[Fwd: The Emergence of American Hinduism's latest scholar.]

[Guest guest]

Namaskar

 

Mr. Ravi Malhotra's analysis gives some idea about who speaks for

Hindus.

 

Ramen Nandi

"Rajiv Malhotra" Rajiv.malhotra

"Indic Traditions Egroup" indictraditions

The Emergence of American Hinduism's latest scholar.

Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:30:08 -0500

Dr. Prema Kurien gave a talk on "The Emergence of American Hinduism" on

Wednesday, March 21st at Columbia University's South Asian Studies

Department. With her permission, a friend of mine tape-recorded the talk. By

way of introduction, it would be important for me to give a bit of

background.

 

Her research on American Hinduism is being funded by the wealthy ($5 Billion

endowment) Pew Trust based in Philadelphia. Now she is being sponsored for

lecture tours of campuses to present her latest findings. The Pew Trust's

web site explains its mission as the spread of Protestant values into public

life. It also happens to be listed as the largest source of private funding

for the American Academy of Religion.

 

Dr. Prema Kurien, a woman in her 20s, originally hails from Kerala. While a

Christian herself, she did her PhD from California specializing in Hinduism.

Her goal is to become the leading authority on the emerging phenomenon of

American Hinduism, a position currently occupied by the senior Diana Eck at

Harvard's Pluralism Project. The reason I wish to feature her here is partly

because a recent posting on this list expressed anger at my attempts at

analyzing American Hinduism, as though someone who is already an American

Hindu should be ashamed to study his own tradition. Yet, in parallel with

this attack, quite an organized effort is going on to study about the

American Hindus, but undertaken largely by Christians. At the very least,

this should provoke the question as to whether Hindus who try to study their

own identity and community are going to be attacked, so as to further clear

the path for Christians to take control over this scholarship. Are we mere

informants for scholars, mere straw men and women they construct to fit

their lofty theories and other agendas? In that case, should we be declared

the subalterns of America, denied our own voice to speak for ourselves? Is

this ultimately about the re-engineering of our identities, as foreplay

before harvesting our souls?

 

Following are excerpts from the preliminary report by my friend (who is not

a Hindu), followed by my response. I have not yet heard the tapes he has

sent on this talk:

 

"She has an intriguing and provocative analysis of the way in which

diasporic Indian Hindus in

America end up supporting Hindutva ideology (often unconsciously) while at

the same time being dedicated to the notion that "Hinduism" is an

all-inclusive, tolerant religion. She argues that these two apparently

opposing stances are in practice blended by the needs for cultural identity.

By proudly identifying with a "universalistic religion" rather than with a

nation, continent, or race, Indians avoid the racial stereotyping and

pigeonholing that befalls many other immigrant groups. She argues that this

helps immigrant Indians feel less "third-worldly" and more "modern/global,"

etc. The perhaps the unintentional effect of this is, however, that it

supports the notion that to be Indian is to be Hindu - hence the Hindutva

connection."

 

"Regarding "Hindutva" itself, she is fairly good at nuancing and

problematizing that term as well. And she has some interesting analyses of

the kinds of overseas Indians end up funneling money to Hindutva

organizations, and how, and why, etc."

 

"Her observations are based not on mere speculation but rather on her

extensive field research/interviews of Indians in Southern California. When

pressed, she acknowledges that hers is a single case study, and that her

findings may or may not apply to Indians elsewhere in the U.S. (e.g.

one person pointed out that the experiences of Indians in urban areas like

NYC are quite different)."

 

"She is very intelligent, seems to do good research, and is very open to

discussion and criticism. She would no doubt add richness, breadth, and

depth to the perspectives of any panel."

 

"She did not want to share a hard copy of her paper - some of it will be

submitted for journal publication in a couple months (doesn't know which

journal yet), and the bulk of her research will come out as a book later."

 

Among the topics she is researching and will cover in her book are: The

immigrant computer workers and internet Hinduism; case studies of local

satsang organizations and bal vihars; case studies of Hindu temples in USA;

case studies of Hindu 'umbrella' organizations in USA; case studies of

various Hindu student organizations in USA.

 

MY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE:

 

It is interesting to find in the first paragraph of the report that she

positions Hindutva as an attempt to universalize Hinduism so as to escape

the third worldliness of being seen as Indian. However, I have concluded

that the South Asianization project (by departments such as the one that

invited her to give the talk) is luring young Indians precisely into giving

up their Indian identity by becoming South Asians instead. Also, it has been

said that the conversions in India are often motivated by the quest for

'phoren' identity that Christianity is presumed to grant. She fails to

acknowledge these attempts to escape from third world identity. She also

finds it a contradiction that Hinduism presents itself as a tolerant and

universal religion. Yet, she does not go into details as to why this is a

contradiction. [Presumably, she feels that the image of universality and

tolerance should be exclusively reserved for her own religion.] I have

repeatedly clarified my own identity as a Non-Hindutva Hindu (i.e. one who

feels that there are many ways to be a Hindu), and yet I find her 'research'

highly slanted. Her research questions appear designed to validate

preconceived conclusions.

 

In the second paragraph, it is interesting how she wants to examine the flow

of funds into Hindu organizations in India, while not making any comparison

with the flow of funds via Christian organizations on a hundred-fold grander

scale. This is an example where an audience well equipped with facts and

figures could make the Q&A session much more lively.

 

I am impressed by the speed and efficiency with which Christianity is going

about developing its next generation of intellectual samurais. In response

to my suggestion that they include Hinduism amongst the world's religions,

the head of Princeton University's Center for World Religions introduced Dr.

Kurien to me some months ago as their newly arrived post-doctorate faculty

who is already seen as an expert on Hinduism. Also at a meeting with the

head of grants and programs at Pew Trust, she was proudly mentioned as a

young new expert on Hinduism - they seemed to assume and project that she is

a Hindu. I would be surprised if many Indian students on American campuses

can see through all this seemingly 'objective' scholarship.

 

This should be cause for introspection by those Hindu 'intellectuals' who

have held the attitude that: (a) they don't care about the humanities in

education; (b) they are better off focusing on temples, ashrams, family

based education; and © they don't know enough to dispute the claims of

'objectivity' by scholars. One should ask whether these are world-negating

positions.

 

I am NOT suggesting that Dr. Kurien's work is shoddy or that Christians stop

their 200-year old project of intensely studying Hinduism. I merely point

out that at such talks by so-called 'experts', there should be a respondent

from the tradition being portrayed, as that is very much within the norms of

academic practice. It would be unthinkable to have a talk on African

Americans by a white scholar in which no black scholar is invited to the

panel or to give a response. It would be unimaginable to have a talk on

women by a male researcher without the gender balancing of having a woman

scholar's response with equal time allotted. Hence, why is it considered

ridiculous, impolite, and sometimes 'fundamentalist' to suggest that

practicing Hindu scholars be included in events on Hinduism?

 

In this regard, the few practicing Hindus in US academia, both ethnic

Indians and non Indians alike, are very scarce and deserve to be morally

supported for what they have to put up with in their careers. It is easy for

those of us who do not put our careers and livelihood on the line to expect

greater assertiveness on their part. But until the numerical imbalance in

academe changes with more Hindu practitioner-scholars, we cannot expect much

change along the lines of what has happened already with Jewish, Islamic,

Buddhist, African American, women's, and gay/lesbian studies.