Why the following ought to be of interest on Daily Kos:
Ignorance might not prevent the American academia from sermonizing to the world but, when coupled with pompousness, it damages what many good Americans hold very dear to their hearts: ‘the American national interests’.Background:
Wendy Doniger, Professor at the University of Chicago, wrote a book "The Hindus: An Alternative History" with many errors of fact and of interpretation. The book was published in 2009. In 2014, Penguin, the publishers of the book in India, withdrew Doniger's book in India as part of a settlement of a civil law suit brought by an elderly activist, Dina Nath Batra. The lawsuit was brought under Section 295A of the Indian legal code, which punishes "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings" of any class of people in India. This law was instituted in British India, in the 1920s, but continues in independent India.
For myself and for Professor Balagangadhara (Balu) whom I shall be quoting below, I will say that banning of a book is deeply troubling, and we strongly wish that it did not happen. I should mention that I am told by people who know more about the lawsuit than has appeared in the press, that Wendy Doniger apparently refused to correct just the errors of fact in her book during the negotiations for a settlement of the lawsuit. That is deeply troubling too. It should also trouble everyone, but apparently it doesn't, that any criticism of Doniger's book is dismissed as "Hindu fundamentalism", whatever that means.
Anyway, this incident seems to have caused a huge amount of ink to be spilled in the US press, more so, than e.g., when the US government took down a Mexican political activism website. Perhaps Indians should be flattered that Americans care so much more for their far-away nation than their own government and the nation on their border. But perhaps something else is at play.
Wendy Doniger wrote an OpEd in the New York Times, "Banned in Bangalore". I will not characterize that OpEd, Balu does that exceeding well (below the fold). Since he introduces himself (or you can follow the Wiki link above) I shall not say more about him.
Before I can address myself to the issues raised by Batra’s challenge to Doniger’s book, I need to clear my mind of the irritation caused by Wendy’s piece in the NYT......... In any case, here is a short piece I wrote and sent to NYT. After submission, I discovered that the policy of NYT does not allow it to print replies on published pieces (except as reader’s comments). So, the NYT will not entertain my response.......... Please feel free to circulate it, if you find that it deserves some publicity. Note though that this piece merely expresses my irritation…Here is the main piece (I've added emphasis):
I am from Bangalore, India, but work as a professor in Belgium, Europe. My name is not Batra but am known as ‘Balu’. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of either the BJP or of any of the organizations collectively known as the ‘Sangh Parivar’. Even though I am born a ‘Hindu’, some of my ‘liberal’ associates are convinced that I am a ‘crypto-Christian’. So much about my credentials, which are required to make two points of some importance about some sections of the American academia.
These thoughts arise in the context of Wendy Doniger’s op-ed piece in the NYT. This American ‘expert’ on Indian culture and ‘Hinduism’ epitomizes very accurately the state of the American academia when it talks about other peoples and cultures: filled with ignorance and pompousness.
Ignorance: she does not even know that the article 295A of the Indian Penal Code (which she refers to) is not about ‘blasphemy’. (Does she know the meaning of the word, I wonder.) Yet, this inconvenient fact does not faze her from holding forth on the issue. Neither does the fact that being a ‘Jew’ is irrelevant to whether one has a ‘Christian’ missionary zeal or not. (Does she know that Judaism also ‘proselytized’ during the Antiquity?) After all, the so-called ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ have been repeatedly accused of exhibiting precisely that zeal which Wendy claims is inappropriate to describe her because of her Jewish birth. This nonchalant attitude towards others is typical not only of her but also of most academics doing India and Hinduism studies in America. Ignorance might not prevent the American academia from sermonizing to the world but, when coupled with pompousness, it damages what many good Americans hold very dear to their hearts: ‘the American national interests’.
Pompousness: Wendy Doniger suggests that the voice of a “narrow band of narrow-minded Hindus” drowned out the voices of “the broader, more liberal parts of Indian society”. This suggests that the latter must have been ‘speaking’ too; how otherwise could their voices be ‘drowned out’? Two questions that even an ordinary child would ask are of relevance here. The first: how could a narrow band ‘drown out’ the voice of a broader band? A possible answer would attempt to identify those in power. One of the things that everyone, especially such intellectual experts, should know about India is that the entire media in India has been under the hegemony of liberal and left-thinking intellectuals ever since independence. Nehru was a socialist; he encouraged leftist intellectuals. His daughter, Indira Gandhi, consciously pursued this strategy: almost all academic institutions and funding agencies are completely in the hands of progressive and left-leaning people. How then, and this is the second question of the kid, could a small number of people (without institutional power or control of the media) outshout the majority especially when it is in power? Surely, this does not jell. But this imperviousness to reason is the required stepping stone for the pomposity, which she exhibits when she says that “the dormant liberal conscience of India” was awakened by the “stunning blow to the freedom of speech”. Let us leave aside the question of logical consistency (an inappropriate term to describe Wendy’s thinking) about the “broader band” that ‘speaks’ and yet is alleged to be dormant. The real issue is far more important.
That consists of some questions. If we know history, we know too that ‘liberalism’ (as we understand the term today) is a product of the extraordinary culture that the West is. We need to acknowledge the contributions of such people like John Locke or John Stuart Mill, if and when we speak about this wonderful political doctrine. We know too that Indians are indebted to the British for this gift to their thinking. Yet, there are questions here: did the Indian culture go around banning books before the British came to India? Was the Indian culture a prey to systematic campaigns against intellectual productions before the emergence of a liberal conscience? Are we to suppose that if the westernized “liberal conscience” does not wake up, Indian culture will fall victim to the “narrow-minded Hindus”? If, indeed, India burnt and banned books before ‘liberalism’ made its advent into India, Wendy’s thought carries credibility.
Actually, that would be a sheer nonsensical claim because it is the other way round: western culture banned and burnt books before the advent of ‘liberalism’; it banned and burnt books also after the advent of ‘liberalism’. Protestants burnt the books of Catholics, Catholics banned and burnt Protestant writings; the Germans, amongst other things, burnt down the entire library of the University of Louvain. The Americans, for their part, unlike the French colonizer, simply bombed away the libraries in Vietnam and elsewhere. In fact, as our history books tell us, it was an enlightenment thinker like David Hume who called upon people to burn libraries, if they housed books that say nothing about “matters of fact” or speak about logic since they can “contain nothing but sophistry and illusion”. He was, of course, referring to books on theology, among other things. (Thus, his logic would have burnt Wendy’s books, seeing that they lack both!) Hence, it is unvarnished pomposity to think that only the western culture embodies freedom of thought and expression, while other cultures are not only primitive but also barbaric and authoritarian.
This implicit attitude towards others (which cannot be effaced by any number of explicit pronouncements, if one intends to remain consistent) characterizes not Wendy alone but also most of the American academia that writes about India and Hinduism. It is this stance that informs the relationship of America with other peoples and nations as well. It is this posture that damages the ‘American national interests’. The incident of Wendy is one of the many warning shots from other parts of the world to all serious, well-intentioned American academics: wake up and listen to what others are saying before it is too late. Do not keep repeating inanities and indulging in table-thumping and breast-beating. Do some serious thinking for a change. That would help us all.