Abstract
Mode of philosophizing in post-colonial India is deeply influenced by two centuries of British rule (1757–1947), wherein a popular divide emerged between doing classical Indian philosophy and Western philosophy. However, a closer look reveals that the divide is not exclusive, since there are several criss-cross modes of philosophizing shaped by the forces of colonialism and nationalist consciousness. Contemporary challenges lie in raising new philosophical questions relevant to our time, keeping in view both what has been inherited and what has been imbibed in these centuries-old civilizational journeys. One needs to recognize India’s rich intellectual traditions based on cultural diversity, and at the same time raise fundamental questions that are transcendental in nature, yet historically rooted in our temporal presence. The challenge to articulate the nature of Indian philosophy (as anviksiki or darsana) has remained one of the daunting tasks for scholars of philosophy. Contemporariness of Indian philosophy is another issue to be deliberated. Contemporariness lies not only in raising new questions to classical Indian philosophies, but also in finding newness in old questions. It should further include engaging the classical philosophies with new methodological questions, be it Western philosophical methods or ones internally generated. Contemporariness will include narrating new stories driven by the dynamics of the present, where drive for questioning comes from the authentic philosophical issues of our time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Receiving communities are those societies who conceive themselves as a ‘people’ in the face of ‘colonial forces’ onslaught. These communities as manifest are a product of colonialism with little choice of their own. It is through historical exigencies—of political, economic and cultural influences/impositions—that receiving communities start wearing the garb of a receiver of knowledge and values. See Oinam (2005).
I am referring to the idea of ‘transcendental illusion’ articulated by Daya Krishna that all philosophical exercises ultimately culminate into a certain form of transcendentalism with a belief of certitude, which eventually turns out to be an illusion. See Daya Krishna (2012).
Lord Macaulay’s supposed address in British Parliament (February 2, 1835) is worth highlighting, being floated for public consumption through two contrasting narratives. One harps on conspiracy theory—a British plan to subjugate the Indians who have high moral values and caliber, and need to conquer this country and break the backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage. (http://historum.com/asian-history/26268-lord-macaulay-s-address-british-parliament-2-february-1835-a.html. Accessed on January 21, 2018). The other narrative is of a contempt for the Indian and Arabic intellectual traditions because “a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literatures of India and Arabia”, thus showing the inherent/intrinsic superiority of the Western literature. (http://home.iitk.ac.in/~hcverma/Article/Macaulay-Minutes.pdf. Accessed on January 21, 2018; (Bhushan and Garfield 2017, pp. 39–62) These two narratives are not only contradictory, but also sound ideologically biased irrespective of their authenticity. Interestingly, post-colonial experiences, in one way or the other, are linked with the politics of that time.
There are new findings that Macaulay was in Calcutta during the time he was supposed to have addressed the British Parliament in 1835. This was found out in the recent works of Parimala Rao (2014).
Shri Mohan Bhagwat made a controversial remark that social evils take place in India (representing Westernized, urbanized part of the country), but not in Bharat (representing its rural and cultured part). This observation shows the continuity of the contestations visible in the ‘Macaulay narratives’.
References are to Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Rabindranath Tagore, etc.
References are to K. C. Bhattacharyya, Kalidas Bhattacharyya, B. N. Seal, S. Radhakrishnan, S. N. Dasgupta, T. M. P. Mahadevan, M. Hiriyanna, etc.
See Raguramaraju’s paper “Bending Deleuze and Guattari for India: Re-examining the relation between Art and Politics in Europe, and India” in this volume.
This articulation is based on author’s discussion with the Buddhist scholar and Sanskritist S. R. Bhatt.
I am considering both astika and nastika philosophies within the larger fold of Sanskritic tradition. Even though Buddhism and Jainism are classified within the non-Vedic category, the close interface of the two with astika philosophies is well-known.
This distinction also exemplifies other possible parallels between Sanskritic and non-Sanskritic traditions.
I am borrowing this term from Yogendra Singh’s articulation of those cultural practices that are not necessarily part of any grand narrative (1986).
Orature is a “term coined by the Kenyan novelist and playwright Ngugi wa Thiong’o to denote imaginative works of the oral tradition (…). The point of the coinage is to avoid suggesting that oral compositions belong to a lesser or derivative category”, Oxford Reference. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100252914 (Accessed 14 February 2018). Ngugi and other scholars are using this term to conceptualize an embedded literary practice that breaks the binary of literary and oral traditions. I am using this term to trace philosophical ideas found in the embedded literary narratives of the indigenous people in the country.
This was part of the keynote address delivered by J. N. Mohanty during an international seminar titled Imagining India: Discourse of the Nation organized by the Department of English, Benaras Hindu University during December 18–19, 2009.
The article by Rohit Dalvi in the compendium Columbia Companion to Twentieth Century Philosophies (2007) is a good move towards recognition of contemporary Indian philosophy by the West.
Let me refer to a recent PhD work of a young scholar, Shipra, at Jawaharlal Nehru University (New Delhi) where the scholar engages with the works of Debiprasad Chattopadhyay and Kanchana Natarajan on use of Sanskrit words ‘kshetra’ (field to be plowed), ‘nartakivat’ (dancing girl), ‘prasavdharmi’ (one who gives birth), etc. for Prakriti. These terms are highly gendered in valuation. This has been articulated in her PhD thesis titled ‘Simone de Beauvoir and Samkhya Philosophy on Gender Differentiation: A Comparative Study’ 2016.
References
Aurobindo, Sri. (1997/1998). The foundations of Indian culture. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
Bhagwat, M. (2013). Rapes occurs in India, not Bharat. New Delhi Television Limited (NDTV). https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rapes-occur-in-india-not-bharat-says-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-509401. Accessed 25 Dec 2017.
Bhattacharya, K. (1982). Traditional Indian philosophy as modern Indian thinkers view it. In S. S. Rama Rao Pappu & R. Puligandla (Eds.), Indian Philosophy: Past and Future (pp. 171–224). Motilal Banarsidass: Delhi.
Bhattacharya, R. (2011). Studies in Cārvāka/Lokāyata. London: Routledge.
Bhushan, N., & Garfield, J. L. (2017). Minds without fear: Philosophy in the Indian renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bhushan, N., Garfield, J. L., & Raveh, D. (Eds.). (2011). Contrary thinking: Selected essays of Daya Krishna. London: Oxford University Press.
Chattopadhyaya, D. (2012) (reprint). Lokāyata: a study in ancient Indian materialism. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House.
Dalvi, R. (2007). Indian philosophy. In C. V. Boundas (Ed.), Columbia Companion to Twentieth Century Philosophies (pp. 645–660). New York: Columbia University Press.
Dasgupta, S. N. (1982). Dogmas of Indian philosophy. In Philosophical Essays (pp. 208–233). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Daya Krishna (1989). The art of the conceptual: Explorations in a conceptual maze over three decades. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research & Munshiram Manoharlal.
Daya Krishna (2012). Towards a theory of structural and transcendental illusions. New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
Freschi, E., Coquereau, E., & Ali, M. (2017). Rethinking classical dialectical traditions: Daya Krishna on counterposition and dialogue. Culture and Dialogue, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1163/24683949-12340032.
Gandhi, M. K. (1997/2004). Hind Swaraj and other writings. A. J. Parel (Ed.). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Ganeri, J. (2001). Philosophy in Classical India: The proper work of reason. London and New York: Routledge.
Ganeri, J. (2012). Identity as reasoned choice: A south Asian perspective on the reach and resources of public and practical reason in shaping individual identities. New York: Continuum.
Halbfass, W. (1990). Darśana, Ānvīkṣikī, philosophy, in India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State University of New York Press, 263–286.
Heidegger, M. (1962/1983). Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Southampton: Basil Blackwell.
Jacobsen, K. A. (2002). Prakriti in Samkhya-Yoga. Material principle, religious experience, ethical implications. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Kaviraj, S. (2005). An outline of a revisionist theory of modernity. European Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975605000196.
Murty, K. S. (1973). The Realm of Between: Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Murty, K. S. (1985). Philosophy in India: Traditions, Teaching, and Research. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Nandy, A. (1983). Intimate Enemy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Natarajan, K. 2001. Gendering of early Indian philosophy: a study of samkhyakarika. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(17), 1398–1401+1403–1404.
Nicholson, A. J. (2010). Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and identity in Indian intellectual history. New York: Columbia University Press.
Oinam, B. (2005). Receiving communities: the encounter with modernity. Eastern Quarterly, 3(2), 86–96.
Oinam, B. (2011). Philosophy in India: an agenda for an alternative mode of philosophising. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (JICPR), 28(2), 75–90.
Raghuramaraju, A. (2006). Debates in Indian philosophy: Classical, colonial and contemporary. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Rajagopal, G. (2016). Cultural poetics and sangam poetry. New Delhi: Sun International Publishers.
Ramanujan, A. K. (1967). The interior landscape: Love poems from classical Tamil anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Rao, P. V. (Ed.). (2014). New perspectives in the history of Indian education. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
Singh, Y. (1986). Modernization of Indian tradition. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Vidyabhusana, S. (1920). A history of Indian logic. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001/1953). Philosophical investigations, G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the comments received from Daniel Raveh, Elisa Freschi, and Elise Coquereau during the final stage of the preparation of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oinam, B. ‘Philosophy in India’ or ‘Indian Philosophy’: Some Post-Colonial Questions. SOPHIA 57, 457–473 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0679-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0679-0