India's economic boom and South Asian studies: a linkage?

[l.m.fosse at easteur-orient.uio.no]

Frank Conlon wrote:
>
 I am,
>however, persuaded that in the near term future, those of us who are in
>the enterprise of teaching and researching on traditional India, or who
>have the constant concern about protecting South Asian studies from the
>budget cutters, will not gain much advantage.  With luck we may get a
>small breathing space.

The attitudes of the funding authorities are certainly a problem. Much will
depend on how South Asianists try to "sell" their activities.
>
>My reasons for this view are:
>
>1.  India's continued use of the English language will mean that
>transactions at the elite level will continue in that medium.  A person
>who is well-connected and knowledgeable about India said something to the
>effect that "There is no need for me to insult my Indian counterparts by
>speaking grade three Hindi when their command of English is better than
>the average high school graduate in America.  It may break the ice and be
>a source of laughter, but negotiations will be in English."  In Japan and
>Korea and China, the perception of such a utility for English is not present.

I feel that this is partly beside the point. When Chinese studies are
encouraged and funded, the idea is probably not that every business man
conducting business in China should be able to negotiate in Chinese. The
motive is rather a feeling that the country should have a pool of experts
who can offer advice, produce analyses and act as interpreters. In India,
the use of the English language mostly removes the need for interpreters,
but experts on various aspects of South Asian matters will still be needed
if the Western economies are to interact with India in a more vigorous
manner. For such experts, knowledge of Indic languages may be important.

>
>2.  ... Some of these scholars are very attuned to the import of a
>local culture, others assume that the world is going to converge, so why
>worry about local details.
>
>The latter point reflects my sense that South Asia as an academic field
>has tended to be a zone of refuge for a wide variety of people who do not
>take much pleasure in more mundane or pedestrian pursuits.  (This of
>course does not apply to you or me who are very much "with it", but there
>may be others...)

I am afraid that this is correct. But on the other hand, the same thing
applies to a number of humanist studies. The humanities and their
representatives have not been very good at making themselves "relevant".
There are historical reasons for this, it is part of the ideology of the
value of "pure knowledge" and contempt for practical work which goes back
to the times of Plato. The Humanities have lost ground partly because they
found it beneath their dignity to defend themselves against the onslaught
of modern science. Their loss of "relevance" is partly self-inflicted, but
it is also caused by modern "cost-benefit" analysis, where the Humanities
easily get into a jam. Humanists need to do some hard thinking about their
role in society and the value of their contributions.

>Remember, the bottom line is as low as you can go.

The bottom line is an imaginary entity. Like all imaginary entities it can
be place anywhere provided you are able to convince others that "anywhere"
is the right place for it.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse



Lars Martin Fosse
Research Fellow
Department of East European
and Oriental Studies
P. O. Box 1030, Blindern
N-0315 OSLO Norway

Tel: +47 22 85 68 48
Fax: +47 22 85 41 40

E-mail: l.m.fosse at easteur-orient.uio.no