Code of Ethics for the Indology List

[Guest guest]

This is a great idea and deserves support. Since name calling

nowadays results in counter name calling, it should be declared

ineffective. Also, in the internet age, distribution channels of

scholarship and educational material are not so easily controlled by

a few as they were in the past, when there was no alternative to a

few journals and tightly controlled university presses. Finally, no

discipline can thrive in a post-colonial era if the scholars and

those they study remain at such loggerheads. For all these reasons

and more, such an initiative is necessary.

 

Definition of terms would be helpful as well. For example, in Judeo-

Christian studies, a perfectly respectable and indeed popular field

is to make `literal' interpretations of the Bible. This is called

Literalist Christianity or literalist interpretation. Nobody calls

them radicals, fundamentalists, nationalists, extremists, or the

like. As per Gallop Poll, almost half of all American Christians

believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible – hence it would

not be a viable definition of what the term `fundamentalist' means.

Indic scholars should be able to propose courageous interpretations

of what various metaphors might mean in ancient texts, and others are

always free to criticize and reject them.

 

The leveling of the playing field requires removing the `pedigree and

degree' definition of what it takes to be a scholar. Many of India's

indigenous traditions got de-licensed because of the agenda to define

them as being inferior: There is a long list of such professions and

technologies, many of which pioneered in international trade until it

was decided to `civilize' the workers and now they languish

as `backward' classes, and other derogatory classifications. So lets

not privilege western credentials over Indian ones in this age of

Swaraj.

 

I hope that critical work, opinion works, and innovative/novel

interpretations will not get disallowed nor unpopular stands

suppressed in the name of having to become politically correct.

Edward Said's classic, "Orientalism" would not have been possible if

controversy or taking a critical stance against a whole system of

scholarship were not allowed.

 

The main challenge to upgrading the quality of scholarship in

Indology is that it has become too politicized. There are many

diverse ideologies that often drive the questions asked, the data

selected, the hermeneutic lens adopted, etc. I wish there were a

solution to this, but probably the best that can be achieved would be

to state one's belief or premises so everyone can factor it.

Literalist interpreters of Christianity have no difficulty stating up

front that this is their assumption.

[Guest guest]

The closer a field of study gets to humanity the greater the need for

a code of ethics. For example, the restraints on biologists are far

greater than those on mathematicians. Similarly, physicians are held

to higher standards than veterinarians. Experiments on live animals

are far more restrictive than on dead ones.

 

Any study of humanity needs a code of ethics no less.

Indology is the study of the Indic civilizations-past and present.

They study a living culture whose past has a direct bearing on its

present. This is more true of Indology, say, than Egyptology.

Therefore Indologists need to develop a code of ethics in

consultation with the culture they are studying. Their

behavior-individually and as a profession- should be examined and they

should be held accountable.

 

This is not just to protect the Indic cultures from abuse by

Indologists. It is also to protect young Indologists and leave them

free to ask questions about their field.

 

 

 

 

Only three scholars came up with bibliographic references on the

abuses of Indology. Once they realized the effect it might have on

their own careers two of them clammed up.

The most useful reference came from a scholar who is somewhat

insulated from the pressures of the discipline.

 

 

Then another Indologist came up with an offensive post (apparently

he is known for that sort of behavior) which has now been endorsed by

the leader of the field. In no other area would this sort of behavior

be tolerated.

 

In India we learn from our parents and from our schoool teachers whom

we revere. In the West much of the learning process seems to take

place in the universities. Therefore ethical behavior has to be

taught to young scholars- it should be as important a part of their

education as learning to conjugate verbs in Sanskrit. Scholarship

without an ethical guideline is very dangerous- as the experience in

Germany shows.

 

By the way, is anyone following up on posting the article by Sheldon

Pollock mentioned by Fosse? Also, has anyone located the reference to

de Jong? I suspect the younger members of the flock have been silenced

for now, so we may not get any more information for a while.

 

 

I wonder who will be the Edward Said of Indology?

 

 

 

INDOLOGY, rajiv.malhotra@a... wrote:

> This is a great idea and deserves support. Since name calling

> nowadays results in counter name calling, it should be declared

> ineffective. Also, in the internet age, distribution channels of

> scholarship and educational material are not so easily controlled by

> a few as they were in the past, when there was no alternative to a

> few journals and tightly controlled university presses. Finally, no

> discipline can thrive in a post-colonial era if the scholars and

> those they study remain at such loggerheads. For all these reasons

> and more, such an initiative is necessary.

>

> Definition of terms would be helpful as well. For example, in Judeo-

> Christian studies, a perfectly respectable and indeed popular field

> is to make `literal' interpretations of the Bible. This is called

> Literalist Christianity or literalist interpretation. Nobody calls

> them radicals, fundamentalists, nationalists, extremists, or the

> like. As per Gallop Poll, almost half of all American Christians

> believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible - hence it would

> not be a viable definition of what the term `fundamentalist' means.

> Indic scholars should be able to propose courageous interpretations

> of what various metaphors might mean in ancient texts, and others

are

> always free to criticize and reject them.

>

> The leveling of the playing field requires removing the `pedigree

and

> degree' definition of what it takes to be a scholar. Many of India's

> indigenous traditions got de-licensed because of the agenda to

define

> them as being inferior: There is a long list of such professions and

> technologies, many of which pioneered in international trade until

it

> was decided to `civilize' the workers and now they languish

> as `backward' classes, and other derogatory classifications. So lets

> not privilege western credentials over Indian ones in this age of

> Swaraj.

>

> I hope that critical work, opinion works, and innovative/novel

> interpretations will not get disallowed nor unpopular stands

> suppressed in the name of having to become politically correct.

> Edward Said's classic, "Orientalism" would not have been possible if

> controversy or taking a critical stance against a whole system of

> scholarship were not allowed.

>

> The main challenge to upgrading the quality of scholarship in

> Indology is that it has become too politicized. There are many

> diverse ideologies that often drive the questions asked, the data

> selected, the hermeneutic lens adopted, etc. I wish there were a

> solution to this, but probably the best that can be achieved would

be

> to state one's belief or premises so everyone can factor it.

> Literalist interpreters of Christianity have no difficulty stating

up

> front that this is their assumption.