Interview with a Historian

Chowk Press
Aug 15, 2003

Interview of Dr. Robert Anderson (an anthropologist and historian) conducted by Saima Shah at 5pm on Thursday, 22nd May, 2003 at Harbour Center, Simon Fraser University Campus, downtown Vancouver, BC, Canada

Dr. Robert Anderson is a Professor Communications at Simon Fraser University.

Q. Please tell me about your background visavis ?

I went to by accident. When I was nineteen my father became an advisor to the Kerala on Public in 1959. I was going to become a student at UBC, Canada. I watched my go away and the promise was that after a couple of years I could join them. I travelled through and studied at University of Madras (Chenai) as well as another institute.

It is the kind of country and place that some people aren’t affected by, but I was. I found it fascinating and irresistible. This long relationship began then and I still find it interesting-- my friends are there and I feel at home and quite at ease there. Little things trouble me but there are many good people with intelligence and standing up for the right things.

When you are a teenager, things happen to you and was that for me. At 21 I came back and studied more, with the idea of doing graduate work about particularly about scientists. There were thousands of choices but something guided me towards this. The scientific community was relatively new. It was interesting to see the development of the institution in . Than I was invited to Chicago to do my phd in this area. I did studies of their lives, how they govern themselves and carry out their work. During the late 60’s I went to , Madras and . I was a bachelor living in an exciting city like . Compared to Chicago it was very exciting. I finished my phd in . Because of the access I was given through my supervisor—it was negotiated on a personal basis and I wouldn’t be able to get it otherwise, I was able to work in two important nuclear physics labs in the country. One by Meghnad Saha and the other by Homi Baba. I knew a few words of Sanskrit so could not be a historian of ancient in . My real focus was therefore the 19/20 century.


Q. What were your experiences in like? Visavis Culture and politics.

I lived a privileged live. If I were ill, I could go to the right doctors. I got Hepatitis—other people would have died. I was very fortunate—the privileges were very precious. I could both sleep in palaces and the huts and it gave me a sense of the country that was very privileged. I could talk to ordinary people and people with authority and influence. is an extraordinary hierarchy and a multicultural society. And I became very aware of these communities and distinctions. My own outlook on life has been formed by my Indian experience, where at the best of times there is an acceptance and tolerance of people as they are—They don’t have to be precisely like you to be accepted. Now, that I would like to achieve in Canada. In the trauma of was fresh but at the same time there was the deliriousness of independence. On one hand this sought after freedom, they were so wounded from the actual partition. In a personal sense I learnt a lot—about conflict and community. I now teach courses in communications—about negotiation, dialogue and conflict. And I think, I was influenced by the sub continent. It has moved me and influenced me.

Having the single advantage of English—I was able to communicate easily. The differences were great but I could learn a lot and as a student of history I I can give something back.


Q. What would you like to give back or tell somebody who would like to give back?

Good questions.

---the spirit of inquiry. To encourage young people to uncover what is going on and speaking the history, taping it, make it accessible to others—to Pakistanis, to Burmese, to other neighbours. There are fascinating things being done and amazing challenges to face. I would like the young people to explore this. As I work on the history—I see that there are only two books on the history of oil in . There are interesting stories to be told about the other industries other than Nuclear history, but somehow information has not been documented well.


Q. Would you say that we are spectators of our own history?

Yes, good comment.


Q. Are we voiceless perhaps?

No—very well voiced, able to quarrel and take positions and present arguments, so it is not the lack of voice. There are huge funds of intelligence and capacity. But when I look at the record of the last 40 years and I am intertwined with that—it is impressive how much missed opportunity there is.

It is tempting to close doors for any country to outsiders—but I would urge people to keep open the doors to outsiders. It is a big mistake is to shut doors to foreigners. I am working on the history of nuclear reactors and weapons and the extraordinary individuals whom history threw into these situations. I would urge young Indians to investigate history and the moral questions. Many people say nuclear reactors are not safe. I often notice that people take moral positions without knowing the history of the facts. That is why those individuals who know the history become more important. I would urge this hypothetical person to investigate the history at a social/anthropological level and the events behind it, what it cost and the intelligence required. And also to ask, if we are able to do that satellites why cant we turn our minds to the question of drinkable water, malaria or other problems. I am often struck by the extraordinary intelligence and commitment to grand things like vs., things that are more mundane like malaria, and ordinary things like air . We have the same questions here in Canada, and we need to inspire more people to move their minds towards these things.


Q. What are your reactions about Defense spending by and ?

In case of both this is nearly pathological and goes back to 1951. They have Phantoms, we must have them, they have Mirages, we must have them. I don’t know what the budgets were and we have a rough idea—one can say this is scandalous, how the behaviour of one country influenced the other. At times was influenced by Iran or , what would or Iran do, so it wasn’t solely . I know why it occurred—but explaining something doesn’t mean it can be justified.


Q. What are your reactions to spending in and ?

They are weapons unlike others the kind of scientists that are attracted to, these are scientific weapons in a different way they are the embodiment of physics, for scientists these weapons have an allure. They are very complex, intriguing and difficult to make as well as symbolic. A portion of the Indian scientific community and is attracted to the grandeur and glamour and seeing if it would work. I can see how somebody involved in this would view it.


Then there is the tangible result. They gained grandeur as scientists. The aspect has been secondary so far, but now the weapons have been militarized so to speak. It now resembles other nuclear countries.


When the first nuclear test was done in 1974, I wasn’t surprised because I knew the history. For 24 years after that there was no further testing. I knew they were building missiles, but I was impressed at the restraint—it was interesting that the second one didn’t occur earlier than 1998. Perhaps a big country was saying, it isn’t necessary. In 1995-6 when BJP came in—I knew they would try it. Well—it had been 24 years—. I felt that there might be some consequences here but as yet I don’t know what they are. In a sense and have faced each other over the LOC for decades. I have met Pakistanis and Indians and they appear very rational—and it seems unlikely that they will use these weapons.

Rationally speaking they are symbolic weapons but you cannot use them militarily.


Q. It is hard to back track?

O yes, some in the scientific community might even view it as a glorious situation—but the wise ones would see it as a difficult position to be in. Given that the society faces huge difficulties in part related to resources and in part related to what people do with their intelligence. Given the history in any case, it hasn’t had the results that were expected from it.

The argument was it would make us more secure—but it hasn’t delivered on that promise. These weapons cannot be used. They can deliver on small missiles—so how close have they actually come to using it so far I do not know. The purpose of developing them was not to use them but to serve other needs and urges.

Q. What are your views on any talks on both sides?
Do you see the issue as central?

I have many times in my life have been tempted to thing that life would go on and people would walk over across the borders and ask why can’t we let the economies function again and let people mingle, in real intellectual and cultural exchange. I have thought this might be coming, there have been prime ministers and it seemed it might happen. But one must conclude that some people are benefiting or enjoying this situation. They may be wringing their hands but at heart are happy with the status quo. But you have to conclude that there are people benefiting and they are doing ok with it even while they wring their hands.

I had hoped, even after that maybe some brilliant leader would appear—East is gone, why don’t we look for some way to bring some harmonization and look for ways to and do all these things. Sometimes the signs were there. Unfortunately I am sceptical now. Sometimes the prime ministers have had good will. The people around have made that commitment to try. I don’t think it was all shadow or always a hoax. But the forces that drive them apart are quite strong plus the extra ingredient of fear and suspicion is there. And suspicion is good for people and .

Q. How does one deal with suspicion?

I don’t know the answer to that, other than to destabilize it. Finding ways to undermine it. You can never show that it is baseless, because suspicion doesn’t need a base. But there are ways to counter it. To make something else fashionable or other ways people could benefit from reducing it.

Thanks Bob, for a great interview.