So with a reasonably good conscience I spent the time writinginstead. Two or three books emerged, one of them, while I was stillin office, under a pseudonym. I did not think it practical to clearit with Sec. of State Dean Rusk.In recognition of this situation in the diplomatic world, Mexicois far ahead of the United States. It has traditionally sent itsbest writers and scholars abroad to take advantage of this happilyavailable leisure. The distinguished novelist Carlos Fuentes spentmany months at the Mexican embassy in Paris, where he became adominant figure in the French literary community.And Octavio Paz, the 1990 Nobel Laureate in literature, did twotours in India (after also serving in Paris), where for six years hewas Mexican ambassador. The relations between Mexico and India beingwhat they are, or more precisely what they are not, he had plenty oftime for reading, travel, reflection on the life and history of thelatter complex, sometimes incomprehensible country. It was right togive this opportunity to a poet. One result, many years later, isthis delightful book.It begins as autobiography: his first arrival in India, thefirst immersion in the incredible urban life of Bombay, a tedioustrain trip on to New Delhi. Then he turns to Indian history over thelast several millennia, in particular the enduring conflict betweenreligions, most notably but by no means exclusively between Hinduismand Islam and the compelling question as to which would govern. (Formuch of Indian history the popular faith was with Hinduism, theruling power with Islam.) He also explores the origins and characterof the caste system, quite the best account of that incredible andenduring institution that I, at least, have ever read.Then he goes on to the British for whom, like many Indians now,he has a strongly favorable word. It was British rule that gaveIndia a national identity rising above religion and language. Itstragedy came at the very end in the slicing up of the subcontinent.The British Raj accepted failure in what, in the reconciliation andtolerance of deeply contentious factions, had been its greatestsuccess.Occasionally the author takes leave of India for comparison withMexico and Latin America under the thrust of Spanish and Portugueseintrusion and imperialism. (I was not fully persuaded as to theparallel or the relevance.) There are then short admiring comments onGandhi and on Jawaharlal Nehru, who made permanent what the Britishhad made possible.Paz is not interested in military matters or achievements -there are no battles in his history, a passing mention of the IndianMutiny (as still it is called) apart. He also mentions but does not,in my view, sufficiently stress the pressure of modern industrialismon Indian thought and life. That the ultimate test of Indianachievement lies in economic development is simply accepted - anarticle of faith.This is not, to be sure, universal; in India nothing ever is.Nehru once told me that the only two modern inventions he thoughtindispensable were the bicycle and the electric light. But he saidthis while deep in concern for the economic success of his five-yearplans.In the latter pages of this book - really, an extended essay -Paz explores the world of Indian poetry, an exercise which I foundfascinating and to which, alas, I bring no critical judgment. Thenhe tells of his difference with the Mexican government, which hadcrushed with cruel and sanguinary violence a student revolt. Hecould not be part of a government that so behaved; he had a quietdinner with Indira and Rajiv Gandhi and made his way back to Mexico.Let there be no doubt. To have poets staffing the diplomaticcorps is a wonderful idea. This book is surely the proof.John Kenneth Galbraith, emeritus professor of economics atHarvard and the author of many books, wrote this review for theWashington Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment