Barkotoki's work Krishna Kanta Handique is a life writing, more commonly called a biography.

Handique, according to his biographer was a "world-renowned Sanskritist, Indologist, visionary

educationist and a doyen of Indian culture." After his formal education at both the Calcutta Sanskrit
College and Oxford, in England, Handique spent a considerable time in Europe, learning thirteen
languages. His professional life began as the Principal of J.B. College Jorhat and then as the
founder Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University. Among the literary works mentioned by the
biographer are (i) Naisadhacarita(1934) of Sriharsa, (ii) Yasastilika and Indian Culture and (iii)
Setubandha(1976) of Pravarasena.

But, Barkotoki is less interested in such factual details and moves to a consideration of an epithet
to be applied to Handique, considering the latter's enormous scholarship and his "multifaceted,
extremely human personality." He discovers this in Nirad C. Chaudhuri's description of the
German Oriental, Mr. Max-Mueller. Chaudhiri had called Muller "scholar-extraordinary" whereas
such words like "scholar per excellence" would just mean a pedagogic or bookish achievement.
Ironically, Handique did not write much. Also, most of his writings are in English, not in Sanskrit.
But a scholar cannot be limited to the numbers of books he or she writes or produces. Similarly,
awards and degrees are not sufficient proof of scholarship. "Handique," says Barkotoki was "not
a Professor," though he was referred to as such by "every other scholar" and while he was given a
number of honorary D. Lit., he remained as humble and simple as ever, just Mr. Handiqui.

Obviously, Barkotoki's descriptions of Handiqui as "just Mr. Handiqui" would only be possible
within an intimate circle of friends or well-wishers, when they have no reason to please or
disapprove of the other person's work, purely for profit, official or otherwise. Meenaxi Barkataki,
Muni Barkotoki's daughter's explanation of the work of her father, as a biographer can be quoted
here:

[A biographer] must delve deeper into the hidden recess of the subconscious and the
unexplored mind [...] in order to pierce through the curtains. The primary objective of the
art of modern biographies is not to impose an exaggerated self-perceived impression (of
the person portrayed) upon the reader but to give a jerk to his convictions (Meenaxi
Barkataki in her Preface to Essentially Speaking v).

Barkotoki's choice of Handiqui as a subject of study is determined by his beliefs that Mr. Handiqui
was not just a great scholar but gave the Assamese people "identity" and "assertion" in the
crosscurrents of "Western education," as also "exposure to broader national and international
currents of thoughts, and the experience of an urban culture" (Stuti Goswami, "Introduction" to
Essentially Speaking vii), in the metropolis. Again, while Handiqui "wrote numerous articles and
learned reviews for journals or contributed greatly to prized introductions and prefaces to many
prestigious publications at home and abroad, in English as well as other European
languages"(Essentially Speaking 86), he must be best regarded for his commentary on Yasastilika..
Also, while his translation of Naisadha and Setubandha, were just translations, Handiqui, showed
a "mastery over literary nuances and philosophical intricacies embedded in these classics,"
(Barkotoki 87) This was at a time, when most of so called 'scholars' chose to leave many of such
works aside because of their complexity and abstruseness. Handiqui's work of love retrieved many
such otherwise inaccessible works, so that they became like "present day masterpieces to be
savoured pleasurably for generations to come"(Barkotoki 87).

Barkotoki's emphasis on the ability of a scholar statesman to bring inaccessible literary works to
common parlance springs from his idea that knowledge is not the forte of the lettered alone. Also,
a scholar has a special mission to reach out, disseminate and spread out his explications for
humanity at large, so that people, commonly divided and separated in caste, religious, ethnic and
racial gauntlets are united in a common faith of a democratically achievable future. Handiqui's
work on Yasastilika and Indian Culture are to be mentioned especially, because they explained in
"simple and uncluttered language"(Barkotoki 87), the philosophy underneath most of these
difficult works. Handiqui's knowledge of medieval illuminated manuscripts, calligraphy as well as
stylized paintings of Rajput and Kangra schools" (Barkotoki 87) must be equally noted.

Barkotoki's rues sarcastically, that the government of the country was less than generous in
awarding the scholar academician a "measly Padma Bhusan"(Barkotoki 87), when he could have
been easily offered a Padma Bibhusan or even better. The biographer justifies his position in the
argument that Handiqui was a polymath, who was as adept as the versatile Ananda Coomaraswamy
in aesthetics. Also, he could seek clarifications on some knotty philosophical issues from
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Radhakrishnan was not just a philosopher. He was one the most
enlightened minds of twentieth century India, a liberal humanist, visionary and scholar par
excellence. To deliberate with such a man as Radhakrishnan was proof of Handiqui's scholarship.
To prove his point further, Barkotoki alludes to some of India's academic who's who, that accepted
Handiqui's intellectual integrity and his contributions to Indian philosophy. These include the
linguist Suniti Kumar Chatterjee and the great Indophile Australian historian of the East, Mr. A.L.
Basham. Barkotoki concludes therefore that Handiqui was:

[...] a venerable rishi and jnanayogin throughout his life, in his lifestyle and personal
bearing an Oxford graduate of the early twenties, [whose] identity as an Assamese was
almost lost and subsumed in his Indianness (Essentially Speaking 88).

Barkotoki's idea of a 'rishi' and 'jnanayogin' is this recognition of Handiqui's special position as a
scholar, who moved beyond pedagogy to engage with socially and culturally relevant issues. The
importance of engagement is also pertinent when the idea of a nation or what constitutes Indianness
is set against the immediate claims of regionalism. The dangers of such claims is to narrow down
discovery. This is not to ignore the need for asserting one's identity but to recognize that such
identities are to be subsumed and integrated in the larger discourses of heterogeneity, which
unfortunately is lacking now.