There have also been those Indians who, in the face of coloniality, have
come to view their own tradition romantically. One of the earliest Indian
travelers to the West, Abu Taleb, a Muslim, first sounded the often repeated
notion of India’s spiritual superiority in the face of Western materialism.
Vivekananda, upon his visit to the US in the late 1800s rhapsodized what a
“beautiful sight it would be if Indian civilization should be the foundation
on which European civilization is to be built.”^8
In more recent years, romanticism has stimulated forms of Hindu
nationalism and the reimagining of India’s gloried past. Partially in response
to colonialism and the critiques of Westerners, there has been a resurgence
of Hindu pride, not least of all in the Indian diaspora; this nationalistic
romanticism has become yet another lens by which India has been viewed:
India is sometimes presented as the “cradle” of civilization; the eternal abode
of religion (i.e., sana ̄tana dharma– eternal dharma); the source of “Indo-
European” culture; and the spring of the world’s spiritual resources. History
has been reimagined by some so as to dismiss immigrants to the sub-
continent (such as Christians and Muslims are said to be) as extraneous to
the Hindu motherland and to claim antiquity for the particular form of
religion one practices, be it the worship of R a ̄ma or vegetarianism. A call
for renewed virility, whether of one’s own body or of the nation, often
accompanies this perspective. Sorting out reality from perception becomes
more difficult for the scholar in the context of this exuberant nationalism.
At its worst then, romanticism has fed into forms of nationalism and the
excessive glorification of the past. At its best, it inhibits a measured and
judicious study of culture and religion. Even serious scholars of Hinduism
and Buddhism have been influenced adversely by excessive romanticism.
The work of a good scholar like Edward Conze may serve as one illustration.
Conze, a convert to Buddhism, presents a Buddhism that reflects his values
- “his” Buddhism. This sometimes leads to a selective adaptation of Buddhist
ideas, especially those he finds most palatable. One finds it in one of his
introductory books, Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, in which Buddhism
is presented as “rejecting this world”; when laity are virtually dismissed as not
“Buddhist,” when allBuddhists are said to deny selfhood or a ̄tman. Some
Buddhists may reflect these assertions, but not all Buddhist schools will
necessarily do so.^9
The difficulty with romanticism as a scholarly lens, in short, is that it picks
and chooses what it will study and celebrate. It tends to “commodify” Indian
religion and thought as “things” which can be purchased as if from a bazaar
as desired. It commonly glorifies a past without facing up to the realities
either of history or of the present. More seriously, romanticism is often a
form of self-love – it takes seriously, studies, and celebrates that which reflects
one’s own values, and it interprets the “other” in the image of the self. In
On Wearing Good Lenses 5