The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian by Nirad C. Chaudhuri
Nirad C. Chaudhuri was an eccentric man, but he could be admired for his eccentricity. He grew up in in a very conservative, though educated, middle-class Bengali family. He admired the English, or shall I say he adored them – their language and literature. He knew London as he knew his native Calcutta even though he had never been to London. Once he was in a small gathering in Delhi, listening to someone who had already been living in London for over four decades. As the speaker continued describing London to his listeners, Nirad corrected him concerning the location of a particular street in London. Such was the man. Often painted in India as 'just a cantankerous old fellow', 'totally irrelevant,' 'a reactionary relic of the 20th century' and so forth.
He was unabashedly Anglophile. When he wrote his controversial autobiography, the Indian government was not amused – particularly for the tongue-in-cheek dedication that Nirad wrote. He claimed that whatever is good in India is because of the British rule. It offended the nationalist sensibilities. For very misinformed reasons, the book was banned in India. Consequently, he left for England in his early fifties, not a very good to age to move to another country. However, considering his love for the English, one could also argue that he finally came home. In his own words, "my life has always moved West and once it has done so its direction has never been reversed.''
In his autobiography, he wrote in great detail about his growing up years; the content itself was a great source of knowledge about the socio-cultural practices prevalent at the time, which also includes the funny comparisons between Punjabi and Bengali women. Apart from his quirky observations, he seriously bashed Indians for their obsession with religion and superstition, and the kind of hypocrisy he saw in Indian social life. In his odd way, he also ridiculed the British for their stupidity in some areas while they ruled India.
The book has episodes that clearly indicates how eccentric he was. According to him, the greatest four intellectuals in the world that he considered truly learned are the followings: Harnack, Eduard Meyer, Mommsen and the fourth one — a difficult name — Wilamowitz-Moellndorf. Nirad wanted to be the fifth. He became one in his own way.
There are many admirers of Nirad, but he has also many critics. V.S Naipaul, for instance, called him a fraud, a man with a big ego whose only subject was Nirad himself – someone who 'unexpectedly' wrote only one great book and then went on to become a clown who performed only to impress his audience. I guess Naipaul was too harsh on him. Who knows this better than Naipaul that one does not write good books by chance. But we can ignore Naipaul, he is known for saying 'funny' things.
He was unabashedly Anglophile. When he wrote his controversial autobiography, the Indian government was not amused – particularly for the tongue-in-cheek dedication that Nirad wrote. He claimed that whatever is good in India is because of the British rule. It offended the nationalist sensibilities. For very misinformed reasons, the book was banned in India. Consequently, he left for England in his early fifties, not a very good to age to move to another country. However, considering his love for the English, one could also argue that he finally came home. In his own words, "my life has always moved West and once it has done so its direction has never been reversed.''
In his autobiography, he wrote in great detail about his growing up years; the content itself was a great source of knowledge about the socio-cultural practices prevalent at the time, which also includes the funny comparisons between Punjabi and Bengali women. Apart from his quirky observations, he seriously bashed Indians for their obsession with religion and superstition, and the kind of hypocrisy he saw in Indian social life. In his odd way, he also ridiculed the British for their stupidity in some areas while they ruled India.
The book has episodes that clearly indicates how eccentric he was. According to him, the greatest four intellectuals in the world that he considered truly learned are the followings: Harnack, Eduard Meyer, Mommsen and the fourth one — a difficult name — Wilamowitz-Moellndorf. Nirad wanted to be the fifth. He became one in his own way.
There are many admirers of Nirad, but he has also many critics. V.S Naipaul, for instance, called him a fraud, a man with a big ego whose only subject was Nirad himself – someone who 'unexpectedly' wrote only one great book and then went on to become a clown who performed only to impress his audience. I guess Naipaul was too harsh on him. Who knows this better than Naipaul that one does not write good books by chance. But we can ignore Naipaul, he is known for saying 'funny' things.
Comments
Post a Comment