Comments on: Return of the White Rabbit

By: Rajendra Asthana

Rajendra Asthana — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:18:19 +0000

et.al Dalrymple’s defence of his book by citing that 40000 hard-back copies were sold in India, he would do well to find, how-many were bought by individuals, and how many copies were read from page 1 to last page. Did Dalrymple not mention that Prof. Irfan Habib had not read his book and he ( Dalrymple) had sent him a copy. If Prof.Irfan Habib had not read Dalrymple’s book ( as claimed by Dalrymple) it goes to prove that Dalrymple has not written History but a Roman(Novel).Obviously Novelists do play around with facts, as Dalrymple has done by dubbing genuine uprising of all Bashindas of Hindustan against John Company, as a fundamentalist Jihad. Nothing can be farther from truth. What Dalrymple wrote is a novel not history. Western Universities might have given him Honoris causa D.Litts for history, but these are as bizarre as Nobel Committee givng Nobel peace prize to U.S. president when the Nobel nomination closure date preceded the inauguration of the President of U.S. So much for Western sense of probity and justice. 1857 was a response to rapacity, intolerance, amoral actions, and attack on religious beliefs of native Indians by John Company. Dalrymple claims to have based his book on research conducted on 1857 documents available in Indian archives. Tarry a little, Dalrymple is not proficient either in Urdu or Persian. So he depended on translators paid for by him. The cue is obvious. Dalrymple is advised to go through “1857 India’a war for Independence” by V.D.Savarkar. Savarkar went through original records of East India Company and British Government available in India House London during 1905 to 1907. The book was banned and was one of the charges framed against Savarkar when he was awarded 50 years transportation for life by the British Judges. Dalrymple must read Delhi portion of this book. Incidentally the tallest leader, that emerges out of 1857, is Maulvi Ahmed Ali of Fyzabad, who by no stretch of imagination can be dubbed as a Jihadist. Coming from Savarkar, who is dubbed as rabid Hindu fundamentalist by India’s secular establishment and academics, it would be a revelation to Dalrymple and his ilk.

By: Red

Red — Sat, 05 May 2007 09:19:56 +0000

Just found an interesting review of Dalrymple’s Outlook essay on the same subject

http://www.landoflime.com/archives/mythos/dalrymples-mutiny/

By: Global Voices Online » Pakistan: Dalrymple’s Last Mughal

Global Voices Online » Pakistan: Dalrymple’s Last Mughal — Wed, 02 May 2007 17:47:17 +0000

[...] chapati mystery has a post with a response to a review, and a wonderful discussion follows. “Dalrymple posits a connection between the mythmaking that passes for history in the subcontinent and the absence of credible “popular” histories. To a certain extent I absolutely agree with him, which is why I am glad that there are signs that things are changing (Dalrymple being the most prominent example). But surely there’s more here?” Share This [...]

By: SC

SC — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:56:26 +0000

Strange lines by WD indeed. I don’t know what to make of the Indian Express section, I find that strange as well. Strangeness abounds…

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:07:32 +0000

OK, utterly random aside #2: these lines grabbed my attention in the link SC put up: “He stopped reading fiction long ago. “When history is so remarkable so extraordinary, why read something made-up? Truth has a resonance fiction can’t because it is ultimately someone’s fantasy,” he says.”

I just find that shocking, I must say.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:06:02 +0000

RE: “If the indifference to the story of 1857 becomes a sign of indifference to India, we will be in deep trouble.”

Perhaps the editor is also thinking of the fact that virtually all recent Hindi films that have been “historicals” or period pieces, have done rather poorly at the box office (some of them, such as Mangal Pandey, were actually very good IMO). Interesting for sure given that this year features the first Hindi film to go “Mughal” in decades — Ashutosh Gowariker’s “Jodha Akbar” (if media reports are to be believed, Irfan Habib is a creative consultant on this film, which is somewhat heartening).

I think Hritik Roshan is seriously miscast as Akbar, but I like what they have done in this picture:

http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/01/18/exclusive-hrithik-roshan-in-akbar-get-up/

By: sepoy

sepoy — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:58:32 +0000

While Indian historiography is theoretically sophisticated in many ways, the art of great narrative historiography written by Indians is all but dead. We depend upon the curiosities of foreigners to keep the story alive. One of the greatest storytelling nations has stopped producing stories about its own past, forgetting that ideological battles over history can never be a substitute for enticing narratives. William Dalrymple’s masterly The Last Mughal subtly undercuts the significance of this event for Indians: its wonderful recovery of a time when nation state ideologies had not congealed our identities, also glosses over the hierarchies colonialism produced. 1857 has the power to move because, it is, above all else a darn good story. Too bad, there is simply no contemporary Indian narrative of the event of any power. But historical amnesia and indifference to the cause of liberty and self rule pose real dangers to a nation that has forgotten how to write its own history. If the indifference to the story of 1857 becomes a sign of indifference to India, we will be in deep trouble.

I don't agree with this editorial from Indian Express, Monday, April 30 2007, but since it touches on our discussion, I bring it to the table.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:25:37 +0000

To be fair, Red, one might read the point as being that an ideology whereby native women could be taken as wives is different from, and perhaps better than, the sort of later 19th century ideology whereby racism was institutionalized and even biologized, and all mixing between the races — of any sort — was banished from the pale. And I guess to continue playing devil’s advocate, books like the White Mughals seek to highlight situations precisely where the women in question HAD choices (unlike the slave plantation women) — i.e. these were generally “well-born” women who in many/most cases had to ruffle quite a few feathers to marry/cohabit with the Englishman in question. [WD arguably remains open to critique for focusing on the marginal phenomenon to make a general point, given that he doesn't really address situations which would be more analogous to your slave plantation example.]

The irony is that to the extent WD comes down harshly against the “racist Raj” in “favor” of a more ambiguous predecessor, and uses narratives of overlooked/”marginal” liaisons (in the White Mughals) to make his point, he owes more to the post-structuralists, the subalternists, and the Foucauldians than he perhaps realizes…

By: Red

Red — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:00:42 +0000

Just a couple of stray thoughs, while I really enjoyed City of the Djinns, WD’s Age of Kali made me very very uncomfortable. While witty and acerbic( the Benazir and Shobha De interviews had me in splits), his articles profiled the most exotic images of India. He discussion of Rup Kanwar’s sati (20 years after it took place), Indian royalty, caste violence, erotic temple carvings, Bollywood, widows in Vrindavan, nostaligia about Portugese rule basically cover every single Indian “image” available in the West.

Secondly, I fail to understand why British men keeping Indian mistresses and “wives” and going native, necessarily speaks of a begign or more fluid form of colonialism. Do relations with Southern plantaiton owners with Black slave women suggest a more begign form of slavery? There was no question of British women associating with Indian men in any way, even back in the early 19th century. In some ways, his “intimate connections” bears an uncomfortable resemblance to accounts of ICS officers in the 19th and 20th centuries saying that the natives loved them and treated them like “mai baap”.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:23:05 +0000

PS– to be fair to WD on that last point, perhaps he too has done the same, and I didn’t mean to suggest that he hasn’t merely, that to regard 1857 through a prism of Muslim militantcy isolated from any other religious militantcy risks falling prey to the notion of Islam as always already preordained towards militant zeal…

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:16:33 +0000

Thanks Sheetal: and it’s worth adding that other historians have earlier stressed the religious nature of the conflict from the sepoy side (Rajat Kanta Ray), but they have also stressed the Hindu militantcy as well as the Muslim militantcy (indeed one of Ray’s points is that prior to nationalism, the only “ground” for resistance was that of religion or “Hindustan”, which latter is NOT a nationalism-in-the-making so much as it is a kind of “imperial patriotism” centered on the idea that the Mughal Emperor was the source of all political legitimacy).

By: SC

SC — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:37:09 +0000

Qalandar – I agree. Thus when WD claims he gives up theory for empiricism, I can’t help but wonder what he means by that exactly. “Pure empiricism” does not produce better truths, as all readings of sources and evidence are laden with theoretically discussable methods (a discussion WD doesn’t want to participate in). Thus to champion empiricism in place of theory seems to create a dichotomy which is not maintainable…. And now on to WD’s historical work itself (cuz yes, he’s a historian popular or otherwise). Both in White Mughals and in TLM Dalrymple approaches positivism in his reading of the sources. Thus even as he qualifies his use of the word “jihad” as an explanatory factor for 1857, he maintains its connection with current notions of jihad, something Sepoy was right on to flag. His basic argument in TLM is that all the “schools of professional history writing” have failed to note the overwhelming religious nature of 1857, which TLM now offers. Even here, I disagree with WD…though the reasons would be too long to write. Here’s where we fall into his trap if we dismiss poco/subaltern st. because WD does so, while there are numerous things wrong with those schools, again I don’t think WD has articulated them. He has just made it easier for many people to dismiss their interventions, thus I call him an anti-intellectual intellectual. In any case email me off list so that we can converse off the blogosphere. -Sheetal (sc2513atcolumbia.edu)

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:01:38 +0000

That was also I thought the strongest point Gyan Prakash made, that Dalrymple seems to take at face value “intimate connections” such as this or that Resident or other Englishman “going native”, keeping harems and the like. And in fact that’s what led us, on the other thread, to the whole “subalternist” discussion, because to take this sort of thing at face value means that one is simply discarding a whole discourse and scholarship that depends on NOT taking this sort of thing at face value (at that point the issue of the extent to which x or y school deserves to be ignored, because it is exclusionary/obscurantist/whatever took over the debate). I maintain that a historiography, whether or not popular, cannot just ignore important strands of scholarship without raising question marks about its credibility.

By: SC

SC — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:10:58 +0000

For the sake of some evidence, here’s a link to an interview of WD done in Bombay at some point, and some excerpts below. Granted, the questions he is being asked suck cuz they mark him as an “outsider” but his answers maintain that distinction, and they operate on generalizations about “Indians” and “British”. Thus, let me clarify that I am not accusing WD of racism, I hardly think that is the case. However, I do think he has a “politics of identity” which relies on generalizations and the maintenance of difference between one group of people and another. So in most circumstances, he himself introduces his “goraness” into the conversation (though not in this interview). And my extrapolation is that Said’s text doesn’t sit well with him for some such reason. (I wholeheartedly believe there are many things wrong with Said’s book, but I don’t think WD has identified those things. In fact, at that conference, at which WD was promoting his book White Mughals, he went on to say that it is clear there was no identity politics involved such as what Said outlines, because as you can see, my book illustrates the intimate relations created between EIC and natives…it was something like this. Perhaps WD can come back on and clarify for himself.
Here’s the link:
http://mid-day.com/smd/go/2002/august/28654.htm

Excerpts:
Q:What are the craziest queries fellow Brits have asked you about India, such as do Indians get to work on an elephant…

WD: “In general, middle-class Brits know about India. It is a strange paradox: desis have an innate and well-founded suspicions of the Angrez, while the Angrez have a deep and passionate love of India.”

In response to another question,
WD: “While Indian writers have virtually conquered the Indian market, they are so far less sophisticated in non-fiction. You have very fine journalists, but no great Indian biographers. I am very lucky to survive because it is quite a thing to come to a country and write their history.”

To all this I merely have to extend my deepest gratitude to WD, thank you so much for freeing my family from the realm of mythical history into pure empiricism. Got anything else my folks at home might need?

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:05:15 +0000

Ajnabi: c’mon yaar, yes it is microbe-sized but surely there’s no way TLM makes the bestseller list right? I mean if CMN had been referring to the population in its entirety, then I would consider him naive (not just with respect to the US but any country). Consider: WD writes that his book has sold 40,000 copies in 5 months in India — but India has 50-100 million people who can read English. Even if we arbitrarily slash that number by four-fifths , the % is still tiny, as it always is. Now consider a book on another country’s history (one not seen to be directly implicated in one’s “own” history), and I am sure those sales go down, way down (i.e. I imagine a biography of Queen Victoria would do better in India than one of Bismarck). Now in the US (but NOT in the UK), surely Indian history has fewer “consumers” than (obviously) say, of a biography of John Adams, or even of British history?

By: Ajnabi

Ajnabi — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:50:55 +0000

Q: With that microbe-sized ‘relevant ’sample in mind, you are right. I read CMN to be refering to the collective US populance, Oklahoma inclusive.

SC: For my own sanity, I pray that WD returns to this forum to clarify his alleged remark about “Said and his silly book Orientalism”. If he belives accordingly — despite my great admiration of WDs body of excellent work , books, articles, et al — I will be forced to do an anti-dixie chix thing and take all his books off my ikea shelf and rock them under the 16-inch wheels of my crv!

By: SC

SC — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:42:02 +0000

I’ve in fact heard WD speak on several occasions, once most notably at a “literary conference” in which he blasted “Said and his silly book Orientalism”.

I don’t think I am way off, extrapolating for sure, but not groundless.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:00:29 +0000

Re: “THAT aspect of the selling of TLM is surely the most problematic thing – needing a full discussion instead of the academic/popular etc. that has been going on.”

As one of the guiltiest parties on that front, I agree with you. However, let me say that one of the reasons I didn’t wish to stress too much on that is that I felt this discussion was best about WD and his book — not about the marketing of the book (especially because I have no way of knowing if WD is doing anything more egregious than anyone else), which I do conisder problematic but lack sufficient insight to determine whether the problem is WD-specific.

By: sepoy

sepoy — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:36:38 +0000

Naim Sahib: THAT aspect of the selling of TLM is surely the most problematic thing – needing a full discussion instead of the academic/popular etc. that has been going on.
SC: I think your reading there is way-off.
WD cites many, many historians and histories and specifically recommends the readers of TLM to go seek those books and read them. Hardly, anti-intellectual intellectualism [is that something like the Straussians?]. And would the politics of difference you saw in that paragraph still exist if we substitute “Indian historians” with “British historians” or “American historians”? Nope.

I don’t know WD. I have only read 3 of his books. I have read some of his reviews/articles. But the sin you accuse him off – that racial bias against the Indians or some deliverer of Indian history to Indian masses etc. – is no where in evidence in any shape or form.

Cuz, even if we seek hidden theories, we should do it with some evidence.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:58:13 +0000

Ajnabi: but surely that is not the relevant sample? The relevant sample is that segment of the US population that is likely to buy/read a book on Indian history in my view — and in THAT segment surely CMN is right that one would be hard-pressed to find someone who had no clue what “Mughal” refers to.