Critically analyze the nature of Orientalism and its impact on Indian history with an emphasis

on Edward Said’s arguments.

In recent times the term ‘Orientalism’ has become highly problematic and contested, carrying several
meanings which do not sit altogether comfortably with each other. It is helpful to begin with the two
earliest meanings of the term as a foundation for analysing the nature and impact of Orientalism. First,
it was a scholarly study of the languages, literatures and cultures of the Orient (initially
conceptualized as the Middle East but later encompassing all of Asia). Secondly, the term also refers
to the 18th century administrative policy of the East India Company favouring the preservation of
Indian languages, laws and customs. Seen thus, the period of Orientalism can be said to begin from
1773 with Warren Hastings being appointed the Governor General of the East India Company and
extends upto 1832, when, influenced by liberal and evangelical attitudes, the East India Company
government made English education compulsory in India and brought the Orientalist phase to a close
(Kopf 1969).

Edward Said’s seminal work, Orientalism, marked a radical shift in the understanding of this term. He
combined Michel Foucault’s concept of power-knowledge and Antonio Gramsci’s concept of
hegemony to develop a new framework to study Orientalism. Foucault’s argument that power and
knowledge implicate each other was particularized by Said to ‘colonial power’ and ‘colonial
knowledge’. Thus, according to him, Orientalism was not knowledge of the Orient produced by
Englishmen sympathetic to the cultures of the East but it was knowledge meant to serve the power
structures of colonialism (see Discipline and Punish, Foucault 1975). Gramsci in his conception of
hegemony argues that every authority attempts to replace the exercise of mere coercion with an
intellectual and moral legitimacy that gives them greater stability (see Prison Notebooks, Gramsci
1998). According to Said, Orientalism was used to establish hegemony over the Orient, whereby the
Europeans appropriated for themselves the authority to make any pronouncements on the Orient and
deemed Orientalist knowledge as natural and self-evidently true. (Said, 1978)

According to Said (1978), Orientalism was a western construction based on the epistemological and
ontological distinction between the Orient and Occident (p.25). This distinction was to confine the
Orient to a position of inferiority, as Europe’s ‘Other’. To achieve this, the Orientalists portrayed the
Orient in essentialized terms whose meanings were presumed without dispute. . Thus, the Orient was
a place frozen in history, marked by exotic creatures and practices, Oriental Despotism and a ‘living
museum’ (Said 1985). The common denominator in all Orientalist works was that the Orient was
constructed rather than objectively studied or analyzed. For Said, Orientalism was a hegemonic
discourse that can be traced back from Classical Greece till the modern day and governed all
European pronouncements about the Orient – whether by Sanskritists such as H.T Colebrooke,
philosopher like Hegel or literary giants such as Flaubert.

Though, his work mainly focussed on British and French Orientalism in the Middle East, Said’s
theoretical framework has considerably influenced the work of historians studying Orientalism in the
Indian context. Gyan Prakash (1990), for instance, argues that Orientalism was from the beginning a
European enterprise with Indians as objects of knowledge. The Orientalist scholar saw Indians as
outside and opposite to the European Self – the rational and materialist British and the emotional and
spiritual Indian, appeared as essential and natural entities. Orientalist texts saw this representation of
India as objective and ‘true’ thus, providing a justification for colonialism. Therefore, he identifies
essentialism, a claim of objectivity and centrality of opposition to Europe as the main characteristics
of all Orientalist works.
This argument has been furthered by Ronald Inden (2002) and Nicholas Dirks (2001). According to
them, it was British institutional practices such as the decennial census that reified the conception of
a’Hindu’ religion as a coherent system of beliefs and practices that could be found in Sanskrit texts
with the help of Brahmins. Thus, the Orientalist discourse fixed the religious categories of Hindu and
Muslim as the basis for identity amongst Indians. Further, Inden (2002; ch-1) argues that human
agency was seen to be replaced by the institution of caste. The essentialization of caste was seen as
the reason for India’s failure to protect itself from conquest by outsiders and consequently, a
justification for British rule. It attributed all Indian actions either to motivations of caste, society,
kinship or simply bad motives.

These propositions seem to me to be quite problematic and I shall explore these problems in the
course of this essay. Firstly, Said and others who have followed a similar argument seem to have
fallen prey to same essentialism that they accuse Orientalists of. They could in some ways be called
‘Orientalists-in-reverse’ as they present the West as unified, constant throughout history and incapable
of producing any true knowledge about the Orient (Ahmad 1994). Thus, history becomes reduced to a
bipolar interpretation of Orient versus Occident, silencing all tensions in each pole (Sarkar 1997;ch-
2). As Kejariwal (1988) points out, William Jones (1746 – 1795), the founder of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal and an Orientalist though motivated by concerns of governance was largely sympathetic to
Indian culture and civilization. In his letter to Warren Hastings, he said “Some men have never heard
of Asiatic writings and others will not believe anything of value in them. We are like savages who
thought that the sun set and rose for them alone” (as quoted in Kejariwal1988; p-67). This critique of
European scholarly arrogance seems pointedly against the Saidian proposition. Though Jones’ project
of compiling a monumental digest of Hindu laws (later completed by H.T Colebrooke) was motivated
by concerns of governance of an alien people, his extensive investigation into comparative linguistics
(between Greek, Latin and Sanskrit), comparative mythology ( Jones 1784; quoted from Kejariwal
1988), composition of Sanskrit hymns in praise of various Hindu gods (see Hymn to Surya 1786; as
quoted in Kejariwal 1988), and the translation of the Jayadeva’s Gita Govinda do not seem to have
been motivated by imperialist concerns. While Inden accuses Orientalists of romanticising India in an
attempt to legitimize colonization, one observes that H.T Colebrooke (1735-1867) a renowned
Sanskritist and an accepted Orientalist, pushed for the establishment of a museum on the premises of
the Asiatic Society to preserve and display the vestiges of India’s past (thus partially fulfilling the
arguments of Inden) while also criticizing the practice of Sati as having no validation in the shastras,
calling for its abolition (see On the Duties of a Faithful Hindu Wife, Colebrooke 1795) thus,
demanding a change in ancient traditions (a change advocated not from a European pedestal of civil
behaviour but from the Indian perspective of shastric law) . The Saidian framework also fails to
explain the European study of the Orient much before colonial rule as seen in the works of European
diplomats, travellers, traders and missionaries. In addition, it fails to explain the special enthusiasm of
the Germans (such as Max Mueller) in studying the Orient as Germany was not involved in any
imperial projects in India.

Further, the flattening out of different political ideologies in the undifferentiated Saidian framework
seems problematic. Inden and Prakash seem to view Orientalists (William Jones, James Prinsep,
Nathaniel Halhed and the like) as no different from the later day Anglicists (Thomas Babington
Macaulay and the like) as both were serving the cause of imperialism. However, the Orientalists were
influenced by the cosmopolitanism and rationalism of the 18th century which was best exemplified by
Voltaire who believed that a majority of mankind had lived a more humane existence than the people
of Europe, oppressed by Christian powers (Kopf 1969). Thus, the Orientalist made a genuine attempt
to understand Indian society and learn Indian languages. Orientalism can be seen as a form of ‘reverse
acculturation’, whereby the dominant society (i.e the British) acculturated themselves to the colonized
society (i.e Indian society) instead of the only changing the colonized society (Viswanathan 1989).
Warren Hastings, who found himself in charge of a corrupt and degenerate government, saw the
Indianization of the civil servants as a means to improve the administration of the newly acquired
territories. Thus, for Hastings the quickest way to increase the efficiency and honesty of the civil
servant was to develop in them a love and affection for India, to love India one must communicate
with her people and to communicate with her people it was necessary to learn her languages and her
culture and history. Further, there was anxiety amongst the East India Company officials in the late
18th century that the Indians might reject British rule as being alien and thus ventured to study Indian
culture and history to placate such sentiments (Trautmann 1997).

As opposed to this, Anglicists such as Charles Grant and Thomas Babington Macaulay were
influenced by the liberalism, evangelism and utilitarianism of the 19 th century (Stokes 1989). The
liberal and utilitarian view of India was epitomized by James Mill who saw India as ready for change
in her customs and institutions. Underpinning the liberal philosophy was the assumption that all
human nature was fundamentally the same and could be transformed by English education, free trade
and the rule of law. Evangelicals such as Charles Grant saw India as a land of barbarism and the only
way to end her perpetual degradation was to rid her of priestly domination and despotism. He saw
English education as a means to pave the way for the spread of Christian knowledge in India. For the
free traders India was an extensive market for goods and as a supplier of raw materials thus English
education was a means to strengthen British control over India (Stokes 1989). One observes that both
Anglicists and Orientalists were part of the same project to control India; however they disagreed
completely regarding the means and ways to achieve the same.

Another significant critique of the Saidian framework of Orientalism is against the passivity of the
Indian to the European imposition of the Oriental discourse (see Bhabha 2012; Van der Veer and
Beckenridge 1993; King 1999; Bayly 1996). It seems unlikely that the British were able to construct a
dominant view of Indian society completely independent of the agency of local social formations and
knowledge communities. Dodson (2010) and Bayly (1996) have both argued that there was an
extensive involvement of Brahmin pundits in Orientalist knowledge production in the 18 th century,
leading to the institutionalization of the authority of the pundit. Thus, one finds several instances of
leading Indian scholars of the 18th century such as Mritunjay Vidyalankar, maulvi Allah Daud and
others teaching Indian languages at the Fort William College in Calcutta. Several Brahmins played an
important role in the production of Indian language grammars, dictionaries and historical reports.
Case in point being that of C.V Boria, who assisted Colin Macinzie in collating and translating a vast
corpus of inscriptions and antiquities in South India. Similarly, King (1999) argues that, though the
British Orientalist did in fact reify the notion of a unified ‘Hindu’ religion, this process was
legitimized by the Brahmins for political motives. Further, the Orientalist conception of an ancient
Hindu golden age followed by period of degeneration was borrowed from the Puranic notion of the
Kaliyuga and the 18th century Mughal texts referring to that period (i.e. 18 th century) as a period of
destruction and degeneration (Bayly 1996; Dodson 2010).

However one cannot overemphasize the participation of these native informants. While Orientalism
was a collaborative intellectual exercise between colonial officials and Indian commentators and
native informants, Indians occupied a subordinate position and seldom had control over the final
outcome of this process (Irschick 1994; Dirks 1993). With increasing power and stability of the East
India Company state, one sees a progressive marginalization of the native informant in the 19 th
century (Dalmia 1996). A case in point being that of C.V Letchmia, the Brahmin assistant of Colin
Macinzie who after his master’s death applied to the Asiatic Society in Bengal for permission to take
up the completion of the Macinzie collection, however the Asiatic Society refused him permission as
they felt that an oriental could perform only managerial and clerical tasks (Dirks 1993).

The impact of Orientalism, whether as a policy position or scholarly pursuit on Indian society, was
often ambivalent, contradictory and unintended. A significant example being the impact of Orientalist
policies on Hindu civil law, which was rendered as an image of European case law. William Jones,
who initiated the compilation of the Digest of Hindu Laws, was trained in English case law which was
based on precedence and was open to multiple interpretations by judges. However, Jones viewed
Indian laws as being eternal and timeless and thus considered any difference of opinions amongst the
pundits as arising from venality or ignorance. Thus, his motivation for compiling the Digest was to
recover and enshrine the ‘ancient constitution’ of India. While English jurisprudence sought certainty
in law by resorting to precedence or the natural law, Hindu jurisprudence sought to resolve conflicting
interpretations of the same law on the basis of commentaries or samhitas. Colebrooke who completed
the Digest believed, wrongly, that the various samhitas or commentaries on legal texts were authored
by lawyers and thus reflected the actual law of the land. He then divided the various samhitas into
schools of law, akin to Muslim personal law, with reference to one particular author who was taken to
be the norm for that particular school. Gradually this developed into a curious form of English case
law, complete with precedents from which a judge had to select a suitable one. What had started with
Warren Hastings’s search for the ‘ancient Indian constitution’ ended up with what he wanted to avoid
– English law as the law of India. (Cohn 1996, ch-3)

Trautmann (1997) has argued that the Orientalists prepared the way for the emergence of the concept
of the Aryan master race and scientific racism in the 20 th century. The evolution of racism can be
traced back to the discovery of the monogenesis of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit by William Jones. H.H
Wilson and Francis Ellis then classified the Indian languages into the Indo European and Dravidian
families. Max Mueller, later, synthesized this philological discovery into the Aryan Migration theory,
whereby the Aryans (from the Sanskrit term Arya meaning fair skinned and civilized) migrated to
India from Central Asia and subjugated the natives. This racial theory provided a pseudo scientific
basis for racism in the late 19th century. In this view, Indians were seen as inherently backward and
inferior compared to the superior Western civilization, while at the same time it created an inclusive
space whereby Indians and Europeans were related by blood. These theories of race have continued
well into the modern times, with political parties such as the DMK (Dravida Munetra Kazhagam)
having been formed on the assumptions of an Aryan invasion.

Orientalism was instrumental in preparing the background for the ‘Bengal Renaissance’ of the early
19th century (Kopf 1969). The ‘rediscovery’ of India’s ancient past brought pride in Indian culture and
traditions among the educated Indians in Calcutta. In the face of increasing criticism of Indian
traditions and religions by Christian Missionaries and colonial officials, intellectuals such as Raja
Ram Mohan Roy, Debendranath Tagore and others spearheaded a movement for the revitalization of
Hindu religion and its modernization from within. Later in the late 19 th and early 20th centuries,
Orientalist knowledge contributed to the emergence of a middle class, proud of its culture, and in the
development of a national consciousness in them. Balgangadhar Tilak, V.D Savarkar, K.P Jayaswal
and Jawaharlal Nehru all wrote extensively on the ‘glorious’ ancient Indian past and advocated a
return to it by throwing out the English yoke. (Kopf 1969; Dodson 2010)

Lastly, though the Orientalist project was undoubtedly motivated by imperial concerns, however one
cannot ignore the various contributions of the Orientalists in furthering our knowledge of Indian
history and society. Several branches of systematic studies were founded by these scholars such as
numismatics and epigraphy, comparative linguistics and philology. They were the first to initiate a
systematic study of the vernacular languages of India and gave them a concrete shape (with a definite
grammar and vocabulary). Various Sanskrit classics such as Kalidasa’s Abijnana Shakuntalam were
also recovered from oblivion by scholars such as William Jones.

In the last analysis, one can observe that the Saidian framework for understanding Orientalism in the
Indian context seems flawed in several respects. Orientalism cannot be understood simply as a project
of imperial domination, as various strands of acculturation and genuine scholarship and interest in
Indian society and culture can be noticed. Also, it was not a static modus operandi but a shifting set of
policy positions that adapted itself to the varying demands of imperial governance. While the 18 th
century the official approach to India was mild, it became aggressive in the 19 th century. Further, it
was a conscious picking up of existing elements from Indian society to legitimize British power while
at the same time it co-opted various sections in Indian society, especially the pundits. Its impact
cannot simply be dismissed as a residue of colonialism and was marked by ambivalence and
complexities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Ahmed, Aijaz, 1992; In Theory : Classes, Nations, Literatures; Verso

 Ali, Daud (ed.), 1999; Invoking the Past; The Uses of History in South Asia; OUP
 Thomas Trautmann – Inventing the History of South India
 Romila Thapar – Some Appropriations of the Theory of Aryan Race
 Bayly, C.A, 1996; Empire and Information : Intelligence Gathering and Social
Communication in India, 1780-1870; CUP
 Bandyopadhyay, Shekhar, 2004; From Plassey to Partition : A History of Modern India;
Orient Blackswan
 Bhabha, Homi, 2012; The Location of Culture; Taylor and Francis
 Breckenridge, Carol and Van der Veer, Peter (ed.), 1993; Orientalism and the Postcolonial
Predicament; University of Pennsylvania Press
 Carol Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer – Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament
 Nicholas Dirks – Colonial Histories and Native Informants : Biography of an Archive
 Cohn, Bernard S., 2002; Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge; OUP
 Dalmia, Vasudha, 1996; Sanskrit Scholars and Pandits of the Old School : The Benaras
Sanskrit College and the Constitution of Authority in the Late 19th century; Journal of Indian
Philosophy; Vol-24
 Dirks, Nicholas, 2002; Cates of Mind : Colonialism and the Making of Modern India;
Permanent Black
 Dodson, Michael, 2010; Orientalism, Empire and National Culture; CUP
 Inden, Ronald, 2006; Text and Practice; OUP
 Irschick, Eugene, 1994; Dialogue and History : Constructing South India, 1795-1895;
University of California Press
 King, Richard, 1999; Orientalism and the Modern Myth of Hinduism; Numen; Vol.46
 Kejariwal, O.P, 1988; The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past; OUP
 Kopf, David, 1969; British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian
Modernization; University of California Press
 Prakash, Gyan, 1990; Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World : Perspectives
from Indian Historiography; Comparative Studies in Society and History; Vol.32
 Said, Edward, 1978; Orientalism; Penguin Books
 Said, Edward, 1985; Orientalism Reconsidered; Cultural Critique
 Sarkar, Sumit, 1997; Writing Social History; OUP
 Subramanian, Lakshmi, 2010; History of India, 1707-1857; Orient Blackswan
 Stokes, Eric, 1989; The English Utilitarians in India; OUP
 Trautmann, Thomas, 1997; The Aryans and British India; OUP
 Viswanathan, Gauri 1989 ; Study and British Rule Masks of Conquest : Literary in India;
Columbia University Press