Teaching Classical Indian texts in India

[Guest guest]

It may be useful to note some simple facts about what is actually

happening amidst all the complaints about what is supposedly going on in

Indian universities, including mostly those like JNU which insist on a

secular perspective-- not accepting any religious ideas, e.g., about Higher

Powers and such, that WE ALL supposedly can acknowledge and bow down too.

(Sorry, Bharat, et al., but not everyone can for all sorts of reasons, from

believing in quite another Supreme Being--Xians & Muslims, etc.-- to

believing in none, Buddhists and atheists, agnostics and secularists...).

Here is a para from a speech at a conference on Decolonizing English Studies,

recently held in the North Gujarat University at Patan: Makarand Paranjape

sings praises of Kapil Kapoor, an organizer of the conference; both are JNU

profs in the lit and lang Dept.and both are committed traditionalists,

unabashedly Hindu in crucial (and to me politically dangerous) ways.

 

<< Professor Kapoor has introduced into the curriculum of English Studies in

India certain texts which are very crucial to changing the direction of our

thinking. He has introduced courses on three seminal texts of Classical

Indian thought: Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya, Panini's Asthadhyayi, and

Bharata's Natyashastra. He has also introduced other key texts from both the

aesthetic and the philosophical traditions, such as Dhvanyaloka or

Kathopanishad into the syllabus of an M.A. English programme. Now as far as I

know this is not been done by anybody else, anywhere else in India, or for

that matter, in the world. What is more, he has done this in a place such as

J.N.U., which, as you know, is the bastion, in fact, almost the monopoly of a

certain ideology.>>

 

The whole of Paranjape's talk is available by request to him at the address

above, or to me at joperry2 I'll quote a bit more in closing, that

also contradicts some prejudices mouthed on this supposedly scholarly forum.

 

 

<< The third thing is the establishment of a Centre of Sanskrit Studies at

J.N.U. Let me remind you that it took thirty years since the inception of

this university to have such a centre. We have programmes and courses in a

dozen other languages, including Arabic, Persian, Spanish, French, German,

and Russian, but not Sanskrit. It is Professor Kapoor who took the

initiative to establish this Centre, that too from a very selfless motive.

Neither is he going to teach there himself nor head it, nor benefit from it

personally in any way, and yet he worked nearly single-handedly, in the teeth

of opposition and indifference, to raise the funds and to lobby the UGC and

the Ministry to ensure that the Centre was sanctioned. The unique thing about

it is that it is completely independent with it own building. It is not under

the aegis of any of the Schools that we have. It is also not a Centre merely

for the study and dissemination of the Sanskrit language, of Sanskrit

Studies, a broader category of research, which implies an inclusive

civilizational orientation, not just a linguistic one. And this is his third

great contribution.>>

 

Final comment by JOP: As an American, twice Fulbrighter in India (plus 8

more research tours there) I have had occasion to attack in print both Prof.

Kapil Kapoor and my very good friend and co-worker Makarand Paranjape for the

susceptibility of their "Hindu civilizational" perspective to giving aid to

the narrowing exclusionary political agenda of Hindutva AND to global

capitalism-cum- consumerism, which accompanies, supports and is supported by

Hindutva aims for achieving global (universal? gods-given?) importance for

the Indian nation-state. Nevertheless, I recognize that the curricular

changes Kapoor and Paranjape seek are crucial for the preservation and

development of what is distinctive about Indian civilization today-- its

extraordinary diversity, its complex and varied ancient and more recent

traditions, some of which are indeed viable in contemporary life for certain

individuals (but, please, not all of us....!)

 

Bottom line: One's opponents are much less homogeneous than is convenient

for argument. That goes for me as well as those who attack JNU for its

secularism, and Fulbrighters, tout court, for their intolerance, etc...

 

ATB

JOP

John Oliver Perry

HOME: 1606 East Columbia St.

Seattle, WA 98122-4635

Phone: 206-329-3327

FAX (next door): 206 323-7728

Email: joperry2 (invariable)

IN PARIS from Jan-June 2001

c/o Verdier; 25, Rue des Vinaigriers

75010 Paris, FRANCE

 

Please visit the Website for Indian Critics Survey: www.indcrit.8m.net

Submit queries to above, or to info

[Guest guest]

While I do not know who Professors Paranjape and Kapoor of JNU are,

the posting that pronounces them as "dangerous" raises several issues:

 

1. Are there established criteria by which someone may be

demonized as `dangerous', especially by scholars, and are the same

criteria applicable also to characterize westerners? Post-colonialist

scholars have explained asymmetries in who studied whom, using one

culture's categories and methods, and sometimes towards specific

purposes of social re-engineering and appropriation. Is it that when

the so-called `informants' talk back, they are demonized so as to put

a muzzle on them for this rudeness of seeking equality?

2. Should such branding or condemnation be applied only after a

fair due process, including cross-examination of evidence? Or should

it be adopted based on the pedigree of a self-appointed judge,

established by name-dropping of western funding sources (whose impact

on the culture being studied is now becoming a fascinating field of

inquiry)?

3. Does personally branding the `Other' serve a useful purpose

in cross-cultural dialog, or merely expose the pathology of the

scholar? Does it build a bridge or a wall?

 

R. Malhotra

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Joperry2@a... wrote:

>[snip]

>I have had occasion to attack in print my very good friend

>and co-worker Makarand Paranjape for the susceptibility of their

>"Hindu civilizational" perspective to giving aid to the narrowing

>exclusionary political agenda of Hindutva AND to global

>capitalism-cum- consumerism

 

Is this the Makarand Paranjpe who wrote, e.g.,

The Dharma of Technology

http://www.lifepositive.com/mind/evolution/technology/dharmatech_artic

le.asp

 

This person can hardly be accused of giving aid to global-

capitalism-cum-consumerism.

 

-Arun Gupta

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Joperry2@a... wrote:

> << The third thing is the establishment of a Centre of Sanskrit

Studies at

> J.N.U. Let me remind you that it took thirty years since the

inception of

> this university to have such a centre. [...]

> and yet he worked nearly single-handedly, in the teeth

> of opposition and indifference, [...] It is not under

> the aegis of any of the Schools that we have.

 

So, what does this say about Sanskrit at JNU?

 

What I find interesting is that we have been told repeatedly that

one must have extensive exposure to the academic study of Sanskrit

before using the texts for historical purposes. Who then gains

by putting roadblocks in the way of historians etc who wish to

gain such exposure?

[Guest guest]

One list member had suggested to me that a quiet and rational

discussion of the concerns that many Indians have about Indology

and western academics in general might be of interest.

Hence this post.

 

A MS Word file with the text of a talk by Prof. Makarand Paranjpe

has been uploaded to the Files section of the INDOLOGY.

You may access it at :

 

INDOLOGYMakarandParanjpeTalk.doc

 

I suggest further discussion of this be continued on the

Indictraditions (indictraditions)

list. In my opinion, much of the noise on INDOLOGY is

incoherent expression of some of the ideas that are very clearly

expressed in this talk.

 

-Arun Gupta