India as Method

Throughout the 20th Century， the gaze of Asian thinkers was fixed on Europe and North America. For a hundred years， the basic frame of reference for knowledge revolved around the EuroAmerican experiences. This framework developed over the course of a century into a highly resilient knowledge structure that created enormous difficulties for Asian thought. It brought about a narrowing of critical perspectives， excluding diverse historical experiences， which should have provided alternative frames of reference. Even more worryingly， Western modes of knowledge became virtually the only paradigm for knowledge production. History has shown that this kind of knowledge is woefully inadequate as we try to comprehend， grasp and explain the living environments in which we exist. Thus， we want to generate exchange between intellectuals from each Asian sub-region， make us see the existence of each other， and turn the historical experience of each region into a potential point of reference for other Asian regions.

There may not have been a revolution to radically transform the conditions， but the bonds of knowledge structures mentioned above have been loosened considerably. Changes over the last 10 years are bringing about a world moving towards diversity and multiplicity. The leftward shift in South America， the formation of ASEAN 10+3， the rise of China and India， sustained economic growth in Africa， the change from Bush to Obama， and the expansion of the EU... At the end of the 1980s， it felt as though “globalization” meant the collapse of Eastern Europe and the Soviet regime and the unchallengeable hegemony of the United States. But over the past decade the development of multiple political and economic centers seems to have brought an end to the unipolar age.

Knowledge systems that were once undeniable and rigid are quickly falling apart， along with their deeply believed values. The highly confident explanatory framework based on the historical experiences of Europe and America faces unprecedented challenges. In this period of transformation， it is time to slow down and take stock， to reconnect with all our intellectual resources rooted in the modern historical experience to create the pathways towards new conditions of knowledge. In Asia， as in other Third World regions， responsibility for the long persistence of “Euro-America as method” must be ascribed to world history. Continually pushed out from the Western center， China， India and other regions are cast in the permanent role of catch up/overtake （overtaking the UK； struggling to catch up to the US）. We learn from Euro-America （including， of course， learning Euro-American values）. Intellectual work， academia and the production of knowledge are therefore upheld as the key to the modernization of the nation and its people. Even if we set aside the inherent pitfalls in a knowledge structure predicated on catch up/overtake， we must at least start to ask this question： a century on， what exactly has the process of modernization turned these “latecomer” countries into？ We learned democracy， we learned science， but what has the application of these concepts brought us？ In other words， should we not pause and take a moment to share our experiences of catch up/overtake？ Should non-Western regions not hold up a mirror to each other， uncover the routes they have taken to bring themselves to where they stand today？ Moving forward depends on our ability to see， understand and fully explain what we have gone through. In this process， we may even find that the road of catch up/overtake has come to an end， and that it is time to change direction.

Knowledge is for explaining the problems and situations of each region， within the context of world history and from a diverse range of historical experience perspectives. Through a process of comparison and cross reference， we gradually distill knowledge propositions which are relevant to world history. If this is the assumption， then none of the theoretical propositions currently held to be universal are mature. Theories grounded in the reference system of the Euro-American experience can at best explain the histories of Europe and America. Expecting them to explain the historical condition of other regions is absurd. On the contrary， explanations in non-Western regions must be developed out of the regions’ own historical experiences. One cannot simplistically and improperly apply the Euro-American experience as the standard measurement against which to assess ourselves. I believe this is what subaltern studies scholar Dipesh Chakrabarty means by his project of“provincializing Europe”. It is also very much in the spirit of Professor Mizoguchi Yuzo， who passed away in July 2010， and his notion of “China as method， the world as end.”

If the Euro-American historical experience is only one possible reference， comparing it with the development experiences of latecomer countries will leave a great gap. We must seek to transform our knowledge by what Indian feminist thinker Tejaswini Niranjana has proposed as the strategy of creating alternative frames of reference for Third World regions. Through the change of reference， we can mobilize the differences among us to develop better explanations for our own historical environment. The assumption of the project is that the nativist and nationalist tendency to “close off” the outside is unproductive and counter-productive. All they manage to achieve is indulgence in smug satisfaction of basking in the glory of the past. But even if we are open to other countries， an openness oriented around the catch up/overtake of Euro-America has equally lost meaning. We must find new reference systems beyond the nativism （operating within the nation） and cosmopolitanism （hiding unspoken Euro-America centrism）.

In this context， if “India as method” can be taken seriously， I believe， it would actively contribute to the Chinese intellectual circle to develop new modes of knowledge. However， a precondition for a productive dialogue between China and India to take place is that the “catch up/overtake” sentiment has to be abandoned. “Comparison” between India and China can no longer draw on familiar measures of how backward/advanced they are， on degree of modernization， or on the pace of economic growth. India and China are big countries on the world scale and farmers make up the bulk of their populations. The latest data suggests that India is at present the second largest country by population， and by 2026 it will have overtaken China， with 1.5 billion people to China’s 1.35 billion. By 2015， the growth rate of India will likely equal China’s. In other words， if historical and cultural issues are left aside， from a sociological point of view， of all the countries in the world， India is the most comparable to China and no other countries match these two. But there are enormous differences between the two nations. The book West Heavens： India-China Summit on Social Thought aims to reawaken remote historical connections between the two countries and bring India back in China’s sightline as the ancient birthplace of Buddhism， thus promoting Sino-India dialogue.

As two neighboring great powers， China and India haven’t seen much exchange in terms of thought after World War II. Except for joint efforts between then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai to promote the concept of Third World， the most recent landmark non-governmental interaction between the two countries was back in 1924 when Rabindranath Tagore visited China. Perhaps the biggest role of West Heavens is that it started large-scale direct communication between China and India. We regard this book as a landmark publication to serve as a milestone marking the starting point of large-scale exchange between Chinese and Indian intellectual circles and a turning point from Euro-America centrism to exploring new reference systems. We hope that such a shift can continue and spread throughout Asia and even all Third World regions.

China and the West： A Horse and a Cow

By Qi Zhi （Wu Di）， Hinabook， March 2014

A Chinese scholar travels to Europe to lecture about Chinese movies and culture to a group of “China hands.” During the discussions， he responds patiently to a wide array of tricky questions and irrational arguments. China and the West： A Horse and a Cow doesn’t expound directly on Chinese and Western cultures but rather vividly depicts the differences in ways of thinking between China and the West when viewing social phenomena， using Chinese movies as the reference point through discussions between the Chinese lecturer （the author） and four foreign students. What would be serious， dry academic discussions become active“dramatic performances，” shining with wit as they illuminate cultural differences between China and the West.

The author explains how a woman rafts from the Yellow River to the Yarlung Zangbo River in Red River Valley， why Tunnel Warfare and Mine Warfare became such popular movies about national wars， what life was like for drifters in Beijing in the 1980s through The Strangers in Beijing， the value of director Feng Xiaogang’s films， and the reasons Feng has not attempted to be profound.

“When a horse and a cow are in heat， they have nothing to do with each other”goes a Chinese saying. The book’s title was inspired by this proverb， alluding to the natural difference between Chinese and Western cultures since their births.“The book is as cunning as a Maori dog，”commented Zhou Zexiong， a Chinese literary critic. “It is shocking in its method of narration – experienced and careful， with novel and pointed lines， between which is space filled with wisdom in a fight in close quarters with knives and swords.”

Qi Zhi， the author， is a Chinese film critic.

Why Japan Invaded China： From the Sino-Japanese War to the Incident of July 7th， 1937

By Feng Xuerong， Gold Wall Press， January 2014

The book recounts 40 years of history from the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 to the July 7th Incident in 1937， which resulted in the Japanese invasion of China – 40 years which have seldom been discussed. Supported by precious historical data， it analyzes the cause of the wars between China and Japan， the methods of warfare， and political changes during this period.

Did the Japanese war machine consider China’s territory a stepping stone for wider conquering of the world？ Did they outline an overall strategy to wipe out China？ Did the Tanaka Memorial exist？ When exactly did China and Japan become enemies？ With detailed first-hand data， the author answers many such questions with concrete historical data and addresses popular theories， such as one that holds that Japan long dreamt of wiping out China and the idea that Japan invaded China to swallow up all of its territory. He objectively and profoundly dissects why Japan wanted to separate its special interests in China’s Northeast （“Manchuria”and Inner Mongolia） from existing infrastructure such as the Northeast Railway. He also depicts the bloody internal battles within Japan’s military and government with regard to the invasion.

Feng Xuerong is a native of Guangdong residing in Hong Kong. A non-governmental scholar dedicated to seeking truth in history， Feng has shared his findings in newspapers and periodicals across China and published books such as Shocking History （Unity Press， April 2012） and Why Japan Invaded China： From the Sino-Japanese War to the Incident of July 7th， 1937 （Chung Hwa Book Co.， January 2013）.

West Heavens： IndiaChina Summit on Social Thought

Compiled by Zhang Songren， Kuan Hsing Chen， and Gao Shiming， Shanghai People’s Publishing House， January 2014

Seven great Indian minds were invited to the 8th Shanghai Biennale in 2010 to share their insights and ideas， which have been documented in West Heavens： India-China Summit on Social Thought. Along with their themed speeches， the book also compiles related discussions and comments by well-known Chinese scholars， including Wang Hui， Dai Jinhua， and Zhang Rulun. The exchange and debate among the most active scholars from China and India are of great value and practical significance. Their topics focus on globalization and modernization， emerging from post-colonialism， modern nationalism， and visual arts.

Editor-in-chief Zhang Songren is a famous critic， curator， and art director of Hanart TZ Gallery. Over the last few years， he has focused on accelerating avantgarde. The book has collected the insights and ideas of Sarat Maharaj， a professor from Lund University in Sweden， Partha Chatterjee， a representative of plebeianism from India， Prasenjit Duara， a historian and sinologist， Ashis Nandy， an outstanding scholar of post-colonialism from Australia， Tejaswini Niranjana， a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society， Bangalore， Dipesh Chakrabarty， first editor of Post-Colony Studies and editor of American Historical Review， and Homi K. Bhabha， one of the world’s three most famous post-colonial theorists， specializing in post-colonial research， culture， literature， and art criticism.