What do you think?
Rate this book
The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism
Defying conventional studies of colonial domination, this enduring work emphasizes the importance of visions in fighting oppression and the cultural resources that keep such visions open and plural. Colonialism, it argues, damaged both colonized and colonizing societies, and Indian anti-imperialism found in Gandhi's counter-modernity a new language of dissent built on the lifestyle, values, and psychology of everyday life in India and on dissenting Western voices.
142 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
44 people are currently reading
1284 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
February 3, 2018
My new found love for psycho-anthropology.
April 30, 2018
To most of the finest critical minds of West, Colonialism was a necessary evil, the first portal towards a more even homogenized world. But for the Colonized, the psychological after effects and the trauma of subjugation, in all its postulated merits, have not yet let them embrace the egalitarian world the apologists conveniently then envisioned. Author here argues that Colonialism has not only colonized the geographical material entity but also the mind; by compelling colonized societies to modify, if not alter, their cultural priorities towards the concepts of modern West. In this book, Nandy consciously connives to uncover what Western colonialism has done to its subjects unconsciously, and the alternative language of discourse colonized Indians might have created in the process.
I know the intro sounds like the first snooze button in a long boring lecture, but I find myself ill equipped to articulate the things that I enjoyed and found enlightening during this read. Even a reproduction in Nandy’s own language, which is academically tharoorized like Khilnani’s, isn’t enough to vocalise my thoughts and disagreements, or even appreciation towards the things I couldn’t repudiate even though I wanted to.
The book is comprises of two long essays, first one of psychology of colonialism where Author examines the nature of sex, age and ideology in British India, and latter about post-colonial view of West and India. And they both speak of victims than victors, and when victors are addressed they are considered as camouflaged victims in their earlier stage of psychological decay. According to Nandy, one must choose the non-modern slave over the modern master coz slave represents a higher cognition for regarding his master ‘human’, whereas master’s cognition perforce reduces the salve to a ‘thing’. Modern oppression, he argues, as opposed to traditional oppression is not a battle between the self and the enemy, or the oppressor and the revolutionaries, or the god and the demons. Though I think a detailed look into the traditional oppression, can render them less monochromatic, I found his take very appealing and well in line with book’s title.
Side lining economic and political borders, Nandy tries to show the state of mind as the primary differentia between colonizers and the colonized, where a shared culture might not find its commencement with alien rule or closure in its departure. Towards later years, British began to ascribe salvatory meanings to Colonial domination and Indians began to see their progress in becoming more like the British, in friendship or enmity. In this ‘identification with the aggressor’, western view of hyper masculinity began to permeate into the socio-religious-literature-art movements of India, with ‘Kshatriyahood’ (the martial portion of Indian caste system) becoming the indicator of authentic indianhood. Indian concepts of purusatva(masculinity), naritva(feminity) and klibatva(hermaphroditism) were polarized against one another and the existence of later two or any forms of androgyny were now perceived as negation of man’s unalloyed political identity. This reader was able to identify, to some extent, the suggested transition in depiction of Gods, who are getting increasingly martial, or masculine or feminine, every day against earlier androgynous ‘ardhanarishwaran’ (half man half woman God).
In the second essay, author takes his psychoanalysis to the post-colonial view, of both India and the West. It gets into the nitty gritty details of Kipling’s life in relation with his literary view, and the materialistic obfuscations of internal critiques like Nirad C Chaudhuri and V.S.Naipaul, who in their loss, wanted to identify India as a martial opponent to the West. Nandy’s polar opposite is Aurobindo Ghose, who denounced his western middle name and western education to embrace India as India, not the non-West. To the former Orient should defeat the Occident in its own game by embracing ‘this-worldiness’ of ‘Kshatriyahood’, and to the latter the already superior ‘Spiritual India’ was the real India. Though pluralities of ideologies are always accommodated, this split is in present continuous tense and when everything material fails people retracts to the spiritual self for answers. The major western worldview separates both philosophies, with conspicuous hierarchy and exclusivity. And this is where Gandhi stands as an original critique to modernity. He attacked the moral statement and civilizing mission of colonialism based on cultural superiority in their home ground-by declaring it evil through judgement via Christian values. And he further disproved the historical conception of colonisation as an instrument of progress using western conception of ‘history’ itself.
Idea of India has always been compromising, fluidic and in a way ahistoric, with tolerance and willingness to learn the ways of outsider or civilized, provided it’s profitable. It would be more correct to put this aspect as something out of necessity than intrinsic trait, a survival strategy that keeps somewhat dynamic boundary conditions, to preserve one’s self-image. Here the ‘Spiritual India’ maintains pragmatism even with its weak grasp on reality and provides ductility over brittleness of egoistic identity. I can’t say I have grokked this unfathomable unheroic Indian response, and to the occident in me and you, these questions may offer more clarity than the answers author provides for them.
I know the intro sounds like the first snooze button in a long boring lecture, but I find myself ill equipped to articulate the things that I enjoyed and found enlightening during this read. Even a reproduction in Nandy’s own language, which is academically tharoorized like Khilnani’s, isn’t enough to vocalise my thoughts and disagreements, or even appreciation towards the things I couldn’t repudiate even though I wanted to.
“Even in opposition, the dissent remains predictable and controlled. It is possible today to opt for a non-West which in itself is a construction of the West. One can then choose between being the Orientaist’s despot, to combine Karl Wittfogel with Edward Said, and the revolutionary’s loving subject, to combine Camus with George Orwell. And for those who do not lik the choice, there is, of course, Cecil Rhodes’ and Rudyard Kiplings’ noble, half-savage half-child, compared to whom the much-hated Brown Sahib seems more Brown than sahib.”
The book is comprises of two long essays, first one of psychology of colonialism where Author examines the nature of sex, age and ideology in British India, and latter about post-colonial view of West and India. And they both speak of victims than victors, and when victors are addressed they are considered as camouflaged victims in their earlier stage of psychological decay. According to Nandy, one must choose the non-modern slave over the modern master coz slave represents a higher cognition for regarding his master ‘human’, whereas master’s cognition perforce reduces the salve to a ‘thing’. Modern oppression, he argues, as opposed to traditional oppression is not a battle between the self and the enemy, or the oppressor and the revolutionaries, or the god and the demons. Though I think a detailed look into the traditional oppression, can render them less monochromatic, I found his take very appealing and well in line with book’s title.
Side lining economic and political borders, Nandy tries to show the state of mind as the primary differentia between colonizers and the colonized, where a shared culture might not find its commencement with alien rule or closure in its departure. Towards later years, British began to ascribe salvatory meanings to Colonial domination and Indians began to see their progress in becoming more like the British, in friendship or enmity. In this ‘identification with the aggressor’, western view of hyper masculinity began to permeate into the socio-religious-literature-art movements of India, with ‘Kshatriyahood’ (the martial portion of Indian caste system) becoming the indicator of authentic indianhood. Indian concepts of purusatva(masculinity), naritva(feminity) and klibatva(hermaphroditism) were polarized against one another and the existence of later two or any forms of androgyny were now perceived as negation of man’s unalloyed political identity. This reader was able to identify, to some extent, the suggested transition in depiction of Gods, who are getting increasingly martial, or masculine or feminine, every day against earlier androgynous ‘ardhanarishwaran’ (half man half woman God).
In the second essay, author takes his psychoanalysis to the post-colonial view, of both India and the West. It gets into the nitty gritty details of Kipling’s life in relation with his literary view, and the materialistic obfuscations of internal critiques like Nirad C Chaudhuri and V.S.Naipaul, who in their loss, wanted to identify India as a martial opponent to the West. Nandy’s polar opposite is Aurobindo Ghose, who denounced his western middle name and western education to embrace India as India, not the non-West. To the former Orient should defeat the Occident in its own game by embracing ‘this-worldiness’ of ‘Kshatriyahood’, and to the latter the already superior ‘Spiritual India’ was the real India. Though pluralities of ideologies are always accommodated, this split is in present continuous tense and when everything material fails people retracts to the spiritual self for answers. The major western worldview separates both philosophies, with conspicuous hierarchy and exclusivity. And this is where Gandhi stands as an original critique to modernity. He attacked the moral statement and civilizing mission of colonialism based on cultural superiority in their home ground-by declaring it evil through judgement via Christian values. And he further disproved the historical conception of colonisation as an instrument of progress using western conception of ‘history’ itself.
“there are many kinds of failures, some of which succeed.”
A Passage to India, EM Foster
Idea of India has always been compromising, fluidic and in a way ahistoric, with tolerance and willingness to learn the ways of outsider or civilized, provided it’s profitable. It would be more correct to put this aspect as something out of necessity than intrinsic trait, a survival strategy that keeps somewhat dynamic boundary conditions, to preserve one’s self-image. Here the ‘Spiritual India’ maintains pragmatism even with its weak grasp on reality and provides ductility over brittleness of egoistic identity. I can’t say I have grokked this unfathomable unheroic Indian response, and to the occident in me and you, these questions may offer more clarity than the answers author provides for them.
“But the question remains why every imperial observer of the Indian society has loved India’s martial races and hated and felt threatened by the rest of the India’s ‘effeminate’ men willing to compromise with the victors?
What is it in the latter that has aroused such antipathy?
Why should they matter so much to the conquerors of India if they were so trivial?
Why could they so effortlessly become the antonymous of their rulers?
Why have many modern Indians shared this imperialist estimation?
Why have they felt proud of those who fought out and lost, and not of those who lost out and fought?”
October 21, 2019
This is perhaps the most influencial book in the field of cultural studies/post colonial studies, written by an Indian. I first read the book during my university days, nearly a decade and half back. On a re-reading, I find that the book has stood up very well. Nandi is as relevant today as he was when the book was originally written. This is a slim but dense book that needs to be read closely. I am sharing here the notes that I made while reading.
Essay 1: Psychology of Colonialism: Sex, Age and Ideology in British India.
Colonialism is usually understood as a political and economic project. Colonialism is also psychological and cultural as well. Therefore colonialism can persist in the culture and psyche of the colonized people even after political and economic colonialism has ended.
Initially ,British colonialism in India was an economic project. the British came to India to make money. But they lived in India as one of the Indian ruling classes, following Indian religions and Indian ways of life and claiming no superiority. Colonialism proper began in India when the British started claiming that they had a superior culture and that they were in India on a cultural mission. Along with this claim came the claim of manliness. As a feminine people, India deserved to be ruled. This philosophy of colonialism was internalized and accepted by the Indians. Indians who felt oppressed by the British started emulating or mimicking them. This is the, the 'search for the martial Indian' Early forms of resistance to the British, such as revolutionary terrorism, were bound to fail because of its mimic nature. Nandi concludes: colonialism minus a civilizational mission is no colonialism at all.
Nandi argues that colonialism sees subject people as children. So colonialism was a process of nurturing. But this created a problem for countries like India where there existed a literary tradition and traditions of philosophy science and literature. So how do you reconcile your theory that colonized peoples being barbarians with the reality of classical culture in countries like India. Colonialism solved this problem by asserting that although there existed classical civilization in India but what now survived was only a senile and corrupted version of the classical civilization.
The Indian response to the British ideology of masculinity and adulthood was to say that there are elements in Indian religion which also exemplify these ideas. This was intellectual mimicry. For instance, in 19th Century Bengal, Michael Madhusudan Dutt rewrote the Ramayana. In his version, the heroes were Ravana and his son Meghanath who were shown as masculine and rational as opposed to the effeminate Rama. Similarly Bankim Chandra wrote Anandamath which was also an effort in this direction. This sort of mimicry was carried to a higher level by Swami Dayananda and Swami Vivekananda. Their effort was to create a Hinduism in the model of Christianity and Islam. So they introduced organised priesthood, missionaries, concept of the book, a linear view of history, puritanism and this worldly asceticism into Hinduism. In effect all these intellectual efforts where collaborationist. But there were also people who resisted this trend. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar denied that there was a golden age of Hinduism from which it had fallen. He could also not agree that Hinduism could be a religion like Christianity or Islam.
Colonialism did as much damage to the colonising societies as it did to the colonised societies. Firstly, colonialism brought to prominence in British society those aspects of British culture which were least humane and tender. Colonialism was a hyper masculine project and anything that was not masculine and virile were de-emphasised. Secondly, colonialism produced in Britain a false cultural homogenity by consigning to the colonies all dissenters and rebels. Finally, as E.M. Forster described it, colonialism resulted in Britain an 'underdeveloped heart’.
The colonial ideology was an ideology of difference. The British saw themselves as rational, masculine and disciplined while Indians were irrational, feminine and sloppy. It followed that the British had a natural right to rule India. The early anti-colonial movements implicitly accepted this dichotomy and tried to be masculine and rational. It is in this sense that we need to understand the statement of Vivekananda that "what India needed was beef, biceps and Bhagwatgita". Obviously such an anti colonial movement could not succeed. After all, you cannot outbritish the British. Gandhi understood this and challenged the colonial assumption that manliness was superior to womanliness. He took pride in the feminine aspects of Indian culture and in his life epitomised many of its attributes.
Gandhi also rejected the unilinear view of history wherein history is seen as a 'progression’ from primitivism to modernity. So the colonial masters saw themselves as agents of history bringing modernity to India. Their presence in India was a historical inevitability. Gandhi questioned this view of history by emphasising the continuities of history.
Essay 2: The Uncolonized MInd: A PostColonial View of India and the West
Nandi sees Rudyard Kipling as epitomising what Colonialism has done to the British.Rudyard Kipling is known as the most ferevent advocate of British Imperialism. He was born in India where he was taken care of in his infancy by Indian servants and he learned to speak Hindustani. He was sent off by his parents to England for schooling. For Kipling this was a heart braking experience. According to Nandi, Kipling coped with this crisis by becoming an Uber Englishman, hyper masculine and imperialist. This came at the cost of his softer, more creative and happier self.
What is the legacy of colonialism on India? As a consequence of colonialism, Indians have tended to see themselves either as overly martial or as overly spiritual. That is they either accept or reject the colonial sterotype and project themselves accordingly.
For Nandi, Aurobindo Ghose epitomises the effect of colonialism on the subject people. Aurobindo was brought up in an extremely anglicized atmosphere. So much so that he was not taught any Indian language nor exposed to Hinduism. He spent 14 years in England. Then he rebelled; came back to India and became a Yogi.
According to Nandi only Gandhi managed to escape the trap of colonial ideology. He saw the west as one of the many ways of life and saw India not as pre-modern but just non-modern. He critiqued the West for not living upto its own claims; for being not Christian or liberal enough.
The British found Gandhi exasperating. But by not playing on the terms set by the British, he won. Imperialsim always prefers an antagonist who fights bravely but loses rather than one who compromises and survives. No wonder the British loved the so called martial races of India and hated the effeminate Babus. Nandi calls the latter cultural strategy liminality. An effortless casual way of dealing with cultural differences. He implicitly suggests that the post colonial world is at risk of losing cultural liminality.
Essay 1: Psychology of Colonialism: Sex, Age and Ideology in British India.
Colonialism is usually understood as a political and economic project. Colonialism is also psychological and cultural as well. Therefore colonialism can persist in the culture and psyche of the colonized people even after political and economic colonialism has ended.
Initially ,British colonialism in India was an economic project. the British came to India to make money. But they lived in India as one of the Indian ruling classes, following Indian religions and Indian ways of life and claiming no superiority. Colonialism proper began in India when the British started claiming that they had a superior culture and that they were in India on a cultural mission. Along with this claim came the claim of manliness. As a feminine people, India deserved to be ruled. This philosophy of colonialism was internalized and accepted by the Indians. Indians who felt oppressed by the British started emulating or mimicking them. This is the, the 'search for the martial Indian' Early forms of resistance to the British, such as revolutionary terrorism, were bound to fail because of its mimic nature. Nandi concludes: colonialism minus a civilizational mission is no colonialism at all.
Nandi argues that colonialism sees subject people as children. So colonialism was a process of nurturing. But this created a problem for countries like India where there existed a literary tradition and traditions of philosophy science and literature. So how do you reconcile your theory that colonized peoples being barbarians with the reality of classical culture in countries like India. Colonialism solved this problem by asserting that although there existed classical civilization in India but what now survived was only a senile and corrupted version of the classical civilization.
The Indian response to the British ideology of masculinity and adulthood was to say that there are elements in Indian religion which also exemplify these ideas. This was intellectual mimicry. For instance, in 19th Century Bengal, Michael Madhusudan Dutt rewrote the Ramayana. In his version, the heroes were Ravana and his son Meghanath who were shown as masculine and rational as opposed to the effeminate Rama. Similarly Bankim Chandra wrote Anandamath which was also an effort in this direction. This sort of mimicry was carried to a higher level by Swami Dayananda and Swami Vivekananda. Their effort was to create a Hinduism in the model of Christianity and Islam. So they introduced organised priesthood, missionaries, concept of the book, a linear view of history, puritanism and this worldly asceticism into Hinduism. In effect all these intellectual efforts where collaborationist. But there were also people who resisted this trend. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar denied that there was a golden age of Hinduism from which it had fallen. He could also not agree that Hinduism could be a religion like Christianity or Islam.
Colonialism did as much damage to the colonising societies as it did to the colonised societies. Firstly, colonialism brought to prominence in British society those aspects of British culture which were least humane and tender. Colonialism was a hyper masculine project and anything that was not masculine and virile were de-emphasised. Secondly, colonialism produced in Britain a false cultural homogenity by consigning to the colonies all dissenters and rebels. Finally, as E.M. Forster described it, colonialism resulted in Britain an 'underdeveloped heart’.
The colonial ideology was an ideology of difference. The British saw themselves as rational, masculine and disciplined while Indians were irrational, feminine and sloppy. It followed that the British had a natural right to rule India. The early anti-colonial movements implicitly accepted this dichotomy and tried to be masculine and rational. It is in this sense that we need to understand the statement of Vivekananda that "what India needed was beef, biceps and Bhagwatgita". Obviously such an anti colonial movement could not succeed. After all, you cannot outbritish the British. Gandhi understood this and challenged the colonial assumption that manliness was superior to womanliness. He took pride in the feminine aspects of Indian culture and in his life epitomised many of its attributes.
Gandhi also rejected the unilinear view of history wherein history is seen as a 'progression’ from primitivism to modernity. So the colonial masters saw themselves as agents of history bringing modernity to India. Their presence in India was a historical inevitability. Gandhi questioned this view of history by emphasising the continuities of history.
Essay 2: The Uncolonized MInd: A PostColonial View of India and the West
Nandi sees Rudyard Kipling as epitomising what Colonialism has done to the British.Rudyard Kipling is known as the most ferevent advocate of British Imperialism. He was born in India where he was taken care of in his infancy by Indian servants and he learned to speak Hindustani. He was sent off by his parents to England for schooling. For Kipling this was a heart braking experience. According to Nandi, Kipling coped with this crisis by becoming an Uber Englishman, hyper masculine and imperialist. This came at the cost of his softer, more creative and happier self.
What is the legacy of colonialism on India? As a consequence of colonialism, Indians have tended to see themselves either as overly martial or as overly spiritual. That is they either accept or reject the colonial sterotype and project themselves accordingly.
For Nandi, Aurobindo Ghose epitomises the effect of colonialism on the subject people. Aurobindo was brought up in an extremely anglicized atmosphere. So much so that he was not taught any Indian language nor exposed to Hinduism. He spent 14 years in England. Then he rebelled; came back to India and became a Yogi.
According to Nandi only Gandhi managed to escape the trap of colonial ideology. He saw the west as one of the many ways of life and saw India not as pre-modern but just non-modern. He critiqued the West for not living upto its own claims; for being not Christian or liberal enough.
The British found Gandhi exasperating. But by not playing on the terms set by the British, he won. Imperialsim always prefers an antagonist who fights bravely but loses rather than one who compromises and survives. No wonder the British loved the so called martial races of India and hated the effeminate Babus. Nandi calls the latter cultural strategy liminality. An effortless casual way of dealing with cultural differences. He implicitly suggests that the post colonial world is at risk of losing cultural liminality.
February 5, 2023
unhinged yet brilliant
May 19, 2015
Simply brilliant! Deconstructing the psychology of colonialism, through the eyes of gender definitions (negation of the androgynous or feminine), resistances to it within and without the framework of the west and how the colonizer and the colonized both become a victim of it! Also, the aftershocks after the colonizers have left and the co-option. So much to take in, great stuff.
Read
January 4, 2025Wahnsinnig lesenswerte Erweiterung und Erwiderung auf Fanon Schwarze Haut, Weiße Masken, die Differenzen und kulturelle Identitäten und den Einfluss von Kolonialismen auf diese ernst nimmt ohne (auch den Westen) zu essentialisieren und dabei sehr offen mit den eigenen Prämissen umgeht. Wünschte ich hätte es vor Rushdies Midnights Children gelesen
October 8, 2012
Even though I don't agree with a lot of things Mr Nandy has said, this is an exceptional account of the Indian colonial experience. It has a lot to say about each one of us who lived in the Indian subcontinent and felt some repercussions, however faint or indirect, of the colonial past.
For me, the essays exposed some of doubts on the role of power in definition of ethics, which I had arrived to some convenient answers at. Mr Nandy has analyzed Indian personalities in great detail and offers insights from their personal lives to explain how an individual deals under power, defeat; more importantly he exhibits how a colonial experience transforms perspectives fundamentally. This is an eye-opening book - well-researched and still accessible to the general public.
Where I don't agree with Mr Nandy are places where he seems to make the colonial rule and its policies sound very deliberate. In my opinion, the British Raj was bulky, non-uniform and quite disintegrated. A deliberation of the magnitude that sometimes seems to have been assumed as a prori in Mr Nandy's arguments was probably absent.
For me, the essays exposed some of doubts on the role of power in definition of ethics, which I had arrived to some convenient answers at. Mr Nandy has analyzed Indian personalities in great detail and offers insights from their personal lives to explain how an individual deals under power, defeat; more importantly he exhibits how a colonial experience transforms perspectives fundamentally. This is an eye-opening book - well-researched and still accessible to the general public.
Where I don't agree with Mr Nandy are places where he seems to make the colonial rule and its policies sound very deliberate. In my opinion, the British Raj was bulky, non-uniform and quite disintegrated. A deliberation of the magnitude that sometimes seems to have been assumed as a prori in Mr Nandy's arguments was probably absent.
August 1, 2014
This is a set of two essays. Not sure I understood everything being said, but you do get an idea as you read further into it. The first essay(The Psychology of Colonialism) was pretty hard to get through as the language used was pretty academic. But you need to get through that to get into the second one(The Uncolonized Mind) which is a much easier read.
Once you get the idea, its easier to make up your mind and you can decide whether to agree with him or not. But the concepts and theories are good as to how we tend to think of the colonial rule in 'their' terms while the reason the Indian way survived was because we(Gandhi etc) were able to define the game in our terms. Interesting one to read and think about.
Once you get the idea, its easier to make up your mind and you can decide whether to agree with him or not. But the concepts and theories are good as to how we tend to think of the colonial rule in 'their' terms while the reason the Indian way survived was because we(Gandhi etc) were able to define the game in our terms. Interesting one to read and think about.
February 15, 2014
I didn't understand 2/3rds of it. It needs a second reading. But, true.. the book brought out an angle I never ever thought of. I always thought west as liberal ... but, I don't know.. true.. not just it , I don't say the west is masculine.. but, the values it upheld and the general thought of the society doesn't favor the not-ambitious , who likes to take things slow. The world became designed in such a way that the passive can't survive. One basic question I'd ask is .. is it so even in the natural state ? Nature doesn't favor the passive? Or the humans defined and made the world so? And I don't know why.. but, he seemed a little biased toward India . But, I need to confirm it after reading it again. But, I don't know if I'd. The book had opened so many things for me that I feel like I can't afford to read the book again. There's so much to do. Eventually, I might understand what he said through other sources and when I get back to some of the ideas in the books, I might understand them better or get them easily.
If he is right, I wonder what made India so passive ..
If he is right, I wonder what made India so passive ..
March 16, 2016
This book shows whys Ashish Nandy is must for readers. He presents an entire different perspective on colonialism, how it was and how it continues to be. This book is must not only to understand the post colonial situation, but also to understand, what lies underneath the Hindutva Politics.
May 15, 2007
A little heavy on the psychoanalysis for me, but nonetheless useful if you're interested in colonial/postcolonial studies.
August 31, 2007
I could probably read this book ten times and still find something new on the 11th try...yea this book is pretty awesome : )
Read
January 31, 2011psychology of indian
June 20, 2019
Even as he foregrounds the advantages of the oppressed's cognition, Nandy fails to fit into his schema Ambedkar's Enlightenment-inspired campaign for dignity. That might have been fine in 1983 (not really) but from then to 'Anti-secularist manifesto' to his 2012 Ambedkar lecture there have been no suggestions of how one could revise the schema or even acknowledgments in public of this inadequacy.
Another scope quibble I have with the first essay is that Nandy claims to limit his thesis to Bengal for various reasons but forgets that the Bengal of the period he is studying included Hindi-dialect and Odia areas too; yet there is no attempt on his part to go beyond Sanskrit and Bangla texts.
Another scope quibble I have with the first essay is that Nandy claims to limit his thesis to Bengal for various reasons but forgets that the Bengal of the period he is studying included Hindi-dialect and Odia areas too; yet there is no attempt on his part to go beyond Sanskrit and Bangla texts.
December 17, 2023
A flawed book with a number of claims I disagreed with but overall a fascinating and novel interpretation of the psychological effects of colonialism on Indian people and culture. Most flaws were in terms of historical of epistemological accuracy, whereas Nandy’s strength and focus was on the articulation of new ways of living, existing and identifying as a postcolonial person. Striving to oppose both colonialism and reactionary Hindu nationalism/Hindutva, and finding truly liberating new ways of defining and understanding one’s own identity.
April 9, 2021
Such nuanced explanations on influences of colonialism. So happy I read this terrific work. Loved it, every bit. Here is a line from the text:
Philippe Aries argues that the modern
concept of childhood is a product of seventeenth-century Europe.
Before then the child was seen as a smaller version of the adult; now
the child became—this Aries does not fully recognize—an inferior
version of the adult and had to be educated through the newly expanded period of childhood.
Philippe Aries argues that the modern
concept of childhood is a product of seventeenth-century Europe.
Before then the child was seen as a smaller version of the adult; now
the child became—this Aries does not fully recognize—an inferior
version of the adult and had to be educated through the newly expanded period of childhood.
May 20, 2025
«Para algunos, la poesía es sólo poesía y los payasos son sólo payasos y ambos deben ser juzgados como tales. Para otros, la poesía- y las payasadas- podrían ser un acto secreto desafiante, la reafirmación de un estado mental recto en un mundo duro, masculino y prosaico.»
May 28, 2021
across domains. brilliant.
February 22, 2022
This was quite an informative yet enjoyable read!
Read
March 16, 2022I am not worthy enough to rate this book, ☹️this book should rate me.
April 26, 2022
A sincere attempt at understanding the impact of the colonisation of India on India and Britain. A brilliant interpretation of India's method of digesting oppression and dubious modernity.
July 19, 2022
Very good analysis of colonialism and its effects on colonised especially in reference to India. A master piece
March 10, 2023
Short but powerful
January 25, 2024
It is a good read. Here and there I find some vague and contradictory points put across by Nandy but the literature and certain ideas are bang on.
April 5, 2022
GOOD IDEAS, DIFFICULT LANGUAGE.
February 19, 2024
Okay so this was a required reading for a sociology class this term, and safe to say, its probably one of the wackiest yet mind-bending books I've ever read. I liked the analogies he made between the mental states of colonizers vs the colonized, and how ideologies around power developed differently in the west vs the east. He did end up side-tracking into one sub-topic ( long rants about Rudyard Kipling?) that could have been more coherent, along with actually justifying some of the metaphors of femininity he uses to describe the ideologies of the colonized- a focal point in his explanations. Overall, I'll probably have to come back to it at some point to truly gauge its nuances, but I'm definitely intrigued by its contents and unique perspectives on colonization as a whole.
January 13, 2017
An interesting glimpse into the minds of the colonizer and the colonized. It's up to us whether to agree with the author or not, but we can anyways interpret the content in our own way and that is the beauty of academic-centric books like this.
Language is academic and hence a little difficult to understand but once we get into it, we begin to unfold what the content is.
Language is academic and hence a little difficult to understand but once we get into it, we begin to unfold what the content is.
May 3, 2018
Works as an interesting reference book with respect to the term of the 'bi-cultural' self referring to Rudyard Kipling and the influence of his twinned geo-location of England and India as they influenced his entire life and therefore, his writing.
October 13, 2015
I severely underestimated the amount of time I'd have to read in grad school, but this was one for class. Nandy writes explicitly about colonialism and post-colonialism in British India, but his analysis can tell us a great deal about power relations in the world today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews