Sir William Jones (1748-1794): The "Good" Orientalist?, Part II

If there can only be one "good" Orientalist, which is itself a debatable question, Orientalism scholar Garland Cannon asserts that it must be Jones. Far from being an agent of imperialism, or an imperialist attempting to establish and then perpetuate political and cultural hegemony, Cannon asserts that Jones was often an opponent of the colonial project, particularly some of its more egregious aspects. [1] While Cannon concedes that Jones saw the need for British rule for at least the short-term, he argues quite strenuously that none of Jones' activities suggested "that his research was ever motivated by a desire to keep India a colony, or that he was an ideological agent of Western imperialism seeking to exploit native peoples and their resources." [2] Rather, instead of controlling India for its own sake, Jones saw it as his duty, along with his counterparts, to prepare India for independence by helping Indians revive their once great culture. Once this culture was revived, so Jones believed, ancient Indian governing institutions would again be in place, or Indians would create new ones based on their cultural and historical traditions, and thus, the need for the British would become non-existent. [3]

With this purpose in mind, Cannon argues, Jones and other Orientalists started the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784. This benevolence, however, toward the Indians did not stop with this establishment. Believing that it was "...absurd and intellectually indefensible...." to exclude the Indian pandits and maulvis [religious scholars] who assisted Jones and the other Orientalists, Jones sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to give them full membership in the Society. [4] Nevertheless, by Jones endearing himself to these native scholars, they shared their culture fully with him and thus greatly enabled his work in Sanskrit.

In addition, Cannon notes that this mutual esteem and respect was apparent in Jones' work on the Hindu religion. Whereas many other Orientalists found it difficult if not impossible to accept it and especially its polytheism, Jones just accepted it as "... one of the major theologies of the world [that] deserve to be made known to and respected by the West...." [5] It was not considered superior or inferior to Western theology, just different.

In closing, Cannon sees Jones as being India's "protector" at a time of increasing cultural and political exploitation. Bucking the prevalent trend to view Indian culture, religion, and history as inferior, Jones helped to diminish the overwhelming prejudice against the Orient and India that had existed previously, and was to exist afterwards, in academic circles. Furthermore, instead of reconstructing India's past in order to colonize it, Jones was interested in "... giving pride and general unity back to a subcontinent..." that had lost what it one had. [6] In short, Cannon believes that Jones was the greatest humanitarian scholar of late eighteenth century India, whose efforts greatly benefited Indians.

While this assessment of Jones' legacy is generally shared by other pro-Orientalist scholars such as S.N. Mukherjee, the notion that Jones was completely devoid of prejudice is not. Rather Mukherjee sees Jones as a scholar who -- although exceptional in his expansive scholarly work -- was nevertheless a product of his time, who brought into his scholarship many of the biases pervasive in Orientalist circles as well as late eighteenth century Britain.

One of those biases was Jones' belief in British superiority. While there is no debate that Jones greatly admired and respected Indian culture and languages, he first and foremost believed in British and Western superiority. One of the fundaments of this superiority, Jones believed, was the British constitution, something that India lacked. [7] No matter how great India's languages or cultural traditions were their fundamental inferiority ot British institutions lay, Jones believed, in this failure "... to produce a satisfactory system of government." [8]

So fixated was Jones on this "weakness," that one of his more significant epic poems, Britain Discovered, deals directly with the theme. In the poem, several Indian gods and heroes come "...to pay homage to the nuptials of Britain (Royalty) and Albion (Liberty)." As this perfect union of Royalty and Liberty "... could only be found in the British constitution which made Britain far superior to any other nation in the world," and not in India, its absence represented proof to Jones that India was inferior to Britain.

Furthermore, Jones believed that India was inferior to Europe because of its mysteriousness and exoticism. To Jones, "... Asia flourished in the sphere of imagination only whereas 'reason and taste are the grand prerogatives of European minds.' " [9] What was truly special about India was its far distant glorious past, not its mundane present. Even if Sanskrit was "... more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either..." [10] and Hindu gods the rough equivalent of Greek and Roman ones, Indian civilization had not progressed beyond this whereas European civilization did. Until Indian civlization reversed this trend, Jones argued, it would never become the equivalent of the European.

And yet, despite this blatantly racist and hegemonic discourse, Mukherjee shies away from a completely damning critique of Jones. Unlike Edward Said, who criticizes Jones for his large role in creating cultural hegemony, [11] Mukherjee praises him for enabling an Indian renaissance to occur. As this was a necessary event for the cause of Indian nationalism, whatever hegemonic and racist underpinnings of Jones' work becomes very insignificant, if practically non-existent. [12] In fact, Jones emerges at the end of Mukherjee's work as a greatly positive figure for India and the world in general as he "...left behind an attitude of mind, a profound reverence for men irrespective of their race and differnt cultural backgrounds." [13]

Yet this leaves us with a glaring inconsistency. If on one hand, Jones believed in British superiority, and was somewhat critical of Indian culture and traditions, how could he also be someone who was reverential toward Indians? Cannon refuses to tackle this question outright, failing to see that Jone's work had any racist undertones at all. Mukherjee is more balanced yet fails to explain how Jones could be both at the same time. It is almost as if he wants it both ways; on the one hand to point out that Jones should not be seen as an innocent scholar or one that was pro-Indian, as Cannon and James Mills respectively have seen him, but on the other hand to argue that Jones was essentially a "good" Orientalist who played an invaluable role in causing an Indian "renaissance" which led to the Indian nationalist movement.

Footnotes:

[1] Garland Cannon and Kevin R. Brine, eds., Objects of Enquiry: The Life, Contributions, and Influences of Sir William Jones (1746-1794), (NY and London: New York University Press, 1994), pp. 46-7.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., p. 34.

[5] Ibid., p. 43.

[6] Ibid., p. 46.

[7] S.N. Mukherjee, Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth-Century British Attitudes To India, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 120, 125.

[8] Ibid., p. 125.

[9] Ibid., p. 120.

[10] Edward Said, Orientalism, (NY: Vintage, 1979), p. 78.

[11] Ibid., passim.

[12] Mukherjee, pp. 140-1.

[13] Ibid., p. 141.