Abstract
The issue of colonialism and the emergence of new identities in traditional Indian society have engaged the critical attention of scholars from diverse fields of inquiry such as history, sociology, politics, as well as religious and subaltern studies .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The expression ‘Anglophone Indian philosophy’ refers to the philosophical writings of Indian philosophers of the late 19th and early 20th century in colonial India who used English as the chief medium of expression. But this characterization need not be taken as a necessary condition for Indian philosophy being ‘modern.’
- 2.
Some omissions—to mention a few, Sri Aurobindo (1872–1950), Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), R.D. Ranade (1886–1957), and S. Radhakrishnan (1888–1975) can only be regretted.
- 3.
It was only in terms of its political context that this reception was subjected to such binaries as east–west, traditional–modern, religious–secular, rational–spiritual, scientific–occult, and colonial–national.
- 4.
Reference to dharma opens up the issue of the relationship between four pūrūṣārthas (goals of human life) and darśana. It is stated that ‘Artha and Kāma do not fall under the field of philosophy’ (Bhattacharyya 1982: 226).
- 5.
Halbfass accepts that Indians had philosophy which is comparable to the philosophy in the West. But he does not explicitly admit that Indian concept of ānvīkṣikī is a conceptual equivalent of Western concept of philosophy.
- 6.
The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute was founded in his honour in Pune, India. The Institute was munificently aided by Sir Ratan and Sir Dorabji Tata and was inaugurated by Lord Willingdon, the Governor of Bombay on 6th July 1917.
- 7.
Thus, by following the critical and comparative method, Bhandarkar was able to compare the Sāṁkhya idealism of Kapilamūni with that of Fichte, a German Idealist (1762–1814) in terms of subjectivity and consciousness. But as far as the critical aspect goes, Bhandarkar also highlights the difference between Kapilamūni and Fichte saying that the former was concerned with liberation of soul from its fetters, while the latter was concerned with the explanation of the world. (Bhandarkar 1919: 71).
- 8.
It is commonly accepted that individualism and nationalism are the two ‘modern’ values the traditional Indian society was exposed to after coming into contact with Europeans. But the contribution of the Bhakti movement to the emergence of the value of individualism in terms of equality among men and even women is significant, since it acted as a ‘great leveler on the spiritual plane’ (Patankar 2014: 183). The assimilation of individualism as a social value also led to the emergence of social movements.
- 9.
The editorial appeared on 4 September 1894 in Kesari , the newspaper Tilak used to edit and publish from Pune. Tilak’s mention of Max Müller as ‘Moksha Müller Bhaṭṭa’ is in line with Radhakant Deb (the compiler of Śabdakalpadruma ) who too mentions Max Müller as ‘German Bhaṭṭa ’, elevating him from being a mlenchha (an uncivilized outsider) to the status of a venerated Brahmin because of Max Müller’s six-volume critical edition of the Ṛgveda with Sāyana’s commentary.
- 10.
In Indian context, Ganeri documents the works of several philosophers and argues that indigenous early modernity in navya-nyāya and other schools of Indian philosophy was taking place from the 13th century till the end of the 18th century (Ganeri 2014: 4–5).
- 11.
But referring to the travel accounts of François Bernier , a French philosopher and a court physician of Dārā Shukoh and Aurangzeb , Jonardon Ganeri argues that the Varanasi paṇḍits in the early 1660s were aware of the works of Descartes , a key figure in early Enlightenment, through Persian translations (Ganeri 2014: 13–14).
- 12.
Contrary to the general impression that the tradition of learning in Sanskrit had become stale and was not open to new ideas, these and other translations indicate that the tradition of learning in Sanskrit was in fact receptive to new ideas coming from the West. Hiralal Shukla describes this period as Anūvāda Yuga , ‘the age of translation ’ (Shukla 1989: 69).
- 13.
In this understanding, especially in the context of philosophy, the concept of darśana serves as ‘a terminological device’ to appropriate the Western concept of philosophy and its discursive and objective spirit of inquiry but at the same time asserting the uniqueness of the darśana conception of Indian philosophy as a way of life, as an intuitive realization of the highest reality (Halbfass 1990: 263).
- 14.
One of the most widespread beliefs that was generated in the colonial period by the Indologists and the Orientalists was that classical Indian philosophy deserved to be studied only historically; it could not enter into the contemporary consciousness of modern Indians. There was an essential distance between the classical Darśanas and the newly acquired concerns of the English-educated Indian philosophers of the colonial period. The distance was mainly due to the very structuring of the syllabus that was taught in Indian universities established at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay in which students were exposed only to western philosophy, logic, and ethics. The only institutions where Indian philosophy, i.e. the traditional darśanaśāstra , was taught were Sanskrit pāthśālās which too was fast disappearing. But more importantly, and as a result of the total absence of Indian philosophy in the university system introduced by the British, philosophy graduates in this system identified themselves with Western philosophy as if it was their own. Due to this distancing, the entire corpus of knowledge and various world-views which were distinctly indigenous, ceased to be living and relevant for the westernized Indian mind. A vital link with the issues around, which the everyday life as well as the intellectual life of the colonized Indians was historically organized, was lost. The ideal form of knowledge now was the western rationality, science, and scientific method. This view of the ideal form of knowledge along with its continued influence made the indigenous traditions irrelevant for the colonial forms of life.
To overcome this distance was a historical challenge for the modern Indian philosophers in the colonial context and they had to take it up not by subverting their new acquisition; namely, the world-views which the Western philosophers have offered, but by using that very acquisition to express themselves adequately vis-à-vis their European audience. In this process, acquaintance with Sanskrit became a marginal issue, at least for some, as per the D.M. Datta account cited above. At this juncture, the issue of assimilation of ideas became important, not only in the case of those which were held to be alien, but also with regard to those which were held to be one’s own. It became more and more a matter of sentiment to hold that the classical systems of Indian philosophy were still a part of the colonial consciousness of modern Indian philosophers. In reality, they seemed as alien to the modern Indian philosophers as were the ideas coming from the West. Modern Indian philosophers had to fuse the alien past with the alien present.
- 15.
The Poona College (1921), which was later reconstituted as Deccan College in 1864, is one of the oldest institutes modelled on the British system of education. But the year 1857 proved to be a benchmark year for the university system in India as the three major universities were established in the same year in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. The philosophy department was established in the University of Calcutta in 1913.
- 16.
The term traditional knowledge refers to two streams of learning—Vedas and Śāstras. One becomes a vaidika by virtue of mastering any one of the four Vedas. Mastery over the Vedas was aimed primarily at preservation rather than understanding their meaning of the original Vedas as they were recited with particular pronunciation, intonation, and accent. Therefore, “When the new elite in Maharashtra such as M.G. Ranade and M.M. Kunte made an attempt to revive the ancient Indian tradition in the second half of the 19th century, they emphasized the revival of the Vedas with their meaning” (Patankar 2014: 142). But besides keeping intact the oral tradition of preserving the Vedas, the vaidikas served as qualified priests to perform religious rites.
- 17.
The traditional system of education and the imparting of traditional knowledge are to be understood in a wider context of socio-economic and political conditions prevailing in the pre-British period. It was the ‘military prowess and its fruits in the form of revenue assignments’, not the academic scholarship, that was the ‘most coveted status symbol’ (Patankar 2014: 140). But the military training and academic scholarship in the study of Vedas and Śāstras under the British became redundant and government service became the chief avenue to secure livelihood. ‘Education through books thus became the chief way to reach the new goal’ (Patankar 2014: 141).
- 18.
The institution of the pāthaśālā exhibits a peculiar mix of formal and informal aspects. This institution invariably depended on patronage. Āchārya-Kula , a pāthaśālā in Pune, had the support of the Thackersey family, whereas Shambhurao Karandikar built a fairly spacious house for the famous Prājña Pāthaśālā at Wai , District Satara in Maharashtra (Patankar 2014: 142). But usually, many pāthaśālās were situated at the guru’s house in which disciples stayed and the guru looked after them along with his own family by performing pravachana and keertan , i.e. religio-ethical discourse at public places, mainly at temples. Those who used to teach at pāthaśālās conducted by institutions received Rs. 5 per month as their remuneration. (Patankar 2014, quoting from Nurullah and Naik 1933) Because of its informal character, there was no uniform pattern of examination and the examinations were mainly oral, conducted by the learned paṇḍits from places such as Varanasi or Paithan. Patankar gives some details of the syllabus to be studied during the period of 6 years at Prājña Pāthaśālā for the qualifying test to become a paṇḍit. For example, the study of Nyāya comprised the reading of Muktāvali (6 months), Tattvacintāmani (2 years), Gadādhara ( Siddhāntavyāpti , Paksatā , Avayava , Sāmānya Nirukti , SavyabhicāraSāmānya , Satpratipakṣa , (3 years), and Goutama-Kaṇāda Sūtra with commentaries (6 months). Likewise, there were six-year courses in each of these branches of knowledge—Veda, Vyākaraṇa , Dharmaśāstra, and Vedānta. However, the Prājña Pāthaśālā , most probably unlike many other pāthaśālās , seems to have been receptive to modernity as it also incorporated in its syllabus English language and literature, physics , and chemistry with a view that a paṇḍit trained in the Vedas and Śāstras should also be acquainted with the modern world (Patankar 1999: 129). In contrast to the traditional pattern of oral examination, Prājña Pāthaśālā adopted the method of continuous internal assessment followed by surprise weekly tests (Patankar 1999: 130–1).
- 19.
- 20.
But even before this journal, the Institute seems to have brought out a journal titled Journal of Indian Institute of Philosophy in January 1918 under the editorial committee consisting of S.K. Maitra (as President), Pt. Shripad Shastri , G.R. Malkani , N.C. Ghosh , and J. Masuda . However, no record of its continuation is available. Most probably, it was renamed as The Philosophical Quarterly and its first issue seems to have appeared in April 1925 under the editorship of M.N. Tolani and G.R. Malkani . This journal was an official publication of Indian Institute of Philosophy and the Indian Philosophical Congress . The first nine volumes were published from Amalner and volumes 10 to 19 were brought out from Calcutta. The remaining volumes from 21 to 38 were again published from Amalner. After the publication of volume 38 in 1966, the journal ceased to exist. The first issue of Tattvajñāna Mandir appeared in July 1919 under the editorship of Mr. M.R. Oak . These journals used to be the only Indian journals devoted solely to research in academic philosophy. From 1926 onwards, G.R. Malkani remained as the editor of The Philosophical Quarterly till its closure. Interestingly, the Scott Philosophical Club and the University of St. Andrews in England began publishing a journal with the same title from 1950.
- 21.
The Indian Institute of Philosophy at Amalner in East Khandesh region of the erstwhile Bombay Presidency (now the State of Maharashtra) was founded in July 1916 by two individuals, Pratap Sheth , a textile mill owner and Sheth Vallabhadas , a cotton merchant. From 1920 to 1950, this Institute was the only center of philosophical research in India. It attracted many distinguished professional philosophers of the time as fellows and lecturers including K.C. Bhattacharyya as its first Director for a brief period and G.R. Malkani who succeeded him in 1935 until the Institute was formally closed in 1966.
- 22.
The first volume of Dasgupta’s History of Indian Philosophy appeared in 1922 and the fifth and the last in 1955.
- 23.
The project brought together Sanskrit-based traditional paṇḍits and those trained in Western philosophy to dialogue on certain key concepts in philosophy via interlocutors. See Krishna et al. (1991).
- 24.
Haldar’s contribution to neo-Hegelianism is acknowledged as very significant even in Cambridge and Oxford during his time. Like Seal, Haldar also thinks that absolute idealism is the only plausible theory to explain the multitude of ordinary experience and science because things make sense only in reference to the ‘totality of a system.’ Like Seal, Haldar was also a Brahmo Samajist and was described as a Brahmo neo-Hegelian philosopher who opposed the militant nationalism and pleaded for ‘healthy nationalism ’ that would welcome the ‘splendid virtues of the west.’ Besides these intellectual affinities, both Seal and Haldar have held King George V Professorship of philosophy in Calcutta University. Seal held this position during 1913–1921, while Haldar held it during 1931–1933.
- 25.
In fact, G.N. Mathrani is globally the first philosopher ever to have written a book on Wittgenstein, titled Wittgensteinian Philosophy or Studies in the New Cambridge-Philosophy (Mathrani 1940).
- 26.
Though planned in 1945 and 1949, the Krishna Chandra Bhattacharyya Memorial Volume (Amalner) which finally appeared in 1958, confirms this fact. However, excepting Pravas Jivan Chaudhuri (1916–1961)—a physicist by training and a pioneering figure in philosophy of science during 1940s–1950s—the contributors to the volume like S.K. Maitra, P.T. Raju, and G.R. Malkani were still holding on to neo-idealism.
- 27.
See (i) Sen, N.C., PQ Vol. 1, No. 4, January 1926, (ii) Kar, K.N., PQ Vol. 24, No. 1, April 1951, also Vol. 25, No. 2, July 1952.
- 28.
See (i) Chatterjee, G.C., PQ Vol. 33, No. 2, July 1960, (ii) Nikam, N.A., PQ Vol. 33, No. 2, July 1960, (iii) Mathrani, G.N., PQ Vol. 33, No. 2, July 1960, (iv) Kaul, B.N., PQ Vol. 31, No. 3, October 1958, (v) Banerjee, K.K., PQ Vol. 33, No. 2, July 1960, (vi) Misra, N., PQ Vol. 34, No. 2, July 1961.
- 29.
See (i) Mathrani, G.N., PQ Vol, 16, No. 2, July 1940, also PQ Vol. 20, No. 3, October 1946, (ii) Das, R., PQ Vol. 17, No. 3, October 1941, (iii) Chandra, S., PQ Vol. 33, No. 3, October 1960 and also PQ Vol. 34, No. 3, October 1961 (iv) Lal, B., PQ Vol. 34, No. 3, October 1961, (v) Srivastava, J.S., PQ Vol. 38, No. 2, July 1965.
- 30.
See Ray, B.G., PQ Vol. 31, No. 3, October 1958; also PQ Vol. 35, No. 2, July 1962.
- 31.
See (i) Datta, D.M., PQ Vol. 12, No. 4, January 1937, (ii) Gajendragadkar, V., PQ Vol. 25, No. 1, April 1952, (iii) Sastri, P.S., PQ Vol. 28, No. 3, October 1955, (iv) Rao, A.L., PQ Vol. 34, No. 1, April 1961, (v) Moorty, N., PQ Vol. 35, No. 3, October 1963, (vi) Choudhuri, P.J., PQ Vol. 29, No. 4, January 1957, (vii) Prasad, K., PQ Vol. 13, No. 1, April 1937; also PQ Vol. 16, No. 4, January 1941.
- 32.
See Naidu, P.S., PQ Vol. 12, No. 1 April 1936, also PQ Vol. 19, No. 1 April 1943, (ii) Choudhuri, P.J., PQ Vol. 21, No. 1 April 1947, also PQ Vol. 21, No. 3, October 1948, also PQ Vol. 22, No. 2 July 1949, also PQ Vol. 25, No. 3, October 1952, also PQ Vol. 30, No. 4, January 1958, also PQ Vol. 32, No. 3 October 1959, (iii) Chari, C.T.K., PQ Vol. 25, No. 2, July 1952, also PQ Vol. 26, No. 3, October 1953, also PQ Vol. 37, No. 4, January 1965, (iv) Sastri, P.S., PQ Vol. 26, No. 4, January 1954, (v) Kaul, R.N., PQ Vol. 27, No. 3, October 1954, (vi) Chandra, S., PQ Vol. 29, No. 3, October 1956, (vii) Chakravarti, M., PQ Vol. 33, No. 3, April 1960.
- 33.
See Sinha, D., PQ Vol. 29, No. 2, July 1956, also PQ Vol. 37, No. 2, July 1964 also PQ Vol. 37, No. 4, January 1965, (ii) Ramanathan P.S., PQ Vol. 21, No. 1, April 1947, (iii) Puligandla, R., PQ Vol. 38, No. 3, October 1965, (iv) Mohanty, J.N., PQ Vol. 25, No. 2, July 1952.
- 34.
See Sahu, S., PQ Vol. 28, No. 3 October 1955, (ii) Lal, B.K., PQ Vol. 38, No. 3, October 1965, (iii) Sinari, R., PQ Vol. 36, No. 3, October 1963.
- 35.
See PQ Vol. 30, No. 1, April 1957 and PQ Vol. 32, No. 2 July 1959. The symposiasts in the former were Kalidas Bhattacharyya, Daya Krishna and N.K. Devaraja, whereas for the latter it was S.K. Nandy.
- 36.
For example, a review of G.N. Mathrani’s Studies in Wittgensteinian Philosophy, H.H. Price’s Hume’s Theory of External World, Ernest Nagel’s Logic without Metaphysics and Other Essays in Philosophy of Science and A.J. Ayer’s Logical Positivism appear in 1941, 1942, 1958, and 1960.
- 37.
The founder member and secretary of the Indian Philosophical Association established in 1949 and also the Editor of the Journal of Philosophical Association. The formation of association and the publication of the journal were perceived as expression of dissenting voice within the Philosophical Congress demanding critical attitude towards Indian philosophy and receptivity to emerging philosophical movements led by Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein. Most of the articles and symposia published in the Journal of Philosophical Association focus almost exclusively on several issues in early analytical philosophy and philosophers of that period.
References
Bergmann, G. (1964). Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bhandarkar, R. G. (1919). The Sāṁkhya Philosophy. In Indian philosophical Review, Jan. 1919 (Vol II) No.3, 193–199 included in Utgikar, N.B. and Paranjpe, V.G. (1993) (Eds) Collected Works of Sir R.G. Bhandarkar (Vol. I) Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Bhandarkar, R. G. (1920). Presidental Address. In Proceedings and Transactions of the First Oriental Conference, Nov. 1919 (Vol. I) Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Bhattacharyya, R. S. (1982). A new approach to Indian philosophy. In S.S. Rama Rao Pappu & R. Puligandla (Eds.), Indian philosophy: Past and future. South Asia Books.
Bhattacharyya, K. (Ed.). (1963). Recent indian philosophy. Papers selected from the proceedings of the Indian Philosophical Congress 1925–1934 (Vol. 1). Calcutta: Progressive Publishers Calcutta.
Bhushan, N., & Garfield, J. L. (Eds.). (2011). Indian philosophy in English: From renaissance to independence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowes, P. (1982). What is Indian about Indian philosophy? In S.S. Rama Rao Pappu & R. Puligandla (Eds.), Indian philosophy: Past and future. South Asia Books.
Das, R. (1968). My Teacher As I Saw Him. In Phanibhushan Chatterjee (Ed) Acharya Brajendranath Seal Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume (ABNSBCCV) Acharya Brajendranath Seal Birth Centenary Commemoration Committee, Calcutta.
Datta, D. M. (1956). India’s debt to the West in philosophy. Philosophy East and West, 6(3), 195–212.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecology of knowledges. Review, 30(1), 45–89.
Deshpande, S. (Ed.). (1997). Philosophy of G.R. Malkani. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Deshpande, S. (2010). Hegel in India. In H. Casper-Hehen & N. Gupte (Eds.), Kommunikation ṻber Grenzen. Gottingen: University of Gottingen.
Devraja, N. K. (Ed.). (1975). Indian Philosophy Today. Delhi: Macmillan.
Ganeri, J. (2014). The lost age of reason: Philosophy in early modern India 1450–1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gokhale, P. (2012). Identifying philosophy in Indian tradition. In A.D. Sharma, J. Shankar, & R. C. Sinha (Eds.), Dimensions of philosophy. New Delhi: New Bharati Book Corporation.
Halbfass, W. (1990). India and Europe, an essay in philosophical understanding (1st Indian ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.
Haldar, H. (1927). Neo-Hegelianism. London: Heath and Crantor.
Haldar, H. (1936). Realistic idealism. In S. Radhakrishnan & J. Muirhead (Eds.), Contemporary Indian philosophy. London (Indian Edition 1952).
Inden, R. (1986). Orientalist construction of India. Modern Asian Studies, 20(3).
Inge, W. R., Jacks, L. P., Hiriyanna, M., Burtt, E. A., & Raju, P. T. (Eds.). (1951). Radhakrishnan: Comparative studies in philosophy presented in honour of his sixtieth birthday. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Krishna, D. (Ed.), Bhatnagar, R. S. (Comp.). (1986). Author and subject index of the Philosophical Quarterly, Volumes I–XXXVIII (1925–1966). New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Krishna, D., Rege, M. P., Dwivedi, R. C., & Lath, M. (Eds.). (1991). Saṁvād: A dialogue between two philosophical traditions. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Maitra, S. K. (1936). Outlines of an emergent theory of values. In S. Radhakrishnan, & J. Muirhead (Eds.), Contemporary Indian philosophy. London (Indian Edition 1952).
Maitra, S. K., Malkani, G. R., Murti, T. R. V., & Bhattacharyya, K. (Eds.). (1958). Krishna Chandra Bhattacharyya memorial volume. Amalner: Indian Institute of Philosophy.
Mathrani, G. N. (1940). Wittgensteinian Philosophy or Studies in the New Cambridge Philosophy, Sind: Prabhat Printing Press. (1990) Reprint Darshana Peeth, Allahabad.
Mehta, J. L. (1974). The problem of philosophical reconception in the thought of K.C. Bhattacharyya. Philosophy East and West, 24(1), 59−70.
Müller, M. (1879–1910). The Sacred Books of the East. Oxford University Press.
Murti, K. S. (1965). The Indian spirit. Waltair: Andhra University Press.
Murty, K. S. and Rao, K. B. (1972). (Eds) Current Trends in Indian Philosophy. Waltair: Andhra University.
Nurullah, S., & Naik, J. P. (1933). History of education during the British period. Bombay: Macmillan.
Patankar, R. B. (1999). Apurṇa Krānti (in Marathi: Incomplete revolution). Mumbai: Mauj Prakashan.
Patankar, R. B. (2014). Indo-British encounter. In A. Joshi & A. Tikekar (Eds.). Pune: Rohan Prakashan.
Prasad, R. (1982). Tradition, freedom and philosophical creativity. In S. S. Rama Rao Pappu & R. Puligandla (Eds.), Indian philosophy: Past and future. South Asia Books.
Radhakrishnan, S. & Muirhead, J. (Eds.). (1936). Contemporary Indian philosophy. London (Indian Edition 1952).
Raju, P. T. (1936). The inward absolute and the activism of the finite self. In S. Radhakrishnan & and J. Muirhead (Eds.), Contemporary Indian philosophy. London (Indian Edition 1952).
Rao, K. B. R. (1982). The quest of Indianness of Indian philosophy. In S. S. Rama Rao Pappu & R. Puligandla (Eds.), Indian philosophy: Past and future. South Asia Books.
Ryle, G. (1963). Introduction to the revolution in philosophy by A. J. Ayer, W. C. Kneale et al. Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
Seal, B. N. (1899). Comparative studies in Vaishnavism and Christianity. Calcutta.
Seth, S. (2008). Subject lessons: The Western education of colonial India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Shukla, H. (1989). Sanskrit ka samajshastra: Svanantrata sangram aur Sanskrit sahitya (in Hindi). Delhi, Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan.
Tilak, B. G. (1894). Moksha Müller Bhattānchā Vedānta. Editorial in Kesari, 4 September 1894. Reproduced in (1976) Samagra Lokmanya Tilak Vol. 5. Pune: Kesari Prakashan.
Wallerstein, I., et al. (1997). Open the social sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Indian Institute of Advanced Study
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Deshpande, S. (2015). Introduction—Modern Indian Philosophy: From Colonialism to Cosmopolitanism . In: Deshpande, S. (eds) Philosophy in Colonial India. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures, vol 11. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2223-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2223-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2222-4
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2223-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)