History, as a discipline, is as near to “the truth” as a poem or a family gathering. I have understood, through my own schooling in the U.S. the discipline of history to mean the truth, facts, or an objective snapshot of the past. Emotions and debate were often absent in my tenth grade Modern European History class. I have come to understand, through coursework and readings on constructed histories and debates, that history, and its presence in India, holds multiple meanings for many different people and cultures, as would a poem or a family gathering. Bengali historian Dipesh Chakrabarty, who spoke at Lewis & Clark this past year, portrays the Indian conception of history as worlds apart from my own. History is emotion; it is one’s experience or relationship to a place or time, not necessarily a timeline of events. I’m looking forward to exploring how these differences shape our learning and understandings of the world. My understanding and interpretation of The History of India and how it will benefit my time in South Asia is but one perspective and assumption of India’s past and present state.
Ancient Indian History
When a foreigner imagines Indian society, they will often think of the caste system. Social and economic immobility and discrimination are often associated with caste in India, and before reading McLeod, I associated caste with reforms made during the time of the British Raj. I assumed that the caste system was an imperial tool of the British to control Indian society and suppress rebellion. Caste, however, is embedded in the foundations of Hinduism, dating back thousands of years. The Hindu Scriptures, including the Vedas, outlined the belief that God has given people roles to play on this Earth. Ingrained in this belief is that each person has a function, and what determines that function and how close they are to God, is caste. Caste acts differently in Indian society today than it did in 1000 BCE, with changes in how the categories are ranked, rules on upward mobility, marriage, etc. In contemporary Indian society, caste continues to play a major role and serves as a source of tension in personal and political life. Brahmins (who trace their ancestry to the ancient Aryan priesthood), the highest Varna (category of Indian society), typically serve as high ranking politicians, and the “Untouchables”, or Scheduled Caste, are underrepresented, yet know poverty greater than anyone in Indian society. Caste is an ancient tradition in Hinduism, yet it continues to play a major role in Indian society today. I wonder if caste is treated differently by regional governments, with different laws on mobility and marriage. An awareness of caste is incredibly important, as it dominates the social structure and hierarchy of India. I am also curious to know how Sikhs, Muslims, or Christians living in India relate to this social structure, as they are not Hindu. If caste is first and foremost a religious tradition, and if caste dominates society, how dominant is Hinduism in Indian governance (considering PM Modi was a Hindu nationalist, party to the RSS) and how “secular” is India today?
Mughal-era India
Today, over 80 percent of India’s population is Hindu, yet for hundreds of years, during the Mughal period, the subcontinent was ruled by Muslim emperors. Although all but one emperor (Akbar) was Muslim and ruled with the intention of maintaining an Islamic State, there was little to no forcing of Hindus and people of other religions to convert to Islam. Islamic law requires a tax on non-muslims called the jizya, however, it was only mildly enforced during the time of Mughal rule. This aspect of Mughal India is most relevant to India’s current state and recent history because it laid the foundations for the identity conflicts and communalism that resulted in the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 and the continuing border dispute over Kashmir. When the British established rule (both during the East India Co. and when India became a part of the Crown), rather, stole power away from the Mughal emperors, they favored the educated Hindus over the Muslim population. When Indians were allowed to work in the Indian Civil Service and government, etc., they more often hired Hindus from the higher castes, neglecting and ostracizing the Muslim population and identity. Just having ruled over one of the wealthiest and most culturally rich empires in history that spanned across all of South Asia, the Muslim population immediately became inferior, igniting tension and conflict between the two major religious groups in India.
British-era India
The British were able to maintain control through the Zamindari tax system, subsidiary alliances, and social re-organization (among other things) while in the grand scheme of things, the Crown had little knowledge of the subcontinent to begin with. Before India became part of the Crown, India was “governed” by the East India Company and yet had no background or sense of governance at all. They were merchants; businessmen. They relied on the British Parliament to make decisions about India, and yet the Parliament only knew what was told to them by the company men. India’s modern history has been dominated by foreign rule, and as a young sovereign country, I wonder what the effects are today of being controlled by outsiders. Most Indian peasants never came into contact with the British, though they were ruled by them. Nehru’s non-aligned stance during the Cold War, I assume, was very much shaped by India’s colonial history of complete foreign rule and oppression. I am curious to explore the effects of Britain’s imperial strategy on India’s foreign policy and “neutral” stance today. Is India’s core foreign policy objective to remain out of the affairs of other states and, similarly, to keep others out of the internal affairs of India? And what is the sentiment toward “westerners” in India and how is it related to India’s colonial history and encounters with foreigners?
Struggle for National Independence
India is the largest democracy in the world. If you look at independence movements across the world, post-1945, many countries struggled to democratize and instead had governments replaced by authoritarian regimes. There are multiple reasons that factor into why a country democratizes or falls to autocratic dictatorships. Countries with strong civil society and political participation tend to have an easier time transitioning to democracy, and from McLeod’s account of the years leading up to Independence, the political participation and engagement seemed as though it took up the conscious of the entire country. Unlikely groups of people, such as women, were very involved. Every identity in India seemed to have a battle to fight. The Indian National Congress gained incredible popularity, with actually so much power that it brought the Muslim League into even greater opposition with the Hindu majority Congress. Communal politics and violence were taking place, as was the fight to get the British out of India. Regionalism and nationalism were gaining even greater traction in the South, creating more conflict and tensions between special interest groups. There is so much that is relevant and important about the struggle for Independence, including the study of Gandhi’s character and philosophy, the relationship between Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru, and the decision to partition India into two separate states, alongside gaining freedom. I am most curious, however, about the political aftermath. Although India’s government was incredibly corrupt and ineffective in the years following Independence (particularly when Indira was Prime Minister), it still functioned as a democracy. How did the fight for independence and the political organization and movements that took place have an effect on political participation today? Additionally, how does the partition effect families today? Is this a event that is often discussed?
Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty
The most surprising aspect of this section was the devastating and endless corruption in the Indian government post Nehru’s rule. It’s shocking that despite the conflict within the Indian National Congress toward Indira Gandhi’s “dictatorship”, India still seemed to trust her and her sons based on the fact that they were related to Nehru, regardless of their policies, corruption, brutality and incompetence. Additionally, the nationalism that ensued during Indira’s rule seemed unprecedented, although oddly makes complete sense as Indira governed and chose cabinet members according to her own interests and corrupt authority. She made it so that no one else could gain power or beat her in an election. I’m actually very curious to know how fondly people look back at their former leaders, particularly Indira. It seems that she was loved and very much hated at the same time. What kind of corruption (if any) is apparent from an outsider’s perspective walking through New Delhi? And similarly, what changes (if any) have been made to the system of governance in India to prevent another State of Emergency from happening. What improvements in infrastructure have been made? How does the economy look/feel in different regions? Does India still have the center of production controlled (mostly) by the government, as Nehru established in the 1950’s with his 5 year plans?