Memories Metaphor and Modern India

Nearly three decades (Published 1983) after its first publications, Sumit Sarkar’s Modern India remains the best summary of the most tumultuous period of Indian History (1885-1947).  Formal students of History have spent countless hours guided by this masterful survey of Indian nation and nationalism; non-History students preparing for Civil Service or other exams, on the other hand, grumbled about this “difficult” book. But both the parties did not have any other option. Well, there are options – and one of the most recent of them, Sekhar Bandopadhyay is quite good – but then, if you want to understand the complexities of Modern India (today it seems more like Emergence of Modern India) Sumit Sarkar is irreplaceable.

Sumit Sarkar was born in an illustrious Brahmo family of Calcutta in 1939. His father Susobhan Sarkar was a legendary Professor of History at Presidency College. Prof Sarkar was also one of the leading lights of Santiniketan under Rabindranath and played an important part in spread of communist thoughts. Sumit’s maternal uncle was P C Mahalanobis. Sumit Sarkar’s sister Sipra has been a renowned Professor of History at Jadavpur University.  He studied at St Xavier School, Presidency College and Calcutta University. His doctoral thesis on Swadeshi Bengal was his first major research work. He taught at Calcutta and Burdwan University before moving to Delhi University in 1976. His wife Tanika (daughter of another famous Presidency Professor Amal Bhattacharya of English Department and Sanskrit scholar Sukumari Bhattacharya) is also a well known historian – in fact Modern India is dedicated to Tanika. Marxist thoughts had a deep impact on Sumit Sarkar and he was one of the founders of subaltern studies, who later mourned the decline of subaltern in subaltern studies. He has written extensively on politics, society and historiography of modern India. But his most famous work has been Modern India.

I have spent many a lazy afternoon and warm midnight with Modern India. I am – like million others – sort of addicted to it. Once in a while, I like to open the book and read about a particular movement or a particular incident – almost every time I realize the value of a particular information or analysis all over again. I do not think it is an easy book for any student. He writes very long sentences with hyphen, comma and semicolon holding multiple pieces of information together. His analysis presupposes a certain degree of familiarity with historiography of modern India and at times with British or World History. Yet the more you read more you get drawn into it. Long after your examinations are over and you try to teach or talk or write about any particular phase, you realize you are unknowingly following Sumit Sarkar’s scheme of presentation. I suppose that is what happens with most of the college and university teachers across the country.

From the point of view of a professional historian there may be a number of problems with the book. Today, in certain aspects, it has become dated as well. Perhaps the most important of all, the inelastic boundary of Modern India – 1885-1947 – today appears unacceptable. I have always wondered why Sumit Sarkar never thought of writing a second volume of his Magnum Opus. But today my growing unease about “Modern India” is not so much on account of its time period but for its near complete focus on the Political part of Modern India. Agreed, that Sumit Sarkar made a significant departure from personality-centred history of high politics, yet, the main focus is on how political consciousness spread to different geographies and social layers, ultimately culminating in partition and independence.

Once upon a time, economic history of India was a craze among the brightest of research scholars. Unfortunately not only it has lost its glamour for researchers, graduation student is also still stuck at old notions of one dimensional Drain of Wealth or how commercialization of agriculture impoverished Indian peasantry. Recent researches (of last three decades at least) into regional variation of agrarian economy, small-scale industry and entrepreneurship have gone totally unnoticed. As a result, the obvious linkages between economic development and political movement – particularly at regional level – are not visible. A good point to start here could be Tirthankar Roy’s Economic History of India.

In last two decades or so, Social and Cultural history has, on the other hand, generated a tremendous interest among scholars, journalists and performers. Some of the greatest themes of Indian history during this time period – emancipation of women, emergence of middle class, caste mobility, mass entertainment - definitely fall into the realm of socio-cultural history. I have seen interesting books/ write-ups on various aspects of socio-cultural history but cannot think of a single volume survey or general introduction. The volume edited by Prof Dilip Menon may be taken as an interesting introduction to socio-cultural stirrings of this period but it is not comprehensive in its scope.

How long is it going to take for a new Modern India to be written with equal emphasis on political, economic and socio-cultural developments? That cannot totally replace Sumit Sarkar but will definitely produce a more comprehensive picture of how modern India took shape and will be far more interesting to general students. Again teachers in India stubbornly refuse to make History teaching a more multidimensional experience. Why can’t we prescribe a few novels and autobiographies as part of our modern India syllabus? Movies and digital photo archives can provide another wonderful medium to connect History with today’s generation.

I like to read whatever I can lay my hands on - novels, autobiographies or watch movies or exhibitions – but finally it is Modern India, which helps me to link my new piece of information with the grand narrative. These days often I feel social mobility or cultural movements are inadequately covered but still the voice of gentle Professor remains my best guide. It never occurred to me that I have not been his direct student.

The First Cut

 

                 A few days back Sri BM Kankanwadi Ayurvedic College in Belgaum was suddenly in the eye of a global media storm. In this little known college, 40-year-old Dr Mahantesh Ramannavar gave his students an extraordinary lesson in anatomy, by dissecting his father’s dead body. His father BS Ramannavar passed away at the age of 89. Senior Ramannavar donated his body to science but he also stipulated that if a dissection was to be performed, it should be carried out by his son. On November 13, 2010 – exactly two years after his father’s death, Mahantesh performed the dissection. Alongside his students, his family members and others watched the spectacle from a distance and it was broadcast live on many channels. Soon – as it happens these days - the video went viral on YouTube and everyone had something to say about this extraordinary event.

                          Reading about this news event, I thought about the most important dissection in the history of modern India. On the morning of 10^th January, 1836 fifty gun salute was fired from the ramparts of Fort Williams as Madhusudan Gupta entered the dissection room of Calcutta Medical College. What happened next is best described by a contemporary account “…at the appointed hour, scalpel in hand, he followed Dr Goodeve in the Godown where the body lay ready. The other students deeply interested in what was going forward but strangely agitated with mingled feelings of curiosity and alarm crowded after them but durst not enter the building where this fearful deed was to be perpetuated; they clustered around the door, peeped through the jilmils, resolved at least to have ocular proof of its accomplishment. When Modusuden’s knife, held with a strong and steady hand, made a long and deep incision in the breast, the lookers-on drew a long-gasping breath, like men relieved from the weight of some intolerable suspense” (John Drinkwater Bethune, pioneering educationist, started first girls school – today Bethune School and Bethune College). The heavy weight of many centuries was lifted with this single incision and as a later day scholar tried to freeze the moment in history – it was that precise moment in time when western knowledge of medicine symbolically entered Indian body.

                  Calcutta Medical College - India’s first medical college - started medical teaching on 1 June, 1835 with 49 students but very soon a practical problem cropped up. It was unthinkable for high caste Hindu students to defile a dead body. Not only for the students even for the society it was unacceptable. But without basic knowledge of anatomy further progress was hampered. Today going by the evidence of advancement in surgery in Ancient India, it can be said without any doubt that they were familiar with cadaver dissection. But for centuries Ayurvedic students did not practice human dissection. Both the authorities and concerned local elites worked together to find a solution to the problem. It finally fell upon Madhusudan Gupta, the Chief Native Teacher of the school to break the taboo and at the same time to provide religious sanction for such an act. Even as the government hailed his heroic act, his own society promptly ostracized him. Later in an open debate – organized by some British educationists with government support – he quoted Sanskrit texts to persuade conservative Brahmins of Calcutta to accept cadaver dissection. His shastric knowledge finally helped him to end his social boycott and more importantly, paved the way for his students to acquire modern medical knowledge.

Madhusudan Gupta (1800?- 1856) was a remarkable person. He was born in a well established family of Ayurvedic doctors (Vaidyas) in a place called Baidyabati (residence of Baidyas i.e. Vaidyas), some 50 kilometres from Calcutta. We have no information about his early life but apparently he did not show much interest in studies. In 1826, he joined the newly started course on Ayurvedic medicine in Calcutta’s Sanskrit College (Company government started two courses for native medical students – Ayurvedic course at Sanskrit College and Unani course at Calcutta Madrasa). In 1830, for his exceptional talent Madhusudan was made a student-cum- teacher in the same college. After finishing his formal education at the college, he was appointed as a full-fledged teacher. When Calcutta Medical College was established in 1835, he was appointed the Chief Native Teacher there. His primary responsibility was to translate and guide first generation of Indian medical students. While being a teacher, he was persuaded to appear for MBBS exam, which he cleared with distinction in 1840. Very few people could actually pass MBBS in first few years. As the government needed many more Indian doctors – particularly for the Army – they started a shorter course for Indians through Hindustani and Madhusudan was made the Superintendent of that course. Later in 1852, a course in Bengali was introduced and again it was Dr Madhusudan Gupta, who was asked to be the head. Already in 1849, he was made a First Class Sub-Assistant Surgeon. He also translated a number of English text books into Sanskrit and Bengali and in that process coined some of the first medical terms in Bengali.

We know almost nothing about his personal life or how he felt as a professional. In a deposition before a government appointed committee on the condition of medical facilities in Calcutta in 1837, we catch a glimpse of this extraordinary doctor: he outlined the need for compulsory vaccination of children for small pox and pointed it out that in the previous 20 years how the number of such cases have come down due to the effort of native vaccinators. Even more remarkably he insisted on providing midwifery training to Hindu women, so that they can save precious lives. He said that the main problems of native quarters of Calcutta were unhealthy living conditions – narrow streets, contaminated drinking water taken from public ponds, lack of ventilation, garbage lying on the street and rotting fish and vegetables in open markets. He mentioned Barabazar, Mechua, Kolutola as some of the most unhealthy localities of the city. 180 years after his observations, Calcutta continues to be the same unhealthy city of narrow roads with garbage lying on the street and Barabazar and Mechua continue to be the unhealthiest parts of the city! That is perhaps the biggest disservice to this pioneer of public health.
On 15th November 1856, Madhusudan , a diabetic patient died of diabetic gangerene of hand, an infection contracted during a dissection.  On his death, the Director of Public Instruction wrote, “…to him a debt of gratitude is due by his countrymen. He cleared a jungle of prejudice, into which others have successfully pressed.” Pandit, Kaviraj, Doctor Madhusudan Gupta was an example of extraordinary moral courage against prejudice of centuries.

Judge Pal: A Japanese Hero

“….if not for anything else, we shall forever remain grateful to the country of Justice Pal” – concluded one senior Japanese journalists, after a long analysis of India-Japan-china strategic relations. A group of senior Indian journalists looked baffled. Hardly 40 years after his death, Justice Radha Binod Pal is a forgotten hero in his homeland, even though he continues to be a deeply venerated figure in Japan. Justice Pal –like Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose – provides an important emotional link in an otherwise fast growing strategic and economic relations between two prominent Asian powers.

Born in Kustia( now in Bangladesh) in 1886, Radha Binod Pal studied mathematics at Presidency College and then Law at Law College of Calcutta University. He also taught at Law College from 1923 to 1936. In 1941, he was made a Judge of Calcutta High Court. From 1944 to 1946 he was also the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University. But his moment of glory came in 1946, when he was sent by the Government of India as one of the Judges for Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. Why he was chosen it is difficult to say – for Justice Pal had clear sympathy for the nationalists, including Subhas Bose’s INA. But apparently he was chosen by his chief Justice, an Englishman.

One among the 11 international jurists, he delivered the lone dissenting judgment at the trial. He believed that the Tribunal itself was a farce and nothing more than victors’ justice imposed on vanquished Japanese. He refused to accept that only Japan provoked the war. He, in fact concluded that USA had provoked Japan into war. He found defendants not guilty of Class A war crimes and refused to apply (newly coined) charges like crime against Humanity. He said exclusion of Western Colonialism and use of Atom Bomb from the list of charges is unacceptable. However it would be wrong to assume that Justice Pal was unduly favouring the Japanese. He found Japanese wartime conduct as ‘devilish and fiendish’; he also found overwhelming evidence of atrocities committed by the Japanese Army during the war. Yet, he believed strongly that the Tribunal itself was an act of retribution and as such incapable of producing any balanced verdict or contributing to any lasting peace. His judgment since then has been a landmark in international law for its reasoning.

Justice Pal’s 1200-odd page judgment was banned by the Allies. In 1952, Japan was forced to sign San Francisco Treaty and accept the verdict of Tokyo Trial. As the American occupation of Japan ended Justice Pal’s dissenting judgment came out as a book. And it provided the basis for neo-nationalist movement in Japan that Tokyo trial was a sham and Japan was not guilty of war crimes. In subsequent Japanese political and popular discourse, his criticism of Japan was forgotten and only the positive part was highlighted.

After the Tokyo trials, Justice Pal was elected to United Nations’ International Law Commission, where he served from 1952 to 1966. He passed away in 1967. One of his sons, Satyabrata Pal was recently India’s High Commissioner to Pakistan and is currently a member of the National Human Rights Commission. Another son Pranab Kumar Pal was also a famous lawyer. Noted lawyer and India’s former Junior Finance Minister Debi Prasad Pal is his son-in-law.

After 1952, Justice Pal visited Japan a number of times and was always showered with great degree of affection – both by the Japanese government and ordinary people. In 1966, Japanese Emperor conferred him the First Class of the Order of the Sacred Treasure. Even in recent years scholarly works have been written on him in Japan and Japanese National broadcaster NHK has made a number of documentaries on Justice Pal. In 2007, the then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe came to Calcutta and met Justice Pal’s son Prasanta. Abe’s grandfather Nobusuke Kishi was one of the prominent Japanese leaders, famously pronounced “not guilty” by Justice Pal at the Tokyo Trial.

Leaders and top diplomats from both countries routinely mention Justice Radha Binod Pal’s contribution in building Indo-Japan relationship but not only in his country, even in his home city, Justice Pal is a forgotten figure. There is not a single road or park named after him or any other mention of this great man anywhere in public life in Calcutta. In Japan, he is venerated by nationalists even today and a monument dedicated to Justice Pal stands on the sacred grounds of Yasukuni shrine (picture) in Tokyo.