Argumentative Indian unworthy; Amartya Sen’s history biased

Monday, October 17, 2005, 20:01
India
479 views
10 comments

At last, somebody has gathered enough courage to refute Amartya Sen and his recent book, The Argumentative Indian. It is surprising that Amartya Sen has risen to the status of a demigod especially in his home state Bengal, and that his book has been hailed in all the reviews written by Indians that I have seen.

I shall comment on his book after reading it, but Gordon Johnson, a reputed Indian historian at Cambridge and the editor of the series The New Cambridge History of India, finds Amartya Sen’s book tepid and unworthy of having been written.

He says that the Nobel laureate in Economics has only a feeble grasp of history and like the very people that he writes against, himself also presents Indian history in a biased manner. He highlights only those incidents in history that suit his needs and conveniently forgets those that are not of interest to him. Gordon writes that Sen’s collection of lectures in the book is a very hotch-potch collection and does not add to the existing treasure trove on Indian history in any way.

Gordon also feels that Sen has not touched on one of the most important parts of Indian history which according to him lies in the interaction with Europeans, because today’s India has largely been shaped by the European influence, chiefly British.

Though I shall not comment on Argumentative Indian, I had the chance to sit through a Special lecture by Amartya Sen in Cambridge last year. I very much agree with Gordon in that Sen only highlights those aspects of Indian history that suit him and his political inclinations. In his lecture he spoke highly of Akbar and Ashoka and lowly of Aurangzeb – which common Indian would find fault with that? But when you write history, and as a historian, things are different – Akbar’s and Ashoka’s times were also very troubled and there was a lot of violence, and Aurangzeb’s period was when the Mughal rule was at its peak though his despotism is despicable.

Gordon, through Argumentative Indian, and I, from his lecture, find Amartya Sen to be biased and very shallow in knowledge and presentation of history. While the quality of Secularism might be desirable in today’s world, Sen’s version of it is lopsided and untenable.

From the review:

More seriously, Sen’s history is weak. He chooses his examples to suit his present purpose without apparent awareness of their historical context.

There is a more serious distortion of Mughal history. The Mughal emperor Akbar, who ruled from 1556 to 1605, is always compared to Aurangzeb, who ruled from 1658 to 1707. There has long been a 1066 and All That view of these rulers, and it is one to which Sen repeatedly subscribes.

My greatest disappointment with this book is that its use of history is as unscrupulous and trivialising as that of those Sen wishes to bring down. The Argumentative Indian is not sufficiently thoughtful and serves as a forceful reminder that history is constantly being used in a dangerously naive way.

I will be reading Argumentative Indian, so come again for my views on the book.

Tags: Books, History

10 Comments on “Argumentative Indian unworthy; Amartya Sen’s history biased”

hammer_sickel wrote on 27 October, 2005, 20:48
Here is a link to a small article written by Amartya Sen in a US based small montly magazine.

http://littleindia.com/october2005/TheArgumentativeIndian.htm
Indian Capitalist wrote on 10 November, 2005, 8:58
I read your piece on Amartya wiht interst. Here are some links to what is my perception of Amartya’s book.

http://anoopverma.blogspot.com/2005/11/amartya-sen-argumentative-communist.html

http://anoopverma.blogspot.com/2005/11/enshrined-mediocrities-amartya-sen.html
padma wrote on 11 November, 2005, 8:12
One should not write reviews about a book when has not read it.
Sooraj wrote on 12 November, 2005, 17:55
Hi Padma,

I agree with your comment wholeheartedly!

But if you did read the article, you would notice that I have not commented/criticized about the book at all. Wherever the book has been criticized, it is the words of Prof. Gordon Johnson, one of the best Indian historians today.

My personal comments are only targeted at Amartya Sen himself, whose personality I had a first-hand opportunity to experience.

Your comments are, however, encouraged here. (smiles)
Kesava Mallela wrote on 6 December, 2005, 14:17
Argumentative Indian as the title goes…I guess Sen does not expect everybody to agree with his book. Somebody has to pick a fight you know
Sooraj wrote on 6 December, 2005, 15:50
Hi Kesava,

That is a point well made indeed. But what did you think of the book?
Anand wrote on 30 July, 2006, 19:06
Nice to read a different perspective on Amartya Sen. In my view, what Prof. Sen is trying to bring out through this book is the argument against what is understood in the West and elsewhere that ideas such as freedom of expression, democracy, atheism, scientific reasoning etc are solely Western inventions. It is towards this end that he has chosen his examples, which I cannot find fault with. Thus, in my opinion, one has to see the book as a reading in history with a rightful point to make.
IC wrote on 4 September, 2006, 15:13
I am not sure if Gordon has read the book before reviewing.. The only point he brought out to criticize the book is that Aurangzeb was not so bad after all….

The book aims at correcting the image of India ( which is often presented to west as as a land of spiritual/mystical traditions) and highlight the oft-forgotten Indian tradition of scepticism, debate , atheism, secularism ..the philosophy which is perceived to be “western” thought. In other words it is an attempt to show that the Indian culture is much broader than what is thought by the west. The image it tries to correct is actually the image created by the British historians (like Mill) and the British Raj which undermined the Indian tradition of scepticism .
Sen never argued against necessity of western interaction ..infact he stated his conviction to Tagore’s words that the idea of liberty and freedom ( for which we fought against british) was imparted to us by the west. Sen argues against any form of sectarianism..be it religious or cultural and defended the western influences on Indian society… a modern phenomenon. Still Gordon accuses him of ignoring the modern times.. rousing my suspicion again that he may have read the essays selectively.

One more point at the end: I am not sure how big a historian Gordon Johnson is..I have not heard his name before this and i am far removed from Cambridge history circle.. But on a brief search on the books by Gordon johnson i found only the following list:

Cambridge University Press 1584–1984
Michael Black, Foreword by Gordon Johnson
Paperback (ISBN: 0521664977 | ISBN-13:9780521664974)
DOI: 10.2277/0521664977
In stock £16.99

——————————————————————————–

Cambridge University Press 1584–1984
Michael Black, Foreword by Gordon Johnson
Hardback (ISBN: 0521264731 | ISBN-13:9780521264730)
DOI: 10.2277/0521264731
In stock £45.00

——————————————————————————–

Printing and Publishing for the University of Cambridge
Gordon Johnson
Paperback (ISBN: 0521663539 | ISBN-13:9780521663533)
DOI: 10.2277/0521663539
In stock £6.99

——————————————————————————–

University Politics
Gordon Johnson
Paperback (ISBN: 0521469198 | ISBN-13:9780521469197)
DOI: 10.2277/0521469198
Padma Lakshmi wrote on 23 May, 2008, 5:46
Hello webmaster…I found your site via Yahoo! when i was searching for padma publishing, and this post regarding s history biased really sounds very interesting to me.. Thanks.
kirthiga wrote on 26 July, 2009, 20:19
His thoughts about the Kaliyuga calendar being flawed is flawed . He says it has no reference in the Mahabharatha and the Ramayana. When Mahabharatha and Ramayana happened in the yugas of Tretha and Dwapara respectively , it is absurd to expect any reference to Kaliyuga calendar in them especially because Kaliyuga occurs after Tretha and Dwapara yugas.!!!!