In 1720, the Dzungar Mongols had
invested Lhasa ostensibly to depose Lhazan Khan, the Mongol
"king" of Tibet, and restore the rule of the Dalai
Lama. The loot and rapine that the Dzungars had unleashed
brought in the temporary, if also timely, intervention (1720-23)
of the Ch’ing emperor K’ang Hsi. It was the 7th Dalai Lama,
not the 9th, who was put back on the Lhasa throne.
While it is
true that the Anglo-Russian convention (1907) contains a
self-denying clause that both powers deal with Tibet through
China, its application was limited. For the convention
safeguarded direct relations between British commercial
agents (in Tibet) and the Tibetan authorities and of Buddhist
subjects of both Russia as well as Britain, with the Dalai Lama
and his functionaries. The direct relations with Tibet were
barred only in terms of either power seeking concessions of
railways, roads, telegraphs and mines or other rights. The
convention had recognised China’s "suzerain rights"
in Tibet as well as Britain’s "special interest",
owing to its geographical position, in the maintenance of the
status quo in its external relations.
The reference
to the tripartite Simla Convention of 1914 is not exactly
helpful. The McMahon Line extends from the trijunction of India,
Burma and China in the east to Bhutan in the west, over a
distance of 850 miles — and not "from Laos to
Bhutan". The convention did not demarcate the frontier; the
line was shown on a map instead. While it is true that the
Chinese refused to ratify their initialling of the convention
and the map, it would be incorrect to say that the Tibetan
plenipotentiary disowned the map. He did not.
Kingdon Ward
was not "arrested by Tibet for entering Lhasa from
Tawang". He had journeyed (1935) from Tawang to the region
of Migyitun where the Subansiri passes through the main
Himalayan range towards its eventual junction with the
Brahmaputra returning by another route, through the Tawang
tract, to Dirangdzong. Lhasa had lodged a protest with New Delhi
on what it believed was a trespass.
All the above
references are to the near middle of the review, paras 8-9 and
11-12.
Hindi
nationalism
Vinod Shahi
writes from Jalandhar
Cultural
politics of Hindi Nationalism is part of the process of
decolonisation and not "colonial and hegemonistic" in
its essence, as has been viewed by Akshay Kumar in his review of
Alok Rai’s book on "Hindi Nationalism" published on
January 6 in The Tribune. The discourse, it appears, which the
review starts, belongs to the oft-repeated post-colonial
rhetoric which equates the post-colonial immigrant literature
and Indian writing in English to the anti-colonial essence of
the indigenous literature.
The inability
to differentiate between the two has led to some ludicrous
arguments like these: Why can’t there be some research work on
the Indianness of Premchand and Nirala? Or the one that
questions the very structure of Hindi education because the
writer can find students failing in Hindi even in Hindi
heartland due to its colonial and hegemonistic content. Such
arguments can only be floated if we can find research projects
on the Englishness of Shakespeare, Americanness of Hemingway or
Germanness of Walter Benjamin; and also if we fail to find
students failing in English in England.
Actually, the
issue of Indianness of Indian writers can only be raised in
reference to the immigrant or non-immigrant English writers of
India, prominent among whom are writers like Nirad Chaudury
whose Indianness is debatable. Actually, the essence of
post-colonial literature that has gained some academic
recognition in the West lies in being either in
"periphery" or in "unconscious Id-like cultural
storehouses" locked for the acceptable and recognised
conscious mainstream of culture.
So, the
post-colonial literature depends heavily on this cultural
mainstream but this is not true or applicable to the indigenous
literature which evolved through a struggle which was basically
anti-colonial and after independence as a part of the de-colonialisation
process, though struggling to be free from the neo-colonial
influence. The cultural politics of Hindi literature should also
be analysed in this context.
Cultural
politics of Hindi literature appears to some as "colonial
and hegemonistic" which is going the English way; whereas
it should have been secular, open, multi-faceted or part of a
polytext. The thesis for such multi-textuality holds good for
neo-colonial designs, though not always so despicable. Cultural
politics of Hindi literature is not something that can be
discussed in a void but only as part of the socio-cultural and
historical perspective in which it participates.
After the first
independence struggle of 1857, the imperialistic designs of the
English led to the devastation of the cultural fabric of the
Hindi heartland along with the econo-socio disintegration. This
Hindi heartland, which then belonged to the poorest of the poor,
gathered itself from the ashes and tried to focus on Hindi as an
instrument of cultural identity. The cultural identity of Hindi
is still far from being colonial or hegemonistic as it is
divided among so many states and their respective cultural
interests.
Dr Ram Vilas
Sharma advocated for a maha-state of all Hindi-speaking areas of
Bihar, UP, MP, Rajasthan and Haryana so that some sort of Hindi
nationalism could emerge and be "hegemonistic" to
complete the tasks of decolonialisation left behind. Had there
been any such cultural hegemony, as has been argued by Akshay
Kumar, how could such a thesis become debatable in Hindi
literature and that too recently? We can, though, expect
cultural politics of Hindi nationalism, if at all it exists, to
be secular but surely not at the cost of being
"subaltern" like the post-colonial one.
Subash C.
Sharma writes from Rewari
This has
reference to Akshay Kumar’s review titled "Cultural
politics of Hindi nationalism" (January 6). In his
otherwise incisive review (read write up). Kumar betrays well
entrenched bias of certain Indians with an English literature
background for whom it has become a fashion to question (the
authenticity of) anything Indian — be it culture or literature
— in an effort to show themselves off as really groomed in
English literature. Hence, he seriously errs when he doubts the
Indianness of Prem Chand and Nirala. Nor does he cite any ground
for his skepticism. When the Englishness of Shakespeare or
Milton is (taken for granted) by self-styled English Indians, on
what ground so they doubt the Indianness of Prem Chand and
Nirala?
The reviewer again errs in
blurring the distinction between Hindi as a subject and Hindi as
the mother tongue when he observes "...even if a ..small
percentage of students from Hindi heartland fail in Hindi, it is
a matter of grave concern". Don’t the students in English
heartlands in England or America fail in English literature as a
subject?
|