Rajiv Malhotra
I was recently asked about my work's relationship with that of Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup. Here is a more complete answer than the one I gave.
I did not know either of them, but today in hindsight I hold them in high regard. Had I known them I would have liked to collaborate. I am sure we would be doing projects together now.
Each person begins at his/her own starting point. Hence the journeys are different even when the persons have similar goals . This is why my journey was very different than most Hindu thinkers who lived almost entirely in India. For one thing, I had a dual upbringing:
(A) Hindu: Till age 20, lived in India and had a very Hindu family life due to my mother's influence and my own personal passion to understand our philosophy since childhood (informal influences);
B) Western: Very Westernized English medium formal education (Delhi), followed by living in the US since age 20 till now (63) pursuing professions unrelated to Hinduism per se till 20 years back
C) Dual - Hindu drishti to see the world: Now engaging the West full-time explicitly as a Hindu since the past 20 yrs, but living in the West.
Each person must follow his own sva-dharma rather than someone else's. One's sva-dharma is based on sva-bhava, gunas and environmental context of time/place of one's life. (Gita's message) So I have ended up where I am, due to a complex combination of factors.
Having a guru versus not having a guru is a big factor shaping one's approach. After all, it was my guru's influence that led me to dramatically change my life course.
My formal education after school did not include any humanities at all - strange but true. I was trained in a certain combination: 1) scientific mindset both learned in physics and computer science; 2) corporate style management; 3) entrepreneurship as businessman; 4) dealing with Westerners in official capacities all my life, hence using it as a lab to do "reverse anthropology" not only in USA but also Europe.
I know the west far deeper and better than most Hindu thinkers do. Having managed large organizations of western workers at a time when Indians were not in senior management (1979s & 80s) and competed with them aggressively in cut-throat businesses (80s & 90s) gives any Indian a rare quality that was eroded by colonialism. Hence I am unafraid of westerners. I can look in the face of my opponent and make him blink. I also know my opponent well, have been in his shoes and in close encounters with him 100s of times. Very important to know that I also admire the west and westerners in many ways, and have learned a lot from them. So this is a complex relationship; certainly I have benefited from such multi faceted involvement with westerners for so long. I use this experience in my work as an asset.
Most Hindu Indian thinkers lack this experience. The very few who have climbed to senior positions in the west to get this exposure have remained stuck to the pursuit of more material success. Success is addictive. Very tough to get off the treadmill when its moving so fast. I left the year when my income was at its all time high and I could have accelerated even further. Those who leave the rat race limit their involvement to secular philanthropy. Recently there are a few "Hindu" or "dharma" initiatives - but largely counter productive because none of the individuals involved have the required experience and merely parrot ideas they picked up attending talks and conferences.
Critical success factor: One must have hundreds of encounters outside one's comfort zone in order to learn. Otherwise its armchair/mouse-clicking, wild-ass wisdom. Both these gentlemen also had numerous encounters and were shaped by these.
But their encounters were in their milieu (largely Nehruvian opponents) and mine were in a different set of spaces and forums. For instance, I gained a lot having many fights in the American Academy of Religion for a full decade, most of the time being the only Indian Hindu practitioner speaking up against a very large army of high class scholars who were organized systematically out to get me like a pack of wolves. This further shaped character, allows me to test my arguments, practice my debating and public speaking skills, etc.
Many India-based scholars have incomplete understanding of the West. Either they fall in love blindly, or the opposite extreme they dismiss everything which is equally blind. In between are those retaining Indianness as mere "identity" without much substance and hence quite digested without even knowing this.
Another factor: The data I have used is not limited to India based - e.g. in studying evangelists, I used numerous sources of data in the West, and this is something our scholars have lacked access to.
I also remained outside any political party membership, hence retaining my independence as a thinker. This is important for creative thinking. Otherwise people tend to replicate whatever is already well know by their elders in some institution.
Having discussed whats distinct (not superior/inferior), what makes these two men and I similar is also very important to note: selfless passion for our heritage; fearlessness and courage to speak up against all odds; persistence and lots of stamina to stay the course; hard work....
How I wish I had the company of such persons today.
Regards,
Rajiv
No comments:
Post a Comment