SV: [Y-Indology] On self-criticism

[Guest guest]

Dear Prof. Raman,

 

I am sorry that this reaction to your comments is so late, but it is

only now that I have had time to sit down and sort out my thoughts.

 

> <Remember: being critical is part of Western intellectual modernity.>

>

> 1. Very true, and this is something that I (and many Hindu

> thinkers) appreciate and applaud.

> 2. However, Indologists should know that this is not

> something unique to modern Westerners.

 

I never intended to imply anything of the sort! But pls see below.

 

> 3. As I see it, what is challenged here is the role and right

> of outsiders to distort and propagate aspects of a culture to

> the detriment of the image and self-image of that culture. I,

> for one, don't think that the majority of Western Indologists

> consciously do this, or have this as their intention.

> Unfortunately some of them (who write for the general public)

> do, and they have had impact on the perception of India and

> of Hindu culture on the part of many who have little or no

> direct acquaintance with Indic civilization at a deeper lever.

 

During the years that I have studied Indology, I have found practically

no Indological treatises on the subject that were derogatory in any way.

The vast majority of the work I read can only be described as

analytical, based on the methods that have been developed in the general

context of modern studies of language, folklore, history, religion etc.

In an academic context, the word "critical" is used in the sense that

you don't accept what your sources say at face value, but try to

evaluate them in a broader context and produce realistic descriptions of

events to the extent that events can be ascertained. Painting a negative

picture of India is a different way of "being critical". But I'll admit

that few Indologists spend much time glorifying India, particularly when

they write for each other. But then, scholars who deal with the West

operate in the same dry, cool manner. "Distortion" is a different

question. In the free press of the West, "distorted" version of a great

many matters are presented to the general public as a matter of course.

It is practically unavoidable in a free press. I can't see that India is

a special case.

 

> 4. If much of what one teaches about Western civilization in

> India consists of Roman orgies, papal corruption in the

> Middle ages, the Huns, the Crusades, the inquisition, St.

> Bartholomew massacre, the Salem witch hunt, slavery in the

> Americas, and the like, rather than Plato, De Rerum Natura,

> Roman law, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Dante, Shakespeare, Newton,

> Euler, the discovery of vaccines, world-transforming

> inventions, and the like, and keep concentrating on European

> colonialism and exploitation of the world, hegemonic

> dominance, etc., quite possibly people of European heritage

> living in India would be appalled and feel offended. As I see

> it, a somewhat similar situation is at play here.

 

I am not sure if I agree with this. I have seen dozens of coffee-table

books glorifying Indian temples, architecture, scenery, wisdom etc. etc.

Books on yoga and transcendental meditation must have cost the world a

small rain-forest. But I'll agree with you that not all descriptions of

India are rosy. But then: why should they be? The East is teeming with

books on the evils of the West, some of them quite unreasonable! Here,

we produce quite a lot of literature that concentrates on the negative

sides of our own culture. You will find scathing criticism of the

Christian religion, of various brands of politics, European imperialism,

racism, sexism, exploitation of the third world etc. All produced by

Westerners writing within the secular extension of Christian "mea culpa"

thinking. The Christian Church spent 2000 years teaching us how to be

aware of our sins. And some of us are, constantly. My point is simply

this: the Western literature on India in terms of tendency and genre

closely reflects the kind of literature we produce about our own

societies. In other words: you get the sour with the sweet. We can for

instance not avoid discussing the caste system, since it is central both

to India's social system and to Indian politics. Inevitably, we dislike

it because it is at variance with our own ethical thinking which says

that everybody is equal - at least in theory, or at least before God.

Thus, there is a cultural collision, and criticism is unavoidable.

Westerners, on the other hand, must hear that they are ungodly and

immoral, and be able to live with that.

In my opinion, the problem is not so much that Westerners are

"critical" of India. The problem is rather that India wants to be seen

in a different way, a way which is proactively flattering, and which is

not at variance with the the ideology that India's Hindutva elite now

wants to spread to Hindus and mlecchas all over the world. Above all,

the views on India's past and present must not be in conflict with the

ideology India's Hindutva politicians supports, for reasons suggested

above.

 

> 5. In so far as the goal of criticism is to bring about

> positive changes in a society, we should all be engaged in it

> with respect to all societies and civilizations, especially

> if we can do something about it. But in so far as our goal is

> to educate people about other cultures, it is important to

> emphasize its positive elements rather than overplay the

> negative, especially at the introductory level. I don't

> attribute motives to the scholars involved in presenting

> slanted stereotypes, but I do wish they would expend their

> scholarship more constructively.

 

I agree that negative sides should not be overplayed at the introductory

level. E.g.: The University of Oslo recently shut down parts of a

university web-site that brought up material which was highly critical

of Islam. (This decision was very controversial and reached the press).

However, you cannot teach Islam at the lower level and have the students

hurl abuse at each other at the same time. The same principle applies

mutatis mutandis to other religions. There is a balance to consider: on

the one hand, facts should be stated in an even-handed and comprehensive

but non-inflammatory manner, on the other hand, the rights of free

speech should apply. The most sensible thing is to assign different

arenas for these things. Criticism of religion belongs at the higher

level, and to a different arena than the freshman classroom.

 

So far generalities. When I look at the concrete cases where Indians

complain about Western presentations of India and things Indian, we are

almost always looking at matters that are in conflict with India's

ruling Hindutva ideology. The Dalits I have been corresponding with for

the last few years take a decidedly bleaker view on India than the

Western Indologists and journalists that so often are the object of

complaint. It is, in other words, not only the West, and that is part of

the problem. India's present rulers are trying to tie together a

disparate and conflict-ridden society, and instead of solving the real

problems - that are well-nigh insolvable - they try to introduce an

ideological fix. Instead of curing the illness, they try to treat the

symptoms.

 

As for the Western Indologists, it is important to remember that their

job primarily is to inform their own societies, particularly their own

educated class. They neither could nor should cater to Indian special

interest - it is India's job to present a positive image of itself to

the world, not ours. Our job is to analyse and interpret India in a

manner which is consistent with the academic standards that apply at

Western universities, whether India likes them or not, simply because we

have to produce knowledge that is meaningful to us. In a free-speech

context, Indians have the right to produce counter-information or

corrective information, which Indians do. I don't think Indians can ask

for more than that. Above all, I don't think that any group of Indians

can claim to speak for all Indians, any more than one group of

Westerners can claim to speak for all Westerners. Thus, the ones that

complain about our presentation of India do not necessarily represent

India, only one group of Indians. We should not pay more attention to

this group than to other groups, who may hold entirely different

opinions.

 

Best regards,

 

Lars Martin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr.art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo - Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19 Fax: +47 850 21 250

Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45

E-mail: lmfosse

DO NOT OPEN UNEXPECTED ATTACHMENTS.

MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS BEING ABUSED BY

MALICIOUS OPERATORS.