Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 Wujastyk wrote: "If this subject actually interests Malhotra, he should start a literary and sociological study to interview "Western Indologists" (yes, all six of them :-) and actually find out what they think." Yes, I agree we should do this. But I use the term Indology more broadly as the study of India through a variety of disciplines including religious studies, history, anthropology, philology, political thought, economics, etc. - hence there are more than just six scholars in it. To avoid misunderstandings, I want to state that my interests are NOT centered on ancient history (i.e. Indus Valley) but on more recent centuries when the current images of 'India', 'West', etc were constructed. Second, my comments do not pertain to all scholars, and I primarily wish to get to the origins of textbook biases. I must say that Prof. Witzel has made an enormous contribution to refute the commonly held view amongst scholars that Indians did not have a sense of history. He refutes this based on examination of indigenous texts of history found in regions of the Indian subcontinent that were spared destruction of such records. This is an excellent example to counter at least one major stereotype that feeds the notion of a static society frozen except for invasions. At the recent AAS conference in Chicago, Ranajit Guha surprised the audience when he made an extensive remark that much of the portrayal of India's history needs to be replaced by a fresh start using indigenous writings. To get a wider perspective, one can review recent works that examine western scholarship. J. M. Blaut's book, 'The Colonizer's Model of the World' is based on an extensive analysis of western scholars' historiography. The author describes his mission is "to undermine one of the most powerful beliefs of our time concerning world history and world geography. This belief is the notion that European civilization - "The West" - has had some unique historical advantage, some special quality of race or culture or environment or mind or spirit, which gives this human community a permanent superiority over all other communities, at all times in history and down to the present. The belief is both historical and geographical. Europeans are seen as the "makers of history"." He then explains the links between scholars and textbooks: "Textbooks are an important window into a culture; ...they are semiofficial statements of exactly what the opinion-forming elite of the culture want the educated youth of that culture to believe.... European and Anglo-American history textbooks assert that most of the causes of historical progress occur, or originate, in the European sector of the world......This view still, in the main, prevails, although racism has been discarded and non-Europe is no longer considered to have been 'absolutely' stagnant and traditional... [T]he views put forward by historical scholars today tend to be quite consonant with the theories projected in textbooks...." Wujastyk considers my suggestion of Eurocentrism in scholarship as "pure fantasy". Here is how Blaut explains this disbelief amongst scholars. He lists 14 "European-centered propositions" that are accepted by the majority of European historical scholars. "Historians who accept these propositions as true would be indignant if we described the propositions as "Eurocentric beliefs". Every historian in this category would deny emphatically that he or she holds any Eurocentric prejudices, and very few of them actually do hold such prejudices. If they assert that Europeans invented democracy, science, feudalism, capitalism, the modern nation-state, and so on, they make these assertions because they think that all of this is fact." Blaut then raises the question that becomes the subject for his book: "How is it that Eurocentric historical statements which are not valid - that is, not confirmed by evidence and sometimes contradicted by evidence - are able to gain acceptance in European historical thought, and thereafter survive as accepted beliefs, hardly ever questioned, for generations and even centuries?" His answer: "Scholarly beliefs are embedded in culture, and are shaped by culture. This helps to explain the paradox that Eurocentric historical beliefs are so strangely persistent; that old myths continue to be believed in long after the rationale for their belief has been forgotten or rejected...." In other words, Blaut says that Eurocentrism is often unconsciously applied today even by those who are consciously opposed to it. Now comes his more provocative diagnosis: "Eurocentrism is, as I will argue at great length in this book, a unique set of beliefs, and uniquely powerful, because it is the intellectual and scholarly rationale for one of the most powerful social interests of the European elite. I will argue not only that European colonialism initiated the development of Europe (and the underdevelopment of non-Europe) in 1492, but that since then the wealth obtained from non-Europe, through colonialism in its many forms, including neocolonialism forms, has been a necessary and very important basis for the continued development of Europe and the continued power of Europe's elite." Blaut believes that this attitude persists today: "For this reason, the development of a body of Eurocentric beliefs, justifying and assisting Europe's colonial activities, has been, and still is, of very great importance." There is too much to restate here, so I suggest serious scholars should read this book for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 INDOLOGY, "Rajiv Malhotra" <rajiv.malhotra@a...> wrote: > > Now comes his more provocative diagnosis: "Eurocentrism is, as I will argue> at great length in this book, a unique set of beliefs, and uniquely> powerful, because it is the intellectual and scholarly rationale for one of> the most powerful social interests of the European elite. I will argue not> only that European colonialism initiated the development of Europe (and the> underdevelopment of non-Europe) in 1492, but that since then the wealth > obtained from non-Europe, through colonialism in its many forms, including > neocolonialism forms, has been a necessary and very important basis for the> continued development of Europe and the continued power of Europe's elite." > Blaut believes that this attitude persists today: "For this reason, the > development of a body of Eurocentric beliefs, justifying and assisting> Europe's colonial activities, has been, and still is, of very great> importance."> > There is too much to restate here, so I suggest serious scholars should read > this book for themselves. The issue I suppose is 'historiography'. There is a monograph which presents a viewpoint from Bha_rata. Sriram Sathe, Kaliyugabda 5102, Millenniums Tested Bharateeya Science of History, Bangalore. Some excerpts (imagine the diacritics): "According to Bharateeya viewpoint, the ultimate object of history is human welfare. It is said that history should act as the magnifier of the culture and nourisher of the Dharma of the land. Hence, Bharateeya history was expected to project an overall picture of all facets of social life like religion, culture, economy, politics etc. Accordingly, in Bharat, various facets of history writing and reciting were fully developed. The following facets have come to our notice thus far: 1) itihasa; 2) purakalpa; 3)puravritta; 4) akhyana; 5) upakhyana; 6) aitihya; 7) parakriya; 8) parakriti; 9) itivritta; 10) anucharita; 11) anuvamsha; 12) katha; 13) parikatha; 14) gatha; 15) anwakhyan; 16) charita; 17) narashamsi; 18) kalavid; 19) gotra-paravarkar; 20) rajashasana; 21) purana; 22) akhyayika; 23) rabhya). (15.6.11-12) Atharvaveda mentions four, i.e. Itihasa, purana, gatha and narasamsi. Rigveda (cf. Gurudatta, 1963, Itihasa kmein bharateeya paramparayen, 3rd edn., 1986, New Delhi) mentions only narasamsi and gatha along with rabhya. The Satapatha Brahmana (14.6.10.6) adds two more in the list of Atharvaveda, i.e. anuvyakhyana and vyakhyana which may be the same as upakhyana and akyana of later times...Sastras like brahmanas, itihasas, puranas, kalpas, gathas and narasamsis are enumerated in the Taittiriya Aranyaka...Kautilya (Arth. 1.3) mentions itihasa along with the Vedas, which shows that during the Maurya period itihasa also was found in the specific book form like the Vedas. It was prescribed that kings should listen to itihasa and purana in the afternoon..." (pp. 59-63). If Avestan gatha is history, so is gatha of the Bha_rati_ya tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2001 Report Share Posted May 4, 2001 Tim, Thanks for some food for thoughts. Although I am afraid to go a little off topic, Prof. Halbfass' remarks reminded me of a recent newspaper article in Germany. Around Easter there was an interview with a theologian (Hans-Georg Ziebertz) in the Hamburg Abendblatt. He was talking about current views of God among young people (off course Germans). He cites some common views among younger people, such as: ``There is a supreme power which we cannot put into words.'' ``There is something supreme (neuter) which in all religions talk about. All the religions are only different ways that brought it to words.'' ``There is great totality of which we are part.'' ``The divinity is deep in each person.'' ``Each person has divinity in their deep self.'' The theologian did not seem to be aware that many (or all?) of these ideas could be ascribed to the Hindus, typically Vivekaananda. I thought it would be an interesting topic of research how Indian/Hindu/Asian ideas influenced Europeans (Christians) without being noticed (typically the Germans). I noted that the Germans are much more into the new-age stuff than the Americans. (West Coasters appear to be more into it than East Coastes, BTW.) Buddhism, especially the Tibetan Buddhism, appears to be quite huge here. The fear of science and technology is quite deep, it seems, among younger generations if Germans. (This is a huge contrast to the Japanese.) After learning a little about what the Germans are like, the words of Halbfass sounds very convincing. > I should point out that although one might > discern a uniquely > European agent in this, > --might suspect that his "we" was not fully > inclusive, Indeed I feel it more and more difficult to see the West as a whole. The Germans and the Americans are certainly different. One should not forget that the Germans have long been looking for their identity. > --might challenge the metaphors ("allies", > "life and death", "therapy") They in fact might not be metaphors. Alternative medicines are quite huge in Germany. Many people turn into them. So, it is a kind of life and death situation. (I guess I should put a smiley not to be misunderstood As Indian politics may be very complex (as Vidyasankar said in one post), the West also is quite diverse. Halbfass' observation seems more appropriate as words from a German. But I am not certain if it applies to all the Western indologists. I, for one, am having a little bit of identity crisis. Where the Japanese fit in all those Oriental vs. Occidental discussions? Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.