RE: [Y-Indology] Unfortunate exchanges

[Guest guest]

Based on corporate training I received long ago, libel would usually require

ALL three of the following to be proven: (1) The statements made were false.

(2) They were intended to cause harm to the other party. (3) There was

indeed measurable loss suffered. Hence, I agree with the post that this is

not just a matter of some hurt feelings. Also, scholars take the pulpit

every day and profess whatever they want, including some very harsh

criticisms against others not present, all couched through the use of good

western hermeneutics. But in the eyes of the law, I doubt that western

hermeneutics would enjoy any privileged status compared to popular styles of

criticism. Once you are outside the fortress walls of the academy, there is

no hegemony of one language over others. Having said this, professional

courtesy should be observed in any forum, so as to maximize the bandwidth of

discourse and not fetter anyone's ideas.

 

I am unsure about the other suggestion, that Indian philanthropists should

sponsor study by Indians in western Indology departments so as to upgrade

the standards of critical thinking in India. The need to upgrade India's

critical thinking is clear, but the present Macaulayite Indian is precisely

the result of such western training over the past 150 years and especially

after independence. Western Indology presumes a view of history of modernism

seen as European triumph. In this theory of history, all 'Others' are either

un-civilizable (per Hegel) or else are lucky if they can prove their

feudalistic credentials as that qualifies them to have civilization

potential. This dismisses the indigenous as feudalistic and primitive, and

Indians (trained in western hermeneutics) went to great extremes to qualify

India into this system so as to be civilizable. Even the subaltern movement

failed to return agency to the indigenous as it was too exclusively Marxist

in its dialectic. Hence, first the Indology departments themselves need to

re-examine their premises, and this is where scholars such as Ronald Inden

are so important. So it will have to be a two-stage process. Meanwhile,

Ashis Nandy and Madhu Kishwar are amongst many critical thinkers in India

who have made the U-Turn from westernism back into appreciating the

indigenous. The reformations they seek are within the framework of the

indigenous rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.