Letter to Amish Tripathi with regard to article in ToI

April 2015: Added prefix
June 2015: Added post-script

Also see this.

History sediments in layers, each epoch filtering the past to suit its own purposes and politics, reifying the hierarchy under the banner of received truths and common sense. How does one, then, access the multiplicity of the past, and write about the people and ideas that have been ignored and maligned in the quest for a coherent orthodoxy? The danger with hybridity as a cultural and historical metaphor is that it can imply unmediated co-mingliing, the fluid exchange of texts and things without significant barriers. Invoking concepts such as hybrid history and syncretism can reinforce broders: to assert that Akbar, for instance, facilitated conversations between Sanskrit and Persian traditions is to assume that such monoliths existed all along. To assume the existence of a tradition, rather than several competing and contradictory ones, is to effectively construct one.

~ Crossing Paths, Histories that challenge the reductionist popular understanding of Islam in India; Nandini Ramchandran, The Caravan, Volume 09, Issue 2, February 2017.

There are reasons to notice and respond to an article (reproduced below) of this nature depending on one's individual sensitivities.

There is the case of moral sensitivity which is not strictly applicable to this article except on one count: it is very much probable, even for those who are not well-versed with history (like I am) that the term "vedic" will have had its origin among a certain segment of the population and that it is not necessarily a term acceptable to all sections, groups and communities. When an attempt is made to encompass everyone under this rubric (without their explicit consent) it amounts to touching a moral chord somewhere. There can be a strictly scholarly definition of the term 'vedic' as opposed to its popular version. However, nowhere in the article is it alluded to which is the sense in which the term is to be used. Since it is an article by a popular author in a popular newspaper encompassing a broad audience, one would have to assume that the term 'vedic' is being used in its popular sense.

There is the case of sensitivity to 'scientific scrutiny of transmitted knowledge'. Any system of transmission (natural or man-made) is open to changes on the following counts: amplification, diminution, filtration and finally, distortion. With written text and oral word the likelihood of corruption from the original increases much more. Even if we grant that there are impeccable methods of memorization developed (such as the fact it is possible to ascertain whether a certain vedic text is authentic or not by some specific mathematical formulae) it still begs a question: from when did transmission in this impeccable and incorruptible format start? Is there any guarnatee that there were no changes of empahsis, replacements of portions, favouring of one text over the other in construction of historical narratives? The only way to answer this question is through triangulation with other available sources including archaeology, interpretation of literary sources, &c.

Related to the sensitivity to the 'scientific approach' is the sensitivity to the fact that the sources of one's statements and one's own hidden assumptions should be completely quoted, especially in a public article of this nature.

And finally is the sensitivity to humility that takes into account others pursuits of the same or similar topic including the derided British and Germans. It is impossible to believe, prima-facie, that the intentions of all British and German and other 'foreign' individuals looking into the historical narrative of ancient India were completely biased by colonial prejudices. Indeed, we find specific instances of sufficient compassion and sympathy in writings of these same 'foreigners' than that of those who have appropriated upon themselves the task of reviving the selective aspects of our undoubtedly rich cultural heritage.

Further, it behooves one not to mention the work of modern Indian historians, of both the left and the right hues---scholars who put in intense effort to create a certain scientific temper of studying our own history. One is reminded of D D Kosambi, R S Sharma, Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar among the more popular and quoted ones (all supposedly left-leaning). It is important to take account of these and other individual scholarly authorities because it is unlikely that they would be in agreement with the views expressed in the article.

A culmination of not paying heed to this 'scientific temper' is a certain rashness in generalizations and an eagerness to state a conclusion that is not built on 'rational arguments', the claims in the article notwithstanding. Indeed, one gets the feeling that the conclusion was decided upon and the paragraphs were about creating a mood to draw the reader into the conclusion all the while using the appeal to reason. There is nothing wrong about it, but then there is no need to appeal to reason.

Finally, reading history from myths and scriptures is a dangerous preoccupation. It is far better to read myths and scriptures from a historical perspective. For we should be very careful to differentiate between that which is historical from that which is poetic, beautiful, spiritual and elevating. The latter is very much nourishing and invigorating but without the acute mindfulness of the former can crystallize into the kind of madness that has fuelled all (or most) of the great wars of the past, or at least served as the public moral excuse for them. The most recent being the "War on Terror".

Of course, all of the above is worth considering under one assumption: that the article was intended at a broad audience comprised of laymen who do not necessarily hold similar opinions as well as scholars of history, religion and philosophy. If it was not, then it was preaching to the converted. Then both this preface and the response to the article are not worth the effort.

The original article is reproduced first followed by the this author's response. The author's email has been corrected for visible typos.

Sep 21 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)
THE MODERN INDIAN - Vedic learning is no one's preserve, everyone's pride AMISH

It's wise to resist the temptation to only read articles that align with our worldview. Opening our minds to all shades of opinion can be enlightening. We might otherwise find ourselves inhabiting `echo-chambers', which leads to even simple things becoming political and divisive, in an interesting play-out of Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle.

One such discourse that has got heavily politicized, making rational discussion impossible, is the study of Vedic knowledge: Vedic science, mathematics, liberal philosophies, literature, politics, economics, ethics, etc.Interestingly, foreign universities have full-fledged departments dedicated to these subjects; but most of them encapsulate a superficial understanding. Departments in Indian universities on these subjects are woefully understaffed and under-resourced.

One reads articles and hears dire warnings about the dangers of studying Vedic subjects. Some fear that this will lead to `saffronization'. Someone recently claimed that this right-wing pride building project of Vedic studies will lead to extremism and hatred; and remember, pride comes before a fall.

Reducing Vedic studies to a purely `right-wing project' is an affront to the wealth of wisdom from our past. Our Vedic heritage is not the preserve of only `right-wing Hindus', it belongs to every person in the Indian subcontinent. Genetic studies have shown that most people within the subcontinent carry combinations of the AncestralNorth-Indian (ANI) and the AncestralSouth-Indian (ASI) genetic groups.These groups have inhabited the subcontinent for at least 6,000 years, if not more, heavily intermingling in the ancient past. Contrary to popular belief in the `racial distinctness' of North Indians and South Indians, practically all North Indians have some proportion of ASI, and South Indians some proportion of ANI, in their gene pool. That means almost all groups in the subcontinent today have descended from the ancient Vedic people. This holds true across religions, languages, castes and even national boundaries. It would be wrong for anyone to claim exclusive rights over Vedic knowledge; it is the subcontinent's heritage. Studying it is not a `right-wing' project. It concerns us all.

Let's talk about this issue of `pride'. It is contended that the study of Vedic life will generate pride within us, and that this is inappropriate, even dangerous. We should instead focus on the future. Indeed obsessing about our past and ignoring our future is immature. However, should we swing to the other extreme and ignore our past completely? Is pride such an all encompassing negative emotion?

Yes, pride does come before a fall. But one cannot fall if one hasn't risen to begin with and is weighed down by timidity. There are stages in the acquisition of pride. It begins with confidence and self-respect which help you succeed. Over time, this may transform into pride and regrettably , even arrogance; that's when you fall. All great leaders and nations have understood the role of self-respect in achieving success. They built myths about themselves and their past. Many a time, these myths were not based on known facts. However, as long as the people believed in them, society moved forward, powered by confidence. The Anglo-Saxons of the US and Great Britain appropriated many of the Greek myths, even though they were a different ethnic group; they differed culturally as well since the ancient Greeks weren't Christian.

The Aryan invasion theory (now believed by many to be a work of fiction) was proposed by the Germans and British with similar aims. The Germans wanted to appropriate a great past by holding that their ancestors created the Vedic way of life. Remember, they couldn't claim the Roman way of life since history has recorded that Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire. The Aryan myth was convenient for the British as well, since they could convince the Indians living under their yoke that what they thought was their greatest achievement, the Vedic way , was actually not their own but the gift of invading `white men'. Destroyed pride made for compliant slavery.

Pride is good. All great nations understood this. Moreover, we do not even have to resort to fiction to instil pride in ourselves. The Vedic people were our ancestors. We should have justifiable pride in their achievements and learn from them. As for the risk of arrogance, which may follow pride, those pitfalls can be avoided with help from our rich treasuretrove of archetypes. Concepts like integral unity and oneness teach us that it is in our own interest to guard against hatred for the other and the arrogance it leads to. But for now, it is important to build our pride; for it is the fuel that will help us build our nation.

Let's study the works of our Vedic ancestors. Let us harness our past, look to the future with confidence and create, once again, a great, genuinely liberal, wealthy and just society.

From: Kushagra
Date: Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Subject: [amish.tripathi@gmail.com: Re: [iimc_at_mumbai] A perspective by AMISH - from TOI]
To: amish.tripathi@gmail.com

Dear Amish,

The broader point on the rational (rather objective) pursuit of the study of the history of one's culture is well-taken. In a sense it is a necessity. This necessity should not spring from a) reasons of patriotism, b) reasons of deriving a sense of pride, whether justified or unjustified and c) from varying degree of nostalgia. Rather, the necessity should spring from a) a need to critically de-construct, re-assemble and reflect on the past to sensitize ourselves in the present as to what to see as true and untrue, what to do and what not to do and b) to understand what is un-changing in human nature.

Whether this is the temper adopted in the pursuit of one's history (by outsiders or insiders) is open to debate. A more basic question is also open to debate: what should be one's temper before aproaching such studies?

However, this is not the reason for this email. The reason is that I found a particular sentence in the article where I thought greater clarity was needed. It was mentioned to the effect that all groups in India are descended from Vedic people. Since the article is not specific on this point, there can be two immediate interpretations of this: a) that a measurable section of current Indian population has some genetic strand linked to the "vedic" group along-side other cultural groups that existed and continue to exist in India, b) that the "vedic" strand is a dominant strand.

If the interpretation is (a) then the case for the necessity of studying "vedic" culture in particular is actually weak. It may be helpful to study vedic culture as it may be helpful to study Newton's law of gravitation depending on which part of the country you are from and whether or not you really identify yourself closely with the vedic culture or lineage (or indeed any specific lineage at all). If the interpretation is (b) then it has a whole different connotation where in there is an assumption that the sub-continent is of a "vedic" character. A connotation that is easy to convert to first a strong sense of nostalgia, followed by pride, followed by nationalism and finally concretised into a sense of identity which is amenable to political manipulation.

Of course, there are a range of intepretations possible in between. But the reason these two interpretations spring to mind is that there are, to begin with, several historical narratives on what constitutes the development of the culture of the sub-continent. What groups came, from where, what part they played, what they added and what they deleted, why certain groups got historical prominence and equally importantly, why some groups got contemporary (read post-colonial) prominence. There are narratives which will state that the vedic cultural element is a recent influence, discernible as an independent element for quite some time after its arrival and how the submergence and intermingling with the other elements happened over a period of time. Similar arguments are applicable to the term Hinduism and similar terms that today most of us assume to have always existed.

Before a debate on whether or not one should shy away from studying Vedic culture, the question of what is the definition and meaning of the term vedic in an objective way is needed. Once this is resolved the question of what temper to bring to the study of it would stand-up. Only after one is able to intellectually come to grips with these can a definitive suggestion on its real and fruitful applicability comes to the fore. I have said intellectually, but there is also an emotional component involved as when one unearthes the difference between what was and what is perceived about "what was". One such emotional endeavour would be to go through Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's "Annihilation of Caste".

Thus, given a multitude of narratives, the only "objective" approach is for each individual to be sensitized to each of them and then is left to him or her to cull out what seems most real and true from each. But unless each of us is exposed to and equipped to deal with all such narratives of importance, insistence on a particular reason, temper and approach to studying one's culture is fraught with all the dangers that accompany those of partial knowledge. And these dangers are of importance in the milieu that has evolved from the late 19th and early 20th century onwards among the educated classes in India.

Best,
Kushagra

P.S.: While the above response may be construed as a polemical lament, one can appeal to the rational and objective temper of an authority like R.S. Sharma. A glimpse of his views can be had here.

P.P.S.: There is a sentence which caught my singular attention and indeed prompted the writing of the email to Amish. The sentence was "Contrary to popular belief in the 'racial distinctness' of North Indians and South Indians, practically all North Indians have some proportion of ASI, and South Indians have some proportion of ANI, in their gene pool. That means, almost all groups in the subcontinent today have descended from the ancient Vedic people." The response scribbled in the email largely followed from there. However, since the response was an impromptu one there was no elaboration on that singular sentence. The paragraphs below try to de-construct and understand the implications of the sentence further.

For the moment, let us drop any assumptions or knowledge about history or the study of ethnicity. Let us examine the argument on purely logical grounds and see if there are any infirmities. The more perceptive reader will rightly raise an objection saying that the kind of examination we are about to conduct can be conducted on any argument and may render any argument specious. One really needs to look at the meaning. Agreed. Such kind of examination is not a tool to demean an argument. It is a tool to be selectively applied to only those arguments that really seem to serve as "points of departure" in the overall narrative. Since, the above argument seems to qualify as such, it is worthwhile to apply to it both the test of facts and test of logic.

So to the test of logic: the argument partitions Indians into North and South dominantly. One presumes Eastern India gets neatly partitioned between North and South and likewise Western India. That is, there are no distinct categories needed for East Indians and West Indians. Either they are not relevant to the argument or the categories of "North" and "South" are exhaustive. When you take any universe and divide it into two parts, and if those two parts have an overlap, it makes it easy to fall into the fallacy that both are derived from a common sub-stratum. We have all had occassion to study Venn Diagrams. Just because two circles overlap, does it mean the parts that do not overlap are not likely to overlap with other cicles in other universes which we may not be able to see? By doing a "North" and "South" divide, the argument opens itself up to falling into the trap of the "hidden circles". Just because we see two, we really do not know how many circles there could be. In the context of this article, we can call it the "fallacy of the Vedic Culture". Because North and South gene pools (assuming no East and West) have something in common, isn't it but obvious that they all came from a common vedic peoples at least 6,000 years back?

To resolve this "hidden circle fallacy", or more significantly, the "Vedic Peoples Fallacy", we need to apply the test of facts. Since most of us are ignorant about history and genetics first-hand, we need to rely on words of authorities who have applied their energies to it for a substantial portion of their lives in a largely scientific and objective manner.

Since I am familiar with R.S. Sharma I will lean on him. To wit, "India is a land of numerous languages. According to Grierson, the editor and compiler of The Linguistic Survey of India, nearly 180 languages and about 550 dialects are spoken by Indians. These languages belong to four important groups: the Austro-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman, Dravidian, and Indo-Aryan. The Austro-Asiatic languages in India seem to be the earliest and are generally known because of Munda speech. The speakers of this language are found as far east as Australia and as far west as Madagascar near the eastern coast of Africa. ... In the Indian subcontinent, each of the four language groups is attributed to each of the four ethnic groups into which people of India are divided. These four groups are Negrito, Australoid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. ... It is difficult to demarcate one racial group from another, for their physical features keep changing due to climatic conditions. It is interesting that brahmans and chamars share the same physical features in some areas, and both of them speak the same language. ... More importantly, commingling of various peoples leads to intermixture of languages. Thus, neither do the people concerned retain their original features nor does the language retain its original character. It is, therefore, not easy to assign a particular language to any one ethnic group." ["The Linguistic Background", India's Ancient Past, R.S. Sharma, Oxford].

So far, the excerpts above would seem to support part of the original argument we are concerned with. Namely, that it is possible for genes to mix and it is a possibility that there is commonality between different groups. However, given these excerpts are by a scholar they are suitably nuanced: they do not lead us to conclude there are 'two' groups: North and South. They suggest at least four distinct groups demarcated by language and ethnicity rather than geography. Still, can we conclude that all of these four groups descended from a common vedic peoples? Let us see further [from the same chapter]:

"Although India has four groups of languages, their speakers do not form isolated units. In the past an on-going interaction went on between the various linguistic groups. Consequently, words from one language group appear in another language group. The process began in Vedic times. Large numbers of Munda and Dravidian words are to be found in the Rig Veda. However, eventually the Indo-Aryan language superseeded many tribal languages because of the socio-economic dominance of its speakers. Though the Indo-Aryan ruling groups used their own language, they could not exploit tribal resources and manpower without using the tribal dialects. This led to mutual borrowing of words."

This paragraph is important because it uses the word "Vedic" in a very different and definite sense and clearly separtes it from the term "Dravidian". If the ToI article uses "Vedic" in this very sense then obviously it contradicts what the excerpts above bring out. Further, the above chapter from which the excerpts are drawn has a chronology at the end which lists the order in which the various languages and ethnic groups emerged and developed in India, with the Indo-Aryan (with whom the term "Vedic" culture is closely associated) coming at the tail end. Thus, all in all, we see a distinction between that which is Vedic and that which existed before what was Vedic and continued to exist apart from what was Vedic.

Then why is the article using the term "Vedic people" as the over-arching term? Clearly, based on the above few excerpts, it is very difficult to conclude that there indeed was a common fount from which all of us sprang genetically in India. If we assume that different groups came from different parts, there is still a possibility that the different groups that came at different points in time would have something in common if they had come from neighbouring areas or from populations that at some stage had certain genetic overlaps. If we extend this argument forward, ultimately all of us sprang from Africa. Or if you are religious, from Adam and Eve. If you are Brahman versed in Vedas, then from different parts of the God's body. So I guess, at a very generic level, all of us are genetically one and the same. But such arguments are specious when applied to a specific time and place which is what the article tries to do.

Thus, we are forced to ask: why would the author insist on a broad sweeping term 'Vedic' apart from reasons of convenience and simplification? But given the nature of the article convenience and simplification cannot be an excuse: we all know the political sensitivity around the term 'Vedic' and the author too acknowledges it. So we are left to conclude that the author is using the term 'Vedic' beyond reasons of 'Convenience' and 'Simplicity'. So the next question we can ask is: why does his usage of 'Vedic' not align with the historically understood usage of the term 'Vedic' in scholarly circles? Why the confusion?

This time lets lean on Ambedkar when he was remarkably young but already a incisive intellect in making. He gave a lecture on 9th May, 1916 at the Anthropology Seminar of Dr. A.A. Goldenweizer at The Columbia University, New York [full lecture is accessible here. It was based on his seminal thesis "Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development" and was also titled as such. It is to be noted that this was a lecture to a group of people from the discipline of ethonology.]

The overall lecture is worth a read. For our purpose we will focus only on the excerpt: "According to well-known ethnologists, the population of India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians. All these stocks of peole came into India from various directions and with various cultures, centuries ago, when they were in the tribal state. They all in turn elbowed their entry into the country by fighting with their predecessors, and after a stomachful of it settled down as peaceful neighbours. Through constant contact and mutual intercourse they evolved into a common culture that superseeded their distinctive cultures. It may be granted that there has not been a thorough amalgamation of the various stocks that make up the peoples of India, and to a traveller from within the boundaries of India the East presents a marked contrast in physique and even in colour to the West, as does the South to the North. But amalgamation can never be the sole criterion of homogeneity as predicated of any people. Ethnically all people are heterogenous. It is the unity of culture that is the basis of homogeneity. Taking this for granted, I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian Peninsula with respect to the unity of its culture."

Thus, "commonality" between peoples may not necessarily need the underlying assumption or argument of "commonality" of ethnic stock or a great ancient people. The observable "commonality" in Indian context can be explained quite easily with the conception of "culture". A Gujarati born and raised in Chennai will be hard to discern as a Gujarati at first glance for the non-perceptive eye. Further, does this "commonality" need the label of "vedic"? All rational arguments would suggest no. If no, then why the insistence on a) calling the commonality vedic, b) attributing to it a specific period and peoples and c) the insistence on its almost singular importance.

In summary, an argument that tries to instill pride through developing a close sense of remembrance, affinity, association, and identification with a given point in space and time will invite logical and factual difficulties to justify its truth and relevance. This is because, in India, the process of amalgamation has effaced the distinctions of space and time. It is difficult to say with conviction that a given man today can locate himself with assurance at a given point in space and time. Further, sticking to this argument also prompts a question: are we talking about a "Before Vedic" and "After Vedic" demarcation? If yes, what about those who fall in "After Vedic"? What is sure, known and evident is the process of amalgamation that has continued, is continuing and will continue to happen. It surely also touched those who purpotedly fall in the 'AV' period. Would they fall outside or inside the purview of the 'vedic peoples'? If not, where should they locate themselves having been situated in India today for over a millenia? That is, the argument, if it insists on going forward with the classification will be forced to confront the question of exclusion.

If the argument still insists on a 'Vedic' notion (inspite of the difficulties associated) it will then have to confront the very hard factual aspects of: is there a uniform, homogenous thing spanning over a large contiguous mass of geography called 'Vedic' peoples (and culture)? To this scholarly history stands as a strong bulwark. How will this argument cross this bulwark? It will tire itself out and others in the process. If only, those who propose the argument would accept the unshakeable fact of mingling, amalgamation as an infinite process and work out all the implications of it.

Finally, inspite of all this, those who still insist that all the above stands on weak grounds, will at least have to answer: was there a golden 'Vedic' period? If yes, what legacy did it leave behind? Didn't it leave behind the prominent legacy of the caste system with all its attendant evils? Indeed, can any period in history be termed golden which leaves behind a stinking waste of class, caste, race and other divisions? Indeed, if those who are seeking a permanent continuity in our nation and a frame of reference to hang their pride on, would do well to remember that the only physical, surviving, constant, in-your-face-but-so-subtly-that-you-will-not-know-it, and historical frame of reference in India is caste. Will they so choose to harken back to that past and hang their pride on it? If that is a displeasing proposition for those looking to hang their hats on, then the more milder and factual alternative is to just hang the hat on the nail of "amalgamation" and see its dynamics being played out even today.

Or are we to apply the term 'golden' selectively to only the artistic, philosophical and other intellectual attainments? If yes, then it takes a lot of shine off the term 'golden'. A iron coated with gold is different from a bar of 24-carat gold. Those who claim 'golden' ignoring the negative fall-outs are then only talking in terms of the former. Once you see the rust below the gold, all fascination with the 'gold' vanishes very soon.

Does this rule out the fact that some remarkable discovery in archaeology or genetics throws up a suprise and proves the argument of an 'ancient vedic people' as the right one? The chance always exists. But as of date one can say, the evidence points in a different direction. The more fundamental question is: if this is the case, except the historian and the scholar, why should a layman be bothered whether there were many cultures that intermingled or one singular culture coming from one singular population that he or she belongs to? If we lay out the acid test of the Buddha and ask ourselves: For the layman is it going to add to his happiness or to the happiness of others? The answer, after careful reflection, is a no. Then the response, as the Buddha would recommend, would be dis-enchantment, dis-passion and cessation with respect to the fascination, the attention, the obsession of the mind with "Where do I come from, where do I belong". A man relates with pride to his native village which is immediate and felt. Why try inculcate pride with what is doubtful, distant and possibly can (or indeed has) caused un-told harm in distant and recent past? A sceptical dis-enchantment with the obsession to find that 'vedic' in our day to day lives may promote overall welfare of all.

So to that end: let us ask ourselves, if and how our history can help us promote that sceptical dis-enchantment with respect to history itself. The answer, if there is one, will be liberating.