The Cultural China: Krishna Prakash Gupta and India’s China Studies

二十世紀的印度與中國，經歷殖民主義與戰火的洗禮，轉化為當代的民族國家，成為兩個亞洲的區域大國，近年在經濟表現與政治影響上大放異彩而受到矚目。雖然經歷1962年的邊界戰爭後二國關係僵冷的時期，但無礙於1980年代印中關係正常化後，印度與中國民間或政府層面的交流。就理論層面觀之，知識份子論及印中關係，常見追溯雙方悠久之歷史，細數往來過程之密切者。 印度的中國研究可分為中國典籍研究與當代政治與戰略研究，與轉變的印中關係有關，在邊界戰爭衍生之「了解敵人」的政治與戰略需要以前，印度學者研究中國的動機，便與二十世紀初在反殖民主義下知識份子尋求近鄰的文化紐帶，從而基於個人興趣進行「求同」的佛教或印中歷史往來的研究。 身為1960年代戰略需要下訓練的中國專家，Krishna Prakash Gupta是印度第一批接受福特基金會獎學金的留美學者，在其歸國後於德里大學任教，參與非正式的中國研究小組，並協辦《中國述評》（China Report），而該小組與刊物是早期印度的當代中國研究的核心。 Gupta的中國研究，在60、70年代與期刊的議題發展方向相仿，談論中國的政治現實，這時期的研究者思路相似，多以思想脈絡詮釋中國政治。但在80年代印中關係正常化與90年代逐漸頻繁的交流後，他有別於當時的研究方向，深化研究中國政治的深層脈絡。Gupta基於學術關懷，批判時人的研究框架與印度知識份子的預設，從而提出避免文化成見影響的理論，呼籲讀者思考既有之中國觀感，究竟是出於政治現實抑或浪漫情懷。此區別可說源於印度人的世界觀，Gupta一方面指出印度知識份子錯把浪漫情懷當政治現實導致的問題，另一方面採取同樣視野，將中國視為主權國家與承載數千年歷史的文明，而以文化發展源流解讀中國政治現象與社會變遷。但他雖以此視野放眼印度與中國，但他強調歷史社會脈絡與正視自身文化成見的研究法，避免既有概念影響其判斷。 前述的印度概念，主要以文化取徑理解中國，以之為一個模糊而連續的文明整體，相較於日本在中國研究之細緻與具體，雖二者與中國往來千年，但二國在中國概念上有極大差異。此一差異在爬梳印度與日本在主權國家概念的轉化可見其成因，在印度，獨立時期以西方、帝國主義為建立自我概念之他者，中國則是相似身分的文明╱國家。相對的，日本由於以中國文化為其底蘊，在近代認同的形成、尋求在世界的定位時，必須以西方與中國為向度。從而這種以文化取徑的文明視野，來自印度自我認同的構成，做為藉由西方的國家概念統攝複雜的印度文明，並以相似的觀點投射中國，普遍存在於印度的知識份子概念之中。From the early struggles to shake off the yoke of colonialism, to the transformation into modern nation states in the 20th century- India and China - the two regional superpowers of today, have stunned the world with their economic and political clout, exerting increasingly greater influence over regions in Asia and beyond. The 1962 Border war, which at one point plunged relations into a deep freeze, did little to dampen the prospects their bilateral ties. Following the normalization of the Sino-Indian relations in the 1980s, private exchanges and political dialogues have steadily been growing between the two. While some Indian scholars study the Sino-Indian relations in the context of historical factors, others study them by analyzing current events. Nonetheless, both examine the complexities of the bilateral relationship in civilizational terms. This paper glances over the evolutions of China Studies in India, which is divided into two parts: the history-related research, and the political/strategic analysis. The first part describes scholarly activities that came along with the anti-colonialism sentiment: the focus and motives of the Indian scholars on China studies and the historical and cultural ties with India''s neighboring states, including Buddhism and other aspects. The second part describes Indian scholar''s focus, developed after the war in the 1960s, with their "know our enemy" mantra. Against the backdrop of India''s need to groom more sinologists in the 1960s, Krishna Prakash Gupta became a member among the first batch of Ford Foundation Scholarship recipients to study in the United States. Upon his return to India, he had taught in Delhi University, joined the informal Chinese Study Group, and served as the editor of the Indian journal China Report. This study group and journal once were forming the core of China study in modern India. Gupta''s study on China affairs in the 60s and 70s rhymed with themes found in the writings of the China Report, examining issues based on contextual thinking and reflecting China''s political reality. However, issues written in the China Report shifted focus between in 80s and 90s - the period when priviate, cultural and governmental exchanges between India and China became increasingly frequent - to focus on the examination of the effects and policy surrounding China''s economic and political transformation. (both local and national area ) Despite this paradigm shift, Gupta remained steadfast in the areas of his political study, comparing the social-historical contexts among the Chinese, Indian and the Western societies. He then asked whether "China''s image" in India reflected China’s political reality or just Indian’s perception of romantic imagination. After examining the theoretical frame and Indian perspectives on China, Gupta suggested to India''s sinologists a proper method: to be aware of the standpoint, and to prevent the prejudice bringing from their own cultures. Reading between the lines the works of Gupta and his colleagues, we can see the China a civilization from the cultural perspective. And by comparing the Indian and Japanese works on China studies, we can gain even more depth about Indian''s “Cultural China." Indian scholars view China a vague, changeable but uninterrupted civilization, and the Japanese, by contrast, study China in a more concrete, detailed fashion. The main reason attributing to these differences in approach lies in how the identities of the Japanese and Indian people were formed. The Chinese culture and institution, more or less, served as the foundation of the Japanese culture. Therefore, the influence of the Chinese culture, as well those from the West, became an important element in the Nation building in Japan. Meanwhile, the historians found that "India" was a geographical nomenclature with complex cultures before the days of the British colonization, a historical event which helped turn the colonial land into a country. In modern India, the context of "other" in a sense of defining its identity refers to the British Empire or its colonialism. Similarly, the Indian intellectuals viewed China a civilization similar to that of India, with each of its complex cultures wrapped within its own nation frame. And the contemporary China studies in India, the perspective of "Cultural China" remains