Your book India: Definitions and Clarifications seems to take a broad approach to India's historiography, what periods do you focus on or try to contextualise?
India has a long history and I have highlighted the pre-Vedic past, the Distant past, the period of Islamic influence, the European and specifically British period, and finally the struggle for independence and, briefly, the post independence period.
How do you begin the task of describing and comparing the works of Indian, Greek, Chinese, Muslim and European historians in this book?
The inhabitants of the subcontinent, those who were later called Hindus, never took the writing of history seriously. They excelled in philosophy, astronomy, mathematics and the art of civilised living.
Their towns had proper sewage and public baths which most towns in India, even today, do not have. History, as we know it, is a Greek invention. I therefore had to consult numerous Greek, Chinese, Muslim and European sources.
Why, do you think, have so many different groups found and described different Indias?
History is always written by the victors and therefore India was described by the Greeks in a particular way, by the Muslims in another way and by the Europeans in yet another way. Every writer perceived India through his own lens and terms of reference.
Do you see past and current weaknesses in studies of India and Pakistan as faults in cultural habits and traditions or in historical methodology? And are these faults found across Indian, European, North American, and postcolonial scholarship?
The blind spots and false perceptions are across the board. But we cannot afford to ignore the different 'takes' on India. There is a germ of truth in every account. In our own time, for example, postcolonial scholarship is a victim of the same syndrome.
My next book 'INDIA: The Twenty-first Century and the Future' will examine postcolonial accounts by politically correct academics and the serious flaws in their offerings. It is high time that the British period in India is discussed dispassionately.
I find it most interesting that while people in Britain are cringingly apologetic of the British Raj, many Indians in India now have a nostalgia for the Raj. The hill town of Simla, now spelt Shimla, is an example. Today there is a concerted effort to preserve the British legacy. The marvellous engineering of the railway and the hundred plus tunnels from the plains to the hills are a monument to British ingenuity. All Indians admire the British for such achievements.
What have we been missing in studies of India and Pakistan since 1947 and how do you address this in your book?
Much has been written about India and very little about Pakistan. India has always been held up as 'the world's largest democracy' and Pakistan castigated as 'a terrorist Muslim state dominated by mullahs and the military'. This is largely the fault of successive Pakistan governments and military dictators.
It must be remembered that in 1947 the new country called Pakistan had few typewriters in government offices. Ministries were scrabbling about for tables, chairs, coolers, paper and even paper clips. Today Pakistan, for good or for evil, is a nuclear power. That is no mean achievement.
This year is the 60th anniversary of the partition of India, how well do you feel politicians, academics, and the general public understand India's past and where the country is heading?
This question itself reveals a particular mind set. The BBC and other channels make countless radio and TV programmes about the Partition of India and the Independence of India. No one makes programmes about the Creation of Pakistan. There is much mention of Mountbatten, Gandhi and Nehru; Jinnah is hardly known and he is the man who created a country.
India's past and, indeed, Pakistan's genesis require to be seen in unison. India is certainly heading for the worst types of materialistic values. It has accepted globalisation with open arms. The multinationals are there in scores; Indian companies are investing abroad. Soon India will be a major world power in the economic sense. But at what cost? That is the question which thinking Indians must take seriously.
Who do you hope will read India: Definitions and Clarifications?
The book, I hope, will be of use to all those who wish to enlarge their understanding of one of the most fascinating parts of the planet. India's 'largeness' is not so much in its size as in its immense and colourful variety, its diversity. It is multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religious and multi-social. I hope that the young, particularly, will read the book.
Given that this is an ambitious work, has it been difficult to research and write?
This work has been the result of many years of reading, research and field work. Fortunately, I also saw some of the main characters in the drama. How many 'experts' on India-Pakistan today can claim to have actually seen the following: Gandhi, Nehru, Mountbatten, Jinnah, Maulana Azad, Liaquat Ali and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur?
I witnessed the Partition and the massacres on both sides of the India-Pakistan border. I saw the dawn of independent India and the birth of Pakistan. Thus this book is more than a mere academic project.
Your next work is on India in the twentieth-first century and its future, what subjects will you be focussing on in this exploration?
I intend to discuss several subjects such as: education, the vast chasm between the rich and the poor, health, family breakdown, India and Pakistan's wasteful nuclear and military ambitions, rampant corruption, the role of films and the media, hypocrisy in every sphere of society and the deterioration of decent values. The book will not make me popular with those who talk so glowingly of 'Shining India' and 'Rising India'.
Q&A with reginald Massey
