The Standpoint

THE 509^th YEAR OF COLONIAL RULE

By

Anukampa Gupta

1835: In his Minute on Indian Education, Macaulay said: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”

1947: This day, then, at the stroke of mid-night hour Nehru spoke; in English. The unfortunate part being that to an overwhelming majority of the Indian masses what he said was alien and incomprehensible.

2009: This day, today, will be celebrated as the 509th year of British rule in India.

Against the grain of popular wisdom -- on often debated concepts like independence, nationhood and freedom -- this article strives to stress upon the fact that India never really got Independence. The arrangement that night- August 14, 1947 - can at best be summed as ‘transfer-of-power’.

The very fact that until this day we find ourselves mired in questions – Who is an Indian? What does it mean to be an Indian? What is Independence to India? What does India stand for? What do I as an Indian stand for? What do we as a people stand for? Is there something at all as an Indian identity? – elucidates that we have very little knowledge of what we call ‘India’; Indian history remains a contested term.

In any mainstream discourse, these questions will lead to heated debates and raised tempers; there will be no attempt to initiate a dialogue, an intellectual process that could direct to answers. And despite all this, we do not question. The mediocrity that breeds within us has ripped us off this culture of questioning; intellectual dissent is perceived as a threat to the social order in the society.

So were we always like this? If yes, why? If no, then let’s ask what was that event (process) in history which bred such ignorance and indifference within us? Why are we what we are - a people so apathetic and callous to everything and everyone that is Indian?

This author strongly believes that every individual with some concern for India, despite whatever that individual’s perception of India, should attempt this question.

The first step in this quest could be a serious look at the word ‘post-colonial’. How authentic is this term? What hard-facts can justify it? Which Truth can possibly testify it?

The fact that every action, and the system(s) which defines that action, is Angrezi to its core, is reason enough to renounce the idea of a post-colonial India. From our health care system to our education policies, from the justice delivery system to the ways in which we define development, from the ways in which we govern ourselves to the baboo’s we produce... every institution has its roots in Western philosophy, Western ideals and Western thoughts.

Take education for instance. The extent of Macaulay’s success in defining the Indian education policy can be gauged by what Gunnar Myrdal said when he spoke of South Asian Universities; his words are particularly relevant in the Indian context. “Teaching in South-Asian schools at all levels tends to discourage independent thinking and the growth of that inquisitive and experimental bent of mind that is so essential for development. It is directed towards enabling students to pass examinations and obtain degrees and, possibly, admittance to the next level of schools. A degree is the object pursued, rather than the knowledge and skills to which the degree should testify.” This was written in the mid-sixties; in 2009 nothing has changed. Worse still, to Macaulay’s delight, we are aggressively fuelling the present system by our unthoughtful actions. The absolute alienation to Indian regional languages, portrayal of English as a national language, the mushrooming of convent schools and ‘public’ schools, all reflect to, among other things, the poverty of whatever our senses call: being Indian.

The very ethos of our education system is flawed. Our regional languages are looked upon with disdain; English, the only symbol of modernity is also the only guarantor of employment and jobs. It’s worth noting that unlike in other countries where state-run schools are called public schools, in India, schools funded by private institutions, business houses, politicians and bureaucrats are called ‘public’ schools.

If education is what defines a nation, then we certainly are in the wrong. The content, the context of all that is taught to us is manufactured to promote our consent. This explains why we don’t stand-up.

The healthcare system is fighting another battle altogether. Since 1947, the fixation of successive governments with the English system of medicine has changed the way we define healthcare. Never mind if this branch of medicine cannot cater to the masses (because of major flaws intrinsic to its science), our public-health policy has been centered around it.

It should be noted that in this country anything that is not English becomes ‘alternative’. And therefore, Ayurveda makes for ‘alternative medicine’ in the very country of its origin; the government couldn’t have cared more for Homeopathy. The Truth is that the fall in the popularity of these systems of medicine has been accomplished by a well planned strategy; at one level this was determined by those who pontificated everything British for the ‘welfare’ of India and at another level, which is not a subject of study at this point in time but is worth a mention, after the multilateral trading regimes came into existence.

The underlying point being made here is that health care or disease free India has not been, and still is not, at the heart of the policy. The only thing of interest here is promotion of English medicine, at the back of this approach lie many economic and political reasons - all of which have been forwarded by Indian looking Englishmen and Englishwomen.

Education and healthcare are just two sectors in this largely British set-up. Development paradigms adopted by this country followed western models. And today, the implications of the policies that were constructed under these models can be seen in the fall of Indian agriculture, environmental destruction, forced migrations from rural areas, hunger deaths, malnutrition in kids, adulteration in food, loss of jobs, loss of propriety and loss of rights.

Consequences of misplaced notions of independence and freedom cost some communities more than others. The indigenous groups and tribal population in India have faced tremendous state apathy, all this even after 1947.

Unsure, this author is, if India really needs an Obama, India certainly needs another Gandhi. Another Gandhi, who can ‘push the Centre to the periphery and periphery to the Centre’ which could, in turn, drive real Independence in India.