In this essay I respond to Devdutt Pattanaik’s Ted Talk in which he talks about our different views of the world and how they ” help us constantly misunderstand each other “- Ted.com.
Mr. Pattanaik brings up some interesting ideas in his Ted talk. He explains that each of us grow up with “myths” or perceptions based on where we live. Based on these myths we create my world verses your world. This insight can be used to explain some of the thought process used by the British writers in the readings from Empire Writing. Two specific passages are Ruskin’s Conclusion to Inaugural Letcher and Candler’s Kashi.
Ruskin’s “world” is based on growing up in the height of Britain colonial power. He believes in the power and superiority of the British people because that is the culture he knows, and he focuses on how the young should believe in his world. On page 16 he states, “The art of a country is the exponent of its social and political virtues”. As an intellectual, Ruskin believes that art and the youth will be the power that drives the empire. He does not believe that India has anything to offer and if they do then the empire will lose progress. His world of culture and power is better than their world of fable and superstition. In this viewpoint, only the educated and sophisticated youth of England have the strength and will power to control the rest of the world. Without them England will remain and “a heap of cinders, trampled by contending and miserable crowds” (19). Ruskin believes the youth must protect England, the “mistress of Learning and of the Arts” (18) from the “cruel and clamorous jealousies of the nations” (18). He sees a change in his world as a threat and something that should not even by entertained.
Candler brings another stance on the issue. He spends time observing a crowded street and the interaction between the Indians. He watches as women make hurried offerings the idols, Brahmins interacting with lower castes, different religions colliding and all the different cultures blending together. The Englishman in Candler is confused by this image, staying that “what makes the Hindu so complex and inscrutable is that there is no custom so bound up in his tradition, but some sect or family will be privileged to violate it” (341). India seemingly has no structure and contradicts everything in Candler’s “world”. On the other side most, Indians view the English as “a passing accident, to be used or ignored as indifferently as stepping stones across a brook” (344).
Through these two authors, the disconnect between the English and the Indians becomes clear. Each view the other through a different cultural lens. Neither want to learn about the other, The English because they believe that their culture is superior and the Indians because they think of the British as a passing phase. With this understanding in mind, the actions and events that took place during the colonization of India becomes clear.