James Ferronato 2/14/11

Anthro 80 take home midterm question

1. India, like any modern nation, has universal aspects that every person in the world

can identify with. Anyone, anywhere could immerse themselves in a foreign land, alien in

every way and still find things with a familiar counterpart in their own culture. What makes

Octavio Paz's work so enlightening is the way he approaches and brings to light these

similarities. Him being Mexican and ambassador to India, one can safely say his world-view is

considerably different than the average American. This affords him a unique position in even

attempting to analyze such a complex and heterogeneous society. As a product of the

western academia but descendant of the vanished Mesoamerican civilization he is caught

between two pasts. The past of the Europeans whose onslaught transformed the

longstanding Mesoamerican way of life which is only now beginning to be reconstructed and

understood through anthropological methods. This emerging knowledge of Aztec, Mixtec,

Maya, and Olmec reveal an ancient civilization upon which he can extrapolate his

experiences with an equally if not more antiquated society during his time as ambassador.

It is through his poetry that Paz was most eloquent in his analysis of what

characterizes Indian society and what makes it uniquely its own amongst the world’s

communities. He is after all a poet and it would make sense for him to compare the classics of

Sanskrit poetry with those classics of western antiquity or those of ancient China or Japan.

His most detailed and passionate accounts describe the various play on words or ambiguities

as they reminisce of Taoist poems. Great elation courses through the narrative when he

describes the subtle but sexually charged lines of eroticism that permeate through the

stanzas and how they stand against the works of renaissance Europe or elsewhere. It makes

the point plain to see; Octavio Paz has both a profound admiration of and critique for India’s

poetry, thanks to his vast background its the west’s own extensive tradition.
 However some of his points seem rather erroneous, such as his statement saying

Indian philosophy never developed critical thinking. The very foundation of critical thinking

merely requires the existence of an opposing viewpoint, of which there are a multitude

between the Hindu schools of thought and even more when you account for Buddhist

schools. Every one of these traditions contribute to the overall wealth of Indian philosophical

knowledge which has evolved with increasing complexity from both internal mechanisms and

outside influences from Muslims, British, etc. To say that a system of philosophy developed

over thousands of years does not utilize a universal human trait like critical thinking is rather

hasty. Just because it doesn’t exhibit the same polarities like Socratic versus Platonic or

Gnostic versus the Neo-Platonist schools of western thought does not mean it was entirely

devoid of critical or logic based thinking. If anything the gradient provided perspectives from a

multitudinous amount of various sects, which implies an incredible amount of

comprehensiveness to the overall breadth of possible Indian philosophical interpretations.

Overall it was a view from a poet, not an anthropologist as evident by his focus on

certain aspects. Comparing the relationship between poetry and philosophy as it exists in the

western world is not the same as a comparison with the same institutions in India or other

eastern nations. The goal of Indian poetry is not the same as it is in Europe or China or

anywhere else. As such, it is plain to see no direct comparison can be made between art from

artists of different world views. It is an effective barrier against artistic development, like any

other basic tenant in the human universe such as time and space. These things exist in vastly

different forms within Hindu schools of thought and this fundamental aspect must be taken

into account when attempting to understanding something which requires one to step out of

his or her own shoes.

2A. Prior to the onset of mass European colonialism, many societies were in a state of
perpetual conflict with the various kingdoms and territories that comprised the extent of their

political sphere. The area we commonly refer to as India had already experienced a series of

conquerors and outside influences in its thousands of years of human occupation. When the

British came in to find the weakening Mughal Empire, the subcontinent already contained a

network of centralized control that was organized during that dynasty’s reign. That period of

Muslim rule, stemming from the Timurid Dynasty in central Asia helped established networks

of administration and control throughout the kingdoms that came under their patronage.

During this time, religious tolerance between Hindus and Muslims was remarkably

widespread; strange considering most monotheistic conquest involves some sort of attempt at

religious conversion. Because of this, Islam got off on a very good foot within the Indian

subcontinent largely thanks to influence from the Sufis. This mystical sect of Islam was largely

tolerant of other ideas and during this time it had much more power unlike the modern

theocracies of the contemporary Islamic world. States like Iran are considering an outright

ban on Sufism and have already arrested members or even destroyed churches¹.

British control, which first started as a trade tactic by the East India Trading Company

to overtake the current rulers of seafaring capitalism in the far east, the Dutch East India

Company; eventually evolved into total economic as well political control of the area

comprising modern India and Pakistan. Eventually the crown itself took direct control and

India remained part of the British Empire until 1947 assuming all the benefits and hazards that

went along with it. With the introduction of industrialization came pollution and a perpetual

urban migration as people flocked to the cities in order to find more lucrative opportunities in

their rapidly modernizing world. Railroads brought these growing metropolises closer together

along with new inventions like the telegraph, then the telephone, then eventually television

and the Internet. English itself became widespread, performing the role of mediator language

between the various different dialects within India.

 The networks of various governing bodies and the judicial system put in place would

ultimately form the backbone for an independent national Indian government. As they gained

independence, many of these institutions that were introduced by the British remained in

place. Gandhi himself is a product of an English education and upon his official posting as

clerk of the law, he learned first hand what things were like in the far reaches of her Majesty’s

empire. Him being a Hindu who spent much time within the hospitality of London, he was

unprepared for the type of discrimination and subjugation that went on in South Africa towards

not just Africans but all people of color. He recognized the injustice that was being done and

using his knowledge of English law, he became a strong figure in the movement for change in

South Africa. This garnered him quite a reputation around the English speaking world and

doubly so in his home of India, where he would make his most significant impact against the

stigma of foreign rule.

Upon return, he began to know India with a new light. He had spent much time away

and his experience in the western world, though beneficial in its technical aspects, left him

with little knowledge of his home and its people. As he began to experience his country in

many ways, for the first time, he became sympathetic and ultimately driven towards the

abolition of all injustice affecting his countrymen within the realm of British rule. His dress

began to resemble that of the common people, no longer attempting to emulate the latest

fashion in England and without compromising his respect amongst those in power. This

eventually solidified his connection with the vast Indian majority, making him a symbol for all

those who have been down-trodden and junk-piled throughout the years.

Though he was outspoken in his love for all religions, his followers became divided

amongst themselves; divided along the age old lines of traditional Hindu thought and rigid

Islamic monotheism. This conflict would be the ultimate failure in his dream of a united
independent India. As the British withdrew their hold, the Muslims moved northwest and

formed Pakistan, while the Hindu majority formed the modern nation of India. Had his live not

been cut short by those fanatics who think the “purity” of Hinduism is above the life of a great

man, he may have gone on to win the hearts of those in Pakistan, uniting India.

Today he is remembered as Mahatma by almost every nation on Earth. In films he is

portrayed as a both historical figure who changed the course of a nation and a folk hero, a

spiritually enlightened saint whose teachings will apply not only in today’s world, but for many

future generations. The film “Gandhi” is an example of the former, a biographical film in a very

western style that portrays his teachings through a literal retelling of his life. “Lageraho

Munnabhai” is a Bollywood film in the classic sense and teaches the ways of Gandhi though a

modern tale set in contemporary India. Unlike the realistic biopic, this film shows him as both

a once living man in the past but also as an eternal force for truth that exists within everyone if

they are only willing to look. It is this Idea of Gandhi that will ultimately persist beyond his era,

even when the nations he has influenced are transformed or simply vanished in time.

1 - United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (May 2009). "Annual

Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: Iran".

USG. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/AR2009/iran.pdf. Retrieved 25 December 2010.

3. Hinduism as a large conglomeration of many, many different beliefs and ideas is

hard to pin down as a single dogmatic religion. Hinduism itself is a pluralistic religion with

enough denominations and unique rituals within its established base of adherents to rival the

multitude protestant groups in the U.S. and abroad. The difference of course being these

rituals and practices have been developed over a vastly longer period of time in India; where

as the numerous evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal groups only sprung up within

the last 200 years of this young nation’s lifespan. Thus the plethora varying practices are
much more developed within the Hindu world, which is compounded by the immense

population density. This is why once distinct groups like those practicing Sikhism and Jainism

have become accepted into the larger Hindu identity yet Islam, because of its history, remains

largely antagonized in the eyes of many.

The general trend over the last few decades has been that of both decreasing religious

adherence and in turn, increasing religious fundamentalism or even fanaticism. This is

apparent not only in the middle east with the rise of extremist Islam, but here in the U.S. as

well with characters like Jerry Falwell in the late seventies with his moral majority. Increasing

literacy, educational opportunities and a rising middle class has left many traditional

institutions with a dwindling supply of moderate practitioners. Religion was outright banned in

many nations of the communist era. Prejudice is once again making itself known with the

average Muslim being labelled a terrorist or Buddhist minorities being oppressed in Indonesia,

China and elsewhere.

Hindutva is a term coined by Vinayak Damod Savarkar in 1923 and used to describe

Hinduism not as a religion, but as a national identity for the citizens of India. The partition of

Pakistan and eventually Bangladesh would only serve to intensify this nationalism following

the years after Gandhi's death. Beginning the late seventies, the Hindutva political movement

gained momentum when many average Hindus flocked to the cause in response to the

muslims were outraged over the Shah Bano Case. Again in dispute over a centuries old

mosque built by the first emperor of the Mughals in 1526 on the supposed birthplace of Lord

Rama. Eventually the mosque was demolished in 1992 further deepening the rift between

Hindu and Muslim communities.

These territorial disputes, over land that has been occupied several times, by

numerous different people throughout human history only serve to increase the lack of
understanding and cooperation between groups. The idea that one person must worship a

physical space, while at the same time barring those who wish to do the same is

inconceivable. If anything, the rise of a Hindu national identity is counter to the very fabric and

foundation of Hinduism itself. The world's oldest organized religion, which at one time valued

heterogeneity in one's perspective and understanding that all living things form an inextricable

bond with one another is succumbing to blindness characteristic of the modern world.