BOOKS AND AUTHORS

Dr. D. ANJANEYULU

“Oh, East is East, West is West

And never the twain shall meet …..”

These are the familiar, even hackneyed, lines of Rudyard Kipling that come in handy, for quotation by those trying to underline the irreconcilable dichotomy of two entities of popular imagination. From these, we get the unfailing impression that Kipling was an unrepentent jingoist of the British Empire and the White-man’s Burden. Particularly when we remember that the West was identified with Europe in general and Britain in particular and East with Asia in general and India in particular.

Not many, even today, seem to realise that the Anglo-Indian poet, never quite at home with the English establishment in India, followed up these two lines with

“But there is neither East nor West,

Border nor Breed nor birth

When two strong men stand face to face

Though they come from the ends of the earth!”

These lines seem to have made little or no difference to his reputation as a spokesman of the ruling class, of the apostles of racial superiority and the rest.

There were, however, other poets and thinkers of England and Europe, who had helped to underline the East-West dichotomy by romanticising (consciously or unconsciously) the image of the former at the expense of the latter. It was Matthew Arnold as subtle and sensitive an observer of the cultural scene as any other, who wrote in (Obermann Once More):

“The East bowed low before the blast,

In patient, deep disdain,

She let the legions thunder past

And plunged in thought again.”

From which we get the vague but dominant notion that the East always immersed in thought (that passeth understanding, presumably) and could not care less for military campaigns, worldly conquests, and all the other achievements in time and space, for its sights are set on targets above these categories and goals beyond these limits.

Prof. Max Mueller, a close contemporary of Arnold, went farther ahead along these lines in discovering the hidden treasures of the East and in “pointing to India” as a possible source of salvation for the rest of the world. The fact that he never choose to set foot on India (despite countless opportunities opening out for a man of his standing) nor tried to check the contemporary reality of Benares with Varanasi, the eternal city of his scholarly imagination, was a measure of his anxiety not to disturb the romantic image of his waking dreams. It was, no doubt, done with the best of intentions–with integrity and earnestness and all the erudition at his command.

The end-result, or at least a by-product, of all this has been only a reinforcement of the familiar dichotomy between the East and the West, so called, and an accentuation of their irreconcilability. Through the magnifying and mystifying mirrors of half-knowledge in the shape of traveller’s tales, preacher’s sermons and philosopher’s discourses over the years, we have arrived at an antithetical pair of glaring stereotypes–the spiritual East and the materialist West; the metaphysical East and the scientific West; the philosophical East and the commercial West; the agricultural East and the industrial West; and, of course, how can we possibly forget the crowning piece–the Eternal East and the changing West!

How far is this line of thinking or unthinking borne out by recorded history as well as by contemporary reality? How many of the educated Indians (out of the thousands leaving their country’s shores every year) go out to America or Europe or wherever it might be, as disseminators of “Wisdom” or seekers of knowledge. And how many of them, eager to make a fast buck, go where it is greener, while the going is good? Even the Five-star Gurus and the flying Swamis have their eyes set on the main chance. How many of the affluent youths from the U. S. and Europe, come down to India in quest of the Truth, have not gone back disillusioned, sadder, if not wiser? But the inflow of university scholars continues uninterrupted and their academic axes, continue to grind more sharply than ever before.

That apart, how many of the thinking Indians, with some knowledge of history and powers of rational self-analysis, have cared to probe these plausible stereo-types, serviceable though worn-out? How many have even admitted to themselves the need for doing so, in the interest of setting the record straight? It is encouraging to know that at least one scholar, not a professional academic, but a seasoned journalist, has done so in recent years. He is Mr. V. R. Narla, a free thinker and fearless Writer, with a flair for grappling with basic issues, who has sought to examine and consequently to explode, this myth in his Dr. Balaiah Endowment Lectures on “East and West” at Nagarjuna University (Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur, A.P.)

In his series of three lectures, Mr. Narla deals, in considerable depth, with the subject in three sections–viz., Is Asia the Holy Land? Which is the birthplace of Materialism? and, Can we survive as a Divided World?

Mr. Narla contends, and rightly so, that there is no clear dividing line between the East and the West. Not even between Asia and Europe in some of the border-line areas like Turkey (Asia Minor), Greece and Egypt. There was a time, not very long ago, at the zenith of European imperialism, when Europe was looked upon as the hub of the whole political and geographical universe. Europe was, in fact, the continent and all the other continents were Eastern, Western, Northern or Southern from its angle of vision. It was Nehru, with his total perspective of political geography, who replaced Euro-centred expressions like Middle East, Far East, etc., with more logical terms like West Asia, East Asia and so on. Even if you want to demarcate the boundaries of the East and the West, what could be the criteria to be applied and the guidelines to be followed? Mr. Narla finds none of these criteria–geographical, racial, social, cultural or political–reliable enough for a conclusive division or meaningful categorisation.

Nor does he accept the other myth, so soothing to our own inflated ego that Asia is the Holy Land. The birth of quite a few religious prophets in this continent notwithstanding the assumption of a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude in any sense, literal or metaphorical, is neither tenable nor sustainable. India, or for that matter Asia, has no exclusive monopoly of spiritual values. There is nothing intrinsically Indian or Asian about spiritualism in general. In this rational light he examines the claims for India as a world teacher, made by a galaxy of eloquent spokesmen from Keshub Chander Sen to Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore to Radhakrishnan. He finds only two thinkers--Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar and M. N. Roy, who had stayed away from the tiresome chorus in praise of Eastern spiritualism and in disapproval of Western materialism, saying anything that makes sense to him.

An impenitent materialist by conviction, Mr. Narla quotes the succinct and pointed words of M. N. Roy to express his own philosophical position:

“Materialist philosophy–knowledge, instead of faith, reason instead of authority, the physical instead of the metaphysical, the natural instead of the supernatural, facts instead of fiction–this can lead not only to political freedom, economic prosperity and social happiness; it indicates the only way to real spiritual freedom.

In his second lecture, Mr. Narla tries to answer the question–Which is the birthplace of materialism?” Before doing so, he draws our attention to an important but oft-forgotten fact that without a material base there can be no civilization worth the name, The development of agriculture, the growth of handicrafts, the discovery of metals–copper, bronze, iron, etc., and the industrial revolution, were only stages in the progress of human civilization. India is often described as a land of villages and Mahatma Gandhi had done his best to sanctify the concept of village-ism as a social and economic philosophy to the extent of glorifying varieties of primitivism. But there is no escape from the fact that the city was at the centre of most civilizations-ancient, medieval and modern. This is no less true of India than of Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, Rome and the rest. Ancient Indian civilization was identified with a few great cities–Pataliputra in the East, Mohenjo Daro in the West. Taxila in the North, Kanchi in the South, Ujjain (and Varanasi) in the center. Recent authorities on the history of culture and civilization are not wanting to trace a distinct correlation between cultural influence on the one hand and the growth of cities and their commercial activities on the other.

All our ancient civilizations, if spiritual, were only so to superficial observers, argues Mr. Narla, as they were, all of them really materialistic at the root. He quotes chapter and verse to prove this and gives a few telling examples:

“...the Egyptian was a God-king civilization and with its luxury-loving pharaohs and their magnificent pyramids. The babylonian was a usurious civilization….The Assyrian was a militaristic civilization and its armies were the most ruthless in the ancient world. The Phoenician was a commercial civilization … And finally, the Harappan was a static civilization dominated by bloodsucking priests, and for a thousand years after its first efflorescence showed no further vitality. By and large, the only Asian civilization largely rational was the Chinese and its emphasis was on man and society.”

The last, and from his point of view, the most important question that the lecturer seeks to deal with is: “Can we survive as a divided world?” It is obviously a rhetorical question and there is no need for a categorical statement by way of an answer.

The contribution of the orient to the rest of the world, according to the lecturer, supported by an impressive battalion of authorities, Eastern and Western, lies not so much in the field of religion and philosophy as in that of practical arts like metal work, weaving, glass-making, paper-making and printing and metal pioneering industries. These are relevant to his rationalist argument based on the assumption that man is no fallen angel, but an ascending animal. In other words, he believes in the perfectability of the human species as well as the tools at its command.

Against this background, he has no use for religion as an elevating force or as a humanising factor. On the contrary. he sees it as a devastatingly divisive force in human society. It has, according to him, an undesirable influence even on our scientific culture, for while we have accepted scientific technology, we have rejected scientific ideology. Believing with Marx that religion is the opiate of man, Narla feels that even the admiration of European scholars for Indian religion was the result of woolly thinking and had passed through the varying, misty hues of mysticism, romanticism, depression and pessimism.

In India itself, the lecturer pulls no punches when he attacks the corruption of too much wealth and too much poverty, the peaceful co-existence of which had been sanctified by a brand of hypocrisy that talks of the glories of spiritualism to a people facing near starvation. He concludes with a fervent appeal to redress economic imbalance among the nations and between the various sections of the nation itself. “So, let us stop all twaddle about Eastern spiritualism and Western materialism,” he adds, “Let us begin to think in terms of mankind as a single unit. Let us lay stress on our common interests, our common legacy.”

Easier said than done, according to the cynic. Too idealistic, perhaps, on the same lines as the parliament of man and the federation of the world. Anyway, before throwing religion itself overboard, which may not be too easy as it is deep-rooted, is it not possible to recognise and establish the underlying unity of all religions at their original fount of inspiration? Can we not reform the kinds of religious practice, gone far away from ethical principle and strengthen the forces of liberalism towards mutual understanding? That may not be the rationalist or materialist way. That apart, Mr. Narla’s approach is not only provocative and challenging, but intellectually stimulating in its historical analysis and logic of argument.

Is it possible for a layman to identify materialism with the philosophy of science? Broadly yes, perhaps. It is not unusual with the generality of laymen, including the so-called well-educated and high-placed, to think of technology and its immediate uses and when they talk of science and its impact. But a student of philosophy with a scientific approach can hardly afford to commit that mistake.

The philosophical consequences of modern science is a fascinating subject that would be of interest to the philosopher as well as the scientist. In his doctoral thesis on this theme, Dr. N. Innaiah covers new ground in his arguments no less than in his conclusion. In outlining the philosophical implication of science, he says in straight and simple terms:

“Science enables man to conquer nature as well as helps him to understand nature and his relation with it, also helps to understand himself and society.”

But does not philosophy itself seek to help man understand himself and thereby understand society made up of others like himself? As for the terminology itself, there has been a gradual change during the last half-a-century and more. The term ‘philosophy’ (literally ‘love of wisdom’, used for systematised ways of thinking in general) once extended to botany, biology, etc. (natural philosophy), whereas ‘science’ now covers more fields than it did in the past.

According to Dr. Innaiah, the philosophical significance of modern science is that “it repudiates the concept of philosophical autonomy”. “The categories of modern science are no longer regarded as a priori categories. The philosophical foundation of modern science is a posteriori deduction.”

Not being a trained student of science, one would like to know if Einstein’s Theory of Relativity had also been arrived at through this process of deduction. Perhaps it was.

Explaining the central problem of his thesis in philosophical terms. Dr. Innaiah describes universe as “Being” and its nature as “Becoming”. He has probably found it unnecessary for his purpose to go into the origin of the universe itself. In the causal process of physical Reality, he sees the law of Determinism. In the gradual process of biological evolution, itself in the endless search, with an aspiration to reach out to higher and higher species, he sees the law of Freedom at work. In man’s struggle for existence and achievement in a universe not of his making, the author is happy to see a reconciliation of the Pulls of Determinism and Freedom.

He, however, takes care to distinguish this Determinism from absolute, teleological determinism and finds it more aptly described by the term ‘Determinateness’ suggested by M. N. Roy.

The subject itself, as well as the author’s treatment, are extremely thought-provoking though it is not easy to carry conviction with even modern students of philosophy. One is not sure if contemporary students of modern physics find the physical universe quite as determinist as their predecessors did. At least, they can no longer afford to be so complacent or cocksure as before. If modern science has its philosophical consequences, which it certainly has, one of them is that in higher mathematics and astro-physics, it enters areas that are almost undistinguishable from speculative philosophy.

Back