The author says that this is not just a personal autobiography; this is the biography of a nation. He says that he is competent to write this book as he has lived through these times, and that his knowledge has not been acquired second hand.
The author says that India is a civilization in decay - that its moral and social order is breaking down. This dilution in values he ascribes to copying the lowest and simplest forms of western culture and western lifestyles.
The author has divided the written history of India into three phases. The first phase begins about 500 B.C. and continues until 1192 A.D., the year that India lost its independence to Muslim invaders. The second period may be referred to as India’s “Dark Ages”. The third phase, which he refers to as the British period, began about 1774 A.D., when India became a British colony. The third phase, holds the author, is still continuing even though the British have departed India. As the dominant culture and language in the third phase is still English – the culture and language of the colonists.
The author states that during the entire period of Muslim domination, the Muslim invaders never thought of themselves as Indians, but regarded themselves as part of the Muslim world. The author discounts the theory of a common heritage – he states that everything in Islam is of foreign origin. The Muslim invaders never sought to integrate, but established a parallel society in India. The sole purpose of Muslims was to expand Islam, and to create an Islamic state. The Muslim invaders were always in conflict with the greater part of the populace. The Indians were never reconciled to Muslim rule, and were never prepared to accept it. The author describes India’s relationship to the Muslim invaders as one of passive hostility.
The author states that after the British overthrew Muslim rule, India became part of the western world – in the broader sense of the term. The author states that even the Hindu reform movement, lead by Swami Vivekananda, drew inspiration from Christian missionary orders. While Indians remained staunch nationalists, the Hindu reform was based on the idea of a synthesis of the civilizations of East and West (Hinduism and Christianity). The Hindu intelligentsia accepted the new values; the Muslims, on the other hand, did not accept British rule and the resulting loss of political power.
The author states that Hindu society is essentially a closed society, based on birth and blood ties. The presence of certain Islamic elements in Hindu society was an external imposition only. The moment Muslim rule disappeared, so did these elements. The group consciousness of both Hindus and Muslims remains profoundly antithetical to each other. Today, the Hindu defines himself primarily by not being a Muslim; the scriptures and the sacred thread are of secondary importance.
The author states that India’s climate drains the energy and vitality not only from its inhabitants, but also from its colonists. He states that the continuation of colonial rule largely depends upon the infusion of fresh blood from the home territories. When the home territories become weak or exhausted, the Indian masses rise up in revolt, and the foreign power is overthrown. Defeated, not so much by the momentum of history, but by sheer inertia.
What the author implies – but does not say so in so many words – was that the two centuries of British domination were tolerable only because they helped to put an end to Muslim rule. The interlude gave the Indian people time to organize them selves politically, and to rediscover their roots.
Nirad Chaudhuri is no stranger to controversy – in fact, he has often been accused of assiduously courting it. The reasons are not far to seek: his views on most topics are diametrically opposed to the accepted social and political norms. In his defense, it can be said that (perhaps) he has intentionally set himself up as the antithesis to the prevalent theories / notions with the aim of arriving at a suitable synthesis. This is the dialectic methodology, and has often been used by other thinkers; notably by Marx and Socrates.
His value as a writer is precisely this – to those readers who have been fed a sanitized account of their past, both as a nation and people, he offers another perspective. But he is provocative nonetheless, none more so than when he claims to represent the national mainstream…
More reviews about the Autobiography of an Unknown Indian