Archive

How does one explain someone who is very well read, enlightened, highly articulate and exceptionally perceptive churning out tracts which have the appearance of being hastily put together, are shoddily presented and lack academic rigor? Such, alas, is the fate of many of Dr Subramanian Swamy’s books, including the one under review.
In this slim volume Swamy attempts to "(develop) the concept of the Indian mindset required for India to modernize as an innovative global economy cum military power that matches the requirements of playing a role on the global scene,” as the blurb clumsily puts it.  Alright, you cannot blame the author for the sins of his publisher but would it not, by any reasonable standard, be safe to assume that this piece of verbiage passed Swamy’s scrutiny before appearing in cold print? Like many other aspects of the book, it hardly does credit to someone who is otherwise known for his clear thinking and plain speaking.
Mind you, Swamy makes some very salient points as part of his discourse. Chief among them is the need, in his words, for "a national renaissance in Indian mindset (sic).” Broadly speaking, his thesis is that a large section of Indian society suffers from an identity crisis which has the potential to arrest the country’s march towards becoming a global economic and military power. One manifestation of the problem, he says, is that the contemporary Indian "has character flaws that have come from two centuries of deprivation” — a clear reference to the effects of British colonialism against which he has railed eloquently and consistently. Even if one agrees with that diagnosis — and many will not — Swamy is unlikely to garner universal support for what comes next, namely his cure for the problem: "a strong and coherent ideology of the Modern Right based on the concept of Hindutva based national identity.”
Oddly enough — and this may come as a bit of a shock to those who are not natural fans of Swamy — his elaboration of what constitutes that identity is far from revolutionary or rabid.  Briefly, they include what he calls the following ‘markers:’ "a social ethos … based on the Hindu concepts of harmonious secularism, trusteeship of wealth, philanthropy, and voluntary group self-help;” "empowerment of the individual through a modern accessible education that blends the essential concepts of spiritual commitment of Hindutva, (sic) with material pursuits;” a state "based on the present Indian Constitution, minimalist in regulatory interventions in social and economic matters, maximalist in the maintenance of law and order, and in crushing terrorism…;” a "renaissance Indian, or Hindustani, transformed from one who presently has loyalty to the family but apathetic to the community where he lives; from one who does not easily acknowledge the accomplishment of others nor strives for competitive accomplishment…;” and an Indian "who feels accountable for his or her actions, and more so the higher he or she rises in authority.”
But this discourse is not without the proverbial red rag to the bull. That comes in the form of constant references to Hinduism which is where Swamy’s potential to alienate significant sections of the population — especially the left-leaning liberals, secularists, and what may be compendiously called the ‘chattering classes’ — remains as strong as ever. He probably doesn’t give enough thought to a legitimate question that can be asked by his critics, namely: are not many of the virtues he espouses (e.g. harmonious secularism, philanthropy, voluntary group self-help) the warp and weft of other creeds and far from exclusive to Hinduism? Incidentally, Swamy’s own cosmopolitan credentials, insofar as his personal life is concerned, are impressive: his close family includes members of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths as well as a range of linguistic/regional backgrounds.
Arguably, the most contentious assertion to be found in this book — and one which would be of particular interest to readers of this journal — concerns the ancestry of Zoroastrians and Parsis. It is worth noting, in this context, that Swamy has an intimate Parsi connection in that he is married to a member of the community; his wife, Roxna (née Kapadia) and he met as fellow students in Harvard in the 1960s. Swamy believes that Zoroastrians should have been included in the definition of ‘Hindu’ in much the same way as Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are under the Indian Constitution (incidentally, Swamy states erroneously that Article 25 of the Constitution, which deals with religion, describes a Hindu as "one who is not a Muslim, Christian or Zoroastrian” — it does nothing of the kind and he should know).
What is the basis of his assertion? As far as Zoroastrians are concerned, it is simply that "in the Rg (sic) Veda, a group described as Poru bear uncanny similarity to the Zoroastrians” and that "(t)he holy Gathas of the Zoroastrians are similar to the Vedas.” As for Parsis, he cites the alleged belief of the late Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Chandrasekharendra Saraswati (whose name he spells as ‘Chandrashekhara Sarasvati’), that "Zarathustra originals (sic) from Saurashtra.” Swamy’s own conclusion is: "Thus Parsis originated in Gujarat, went to Persia and returned as refugees, following Islamic (sic) takeover of Persia.”
This reviewer is content to leave the credibility of such statements to be judged by persons better versed in the history of the Zoroastrian religion and of Parsi historicity than the reviewer himself. Suffice it to say that Swamy’s claims are likely, at the very least, to raise an eyebrow or two.                

 

VENKAT IYER