On the Sulekha Posting

[Guest guest]

ON MR. RAJIV MALHOTRA'S ESSAY

 

By now, many professional/academic Indologists must have heard of, and quite a

few might have also read, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's posting in Sulekha. Whether one

agrees or disagrees with his tone and style, it is hard to ignore three aspects

of this essay:

 

(a) It has elicited a groundswell of support from a great many Hindus/Indians

who keep track of current exchanges on matters related to their religion and

ethnic roots. The essay has, within a couple of days, elicited more than a

hundred enthusiastic accolades.

 

(b) Unlike some other of Mr. Malhotra's postings, this one is presented as a

scholarly paper, end-notes, references and all.

 

© Above all, he does make a valid point which is simply this: Western

commentators on Indic traditions ought to be versed not only in the lore and the

language via books and manuscripts; they must also have some sensitivity for the

culture on which they are commenting and which they are trying to interpret, not

only for themselves but for countless readers who may be only vaguely familiar

with the very complex and sophisticated culture that the Indic is.

 

To me, filtering out all the understandable astonishment and rage at some of the

more jarring commentaries on Hindu gods and goddesses, Malhotra's seems to be a

fairly reasonable position which, with due respects to him, is not all that

original, because it is shared by millions of others: not just practicing

Hindus, but some Non-Hindu scholars as well. Indeed, the current collective

reaction to some of the more objectionable writings on Hinduism is mild compared

what one might expect elsewhere if corresponding statements were to be made on

the prophet and scripture of another major non Judeo-Christian religion.

 

My own view in this context, which I have repeatedly articulated, is that one

cannot, indeed one should not, dissect a living religion as one dissects a dead

butterfly, or even a dead religion, for that matter. Talking about Shiva or

Sarasvati is not like talking about Zeus or Diana. Shiva and Sarasvati still

touch the heart and soul of millions, provoke prayer and prostration, are

venerated in places of worship, and celebrated in festivities.

 

To the outsider, the Bhagavad Gita may be another classic of world literature, a

philosophical or metaphysical monograph presented as a dialogue. But it is also

a sacred book for many Hindus, and is often regarded as the equivalent of the

Bible or the Koran. Hindu scholars many argue about the divinity of Krishna or

the historicity of Rama, but those not of the tradition should be sensitive in

what they have to say.

 

True, many Western scholars will not be offended if the Old Testament is

described as a narrative of bloody wars and savage behavior, or if one talks of

the Last Temptation of Christ. This is because the scholars themselves have

severed their religious loyalty to their tradition. But most practicing

Catholics will certainly be incensed if one speaks of Christ's lust for

Magdlena.

 

The point is, in a multicultural world where English and French have become as

universal as curry and chowmein, one cannot just get away with irresponsible and

culturally offensive public statements, whether on popular radio or in serious

text-books.

 

I for one have often applauded the dedication of Western scholars who elucidate

and expound the intricacies of Indic civilization, their compilation of

dictionaries and translations of classics, slanted or distorted as they

sometimes might be. But when serious academics publish books that are blatantly

insulting to the sensibilities of a billion people, and are also frequently

distorted, and write in utter ignorance of how the practitioners currently feel

about their deeply religious symbols, then somebody should say, "Stop this

nonsense!" I think that is what Mr. Malhotra has done, and in doing so, he is

giving voice to millions of his co-religionists.

 

If professional Indologists are indifferent to or contemptuous of what Mr.

Malhotra has unleashed, I fear the situation could get even worse for the whole

world of Indological scholarship. Indeed, if we don't wish this episode to

degenerate into an uglier Kulturkrieg of even greater proportions, then

Indologists would do well to say openly that sometimes they have indeed been

insensitive, and that in the future they would be more respectful of the culture

about which they write. It would be even nicer if the offending authors offered

a formal apology to the Hindu world. Such a gesture is not required of them, but

it is likely to initiate a healing process which, in my view, is sorely needed

in the current context.

 

 

 

V. V. Raman

 

September 8, 2002

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

With all respect, Prof. Raman, the issue is not "sensitivity".

The issue is honest intellectual enquiry.

 

To quote Swami Tyagananda's criticism of Kripal :

 

"Should a person with a good grasp of Bengali language and culture

seriously read the Bengali source books on Ramakrishna and then

come to the conclusion that Ramakrishna was a conflicted

homosexual, I would respect that person's freedom to come to this

conclusion. I would strongly disagree with him or her, but I -

and many other devotees of Ramakrishna - would fully support

that person's freedom of inquiry and thought. What I and others

will never support is the freedom to distort the text and the

freedom to misuse citations."

 

In any case, please see Rajiv Malhotra's comments on the

Sulekha thread, where he has given opinions from many other

folks on how flawed Wendy Doniger's type of scholarship is.

 

Truth, however unpalatable, we will learn to live with.

Falsehood, never.

 

With regards,

Arun Gupta

 

 

INDOLOGY, "V.V. Raman" <vvrsps@r...> wrote:

> ON MR. RAJIV MALHOTRA'S ESSAY

>

> By now, many professional/academic Indologists must have heard of,

and quite a few might have also read, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's posting in

Sulekha. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his tone and style, it

is hard to ignore three aspects of this essay: