders Her soul to foreign influences unless we assume (as I do not) that those influences are entirely good; and that Indian culture is so worthless that there is nothing to be done but to get rid of it as speedily as possible. It is because these principles have not been hitherto generally understood that predominance has been given to the political aspect of India's future to the neglect of her cultural interests. Political freedom is nothing for those who have lost their souls and that Spiritual Autonomy (Svarajyasiddhi the Shastra calls it) which is the greatest of possessions. It has been rightly said that the saying " For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world and lose himself or be cast away ?" applies not only to the individual but the Racial soul. This self-maintenance of Indian civilization is also for the world's good. Its further advance depends on the guarding of all its spiritual and cultural wealth, not by the neglect or abandonment of any of it. The Universe is the Body of the Lord and every fraction of it is as such sacred. In the light of this idea when once fully grasped it will be seen that whilst it. is the duty of each man and each people to uphold sincerely and with right motive their selves and interests, it is not their own good but that of the world which they thus, under the guidance of Ishvara, ultimately serve.
In the cultural attack a considerable part has been taken by English critics of this country's civilization. The most recent and comprehensive of these attacks is the book by Mr. William Archer which has suggested the title of my own. Others have expressed themselves adversely touching either Hindu religion, or philosophy, or art or so forth. But Mr. Archer includes them all in one widely sweeping review, leading to the conclusion that this country is not yet " civilized" but in the earlier state of " Barbarism." His reviewer in the " Times " expresses himself well pleased at these conclusions. He like Mr. Archer is indignant that a few Europeans "have achieved a cheap and very mischievous popularity amongst Indians" by assuring them that their "gods " (it is always thus with these people) and their culture "are far greater than ours" and "that there resides in the inner shrine of the Indian soul a transcendental spiritualism denied to the Western soul." He commends therefore the manner in which Mr. Archer " in very luminous chapters supported by unimpeachable authorities tears to pieces" these " myths;" passing " under review the teachings of Hindu Philosophy, the masterpieces of Hindu literature, and the various manifestations of Hindu art without finding anywhere any great moral or spiritual concept capable of uplifting a nation." Thus neither the Vedanta or Gita contains any such concept not to count the rest of Indian Shastra. Then referring to self-government, the National Congress, and social reform (without which this class of English criticism is nowadays incomplete) and describing Mr. Archer as a genuine and candid " Friend of India," it concludes with the enunciation of the now prevailing policy of cultural assimilation by saying " It is in the slow process of educating up India to our own ideals that the only path lies which can lead India to salvation." His book though not based on any real knowledge of the subject he discusses, being largely a restatement of criticisms passed by others before him, has yet peculiar interest for it reveals the motive which (though not in general expressed) underlies this and some other present-day writing of its kind. It is an example of the political aspect of the cultural attack to which I have referred in previous pages. What in effect Mr. Archer says is this:—A time must come when India will govern itself. Whether the country will govern itself independently or as a part of the British Empire he leaves to the future. The present condition however of India is barbarous and therefore not in conformity with Western and in particular English civilization. It will be harmful to the interests of the latter and the world-peace if India is given political autonomy at the present time. For as his first cited Reviewer says:— "Hindu society as it has been moulded by many centuries of religious tradition, philosophic thought, and unchanging custom is almost inconceivably far removed from those out of which the democratic institutions of our own country have sprung." Before therefore such autonomy can be safely conceded, India must assimilate Herself to Western civilization that is with (as he calls it) "the nations shaping the future;" upon which movement it seems India is a drag. The position then is this:— India must either surrender her distinctive culture or renounce, until She does so, any hope of the political autonomy She seeks. If She will not change Herself, then She must remain in a political subjection which will ensure that She does no harm to anyone-but Herself. Ruling and world interests will not then be endangered. If She elects-to change and bring herself into line with the rest of the world, this cultural assimilation will remove all dangers which would otherwise attend the political autonomy She seeks. It is because of these political aspects of his book that his reviewer in the " Times " give it a warm welcome and calls it " timely." As I have said before I am not here concerned with any question of practical-politics and express no opinion whether such politically autonomy should be given or refused, now or at any other time. I state simply the motives which prompt this attack (as also others which are made to-day) so that we may judge the value of this class of criticism which is neither disinterested nor endowed with knowledge. Criticism has true value only when given in detached service of the truth. Religion, philosophy, literature and art are subject to their own tests. It must of course be admitted that the cultural condition of a country is a test of its capacity to be left to look after itself. In this criticism, however, mere personal likes such as " rationalism " European literature and art; and dislikes such as Metaphysics and " Supernatural" religion; and political prepossessions (such as English " liberalism") either take the place of, or outweigh, any solid criticism based on an understanding reasoned and detached examination, according both to their own and alien standards, of the leading features of Indian culture whether existing in the past or to-day. Mr. Archer is of course not peculiar in having prepossessions. They affect other such critics. Impartial judgment is rare. For this one must, as Carlyle said, have the capacity of placing oneself into the skin of other people so that we may think and feel as they do. To do this one must sacrifice at least for the time being all Egoism or Ahangkara. This I may observe is apart from the valuable critical result obtained a useful spiritual exercise. |
