An accomplished Indian poet, scholar, translator, and folklorist, A.K. Ramanujan lived from 1929 to 1993. Poetry by him frequently dealt with issues of individuality, heritage, culture, and recollection, and he was well-known for both Kannada and English compositions. A major figure in popularizing Indian oral traditions around the world, Ramanujan's contributions extended into fields as diverse as linguistics, folklore, and South Indian literature.
In his informal essay titled “Is there an Indian way of thinking?”, A.K Ramanujan starts by exploring four possible interpretations of this central question using the Stanislavskian exercise for actors which involves asking the question differently each time, emphasizing a different keyword — “is”, “an”, “Indian” and “thinking”.
In the first essay, A.K. RAMANUJAN presents some questions by answering them by putting great emphasis on the specific aspects of it.
He asks Is there an Indian way of thinking? The answer to this question is: there was an Indian way of thinking but it does not exist now. The Indian way of thinking can be found in the upper-caste, Brahmanical section of the society - in the Vedas and other religious texts, or while visiting 'pundits'. However, since our thinking is designed as per the Vedas. Hence, we can’t deny that there still is an Indian way of thinking that exists.
The second question he asks “Is there an Indian way of thinking?” He answers it by stating that there has always been the presence of Great Tradition and Little Tradition. In India, we celebrate diversity as well as highlight these differences. Therefore, a single Indian way of thinking does not exist.
The third question “Is there an Indian way of thinking?” It is a well-known fact that India is a byproduct of the influences of external cultures, languages, religions, and social evolutions. Therefore, we may that in India nothing is unique. However, India has a great capability of adapting to any changes and adopting these external influences into its existing culture.
Finally, he asks” Is there an Indian way of thinking?” Ramanujan says that it is the West that is capable of thought. The West is projected as materialistic and rational. In India, logic is rationalized with religion and superstitions. In India, actions are projected, not the thoughts behind those actions.
Thus, in the first part of his essay, Ramanujan states how India is professed differently at different stages by different people and from different perspectives.
In the second part of the essay, the inconsistency between tradition and modernity is depicted with an example from Ramanujan's personal experience. He gives the example of his father to show how India can be ancient yet modern at the same time. For Ramanujan, consistency means strict adherence to only one - either religion or science.
Ramanujan's father was a South Indian Brahman. While he wore dhotis in traditional Brahman style, he also wore English jackets over his dhotis.
He wore tartan-patterned socks and leather shoes when he went to the university but removed them before entering the inner quarters of the house.
Hence, he illustrates the central characteristic, “inconsistency” and the inherent hypocrisy of Indian thinking, through the example of his father who is adept at Mathematics and Astronomy while simultaneously being a Sanskrit scholar and Astrologer. How his father could resolve these distinct ways of thinking astounded a young Ramanujan and inspired him to probe this question further.
In the third part of the essay, Ramanujan interrogates the concept of inconsistency in a larger context - and does not just limit it to his father. He talks of the concept of 'karma' and that of 'talaividi'. Karma implies the self's past as determining the present and future - it is an 'iron chain' of cause and effect. Karmic philosophy is written. Talaividi or 'head writing' focuses on destiny and it is a part of oral tradition.
The Western construction of the Orient (India) is that we are yet to develop the notion of 'data' or 'objective facts'. According to Sudhir Kakar, in the oriental world, there is no clear difference between self and non-self - this brings about inconsistency. India is not influenced by Newstonian thoughts according to Kissinger. In India, there is no concept of the universal. The Indian way of thinking lacks universality; it is a traditional society constituting inconsistency and hypocrisy. Since society is a tradition in nature, the approach towards the entire society is not secular. According to Zimmer, Indians can imagine a time in history without man. West cannot do that as it is egoistic.
While the West has universality, in India there are subjective positions. The understanding of reality in India is always context-sensitive and not context-free. Ramanujan points out how the English language and Western inventions such as the calculator and computer get contextualized once they entered India yet the undercurrent of cultural transformation within India is to move from a context-sensitive to a context-free way of thinking. As much as it seems the ideal, upheld by the protestant Christian way of thought, there are some serious ramifications for marginalized groups of people in India i.e. lower castes.
The correction of the wrongs done to them over centuries cannot come in the form of adopting equal affordances to all and this is where the debate of caste-based reservation and other caste-related tensions lie. Context-sensitive legislation can make possible what Westerns today call “affirmative action”. In India, even the perception of truth is not a universal concept. In the West 'man shall not kill' is a universal statement but in India, punishments are meted out owing to a person's social status. Even in the Manusmriti, we find that moral codes need not be adhered to under all circumstances.
We can conclude by saying that advertising a context-free way of thinking in spheres like education, government jobs, and other avenues tries to overrule the sensitive underlying context and promotes an unhealthy path to modernizing India. Ramanujan’s formulation is a great way to start conversations in such scenarios and comes in handy to start the process of questioning and critically examining commonly held truths in the Indian context.
REFERENCE
https://vasudhapande.com/2016/07/25/a-k-ramanujan-is-there-an-indian-way-of-thinking-an-informal-essay/
https://www.kulturstudier.com/places/india/what-is-an-indians-way-of-thinking/
https://missbanerjeeblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/is-there-an-indian-way-of-thinking-critiqing-a-k-ramanujan/
http://voiceless-soliloquies.blogspot.com/2020/04/a.html
Author
Mysteryhat4u
Комментарии