Guest guest Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 LONG BUT EXCELLENT ARTICLE. COMPLETED VERSION OF EARLIER POST. >Listadmin <owner-manthan >manthan (Manthan) >Manthan <manthan >[Manthan] Washington Post and Hinduphobia >Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:34:27 -0500 (CDT) > >[==========================================] >Manthan: Information Exchange Network for >Ideological Empowerment of Hindus >Sponsored By: http://www.voiceofdharma.com >[==========================================] > > >Title: Washington Post and Hinduphobia >Author: Rajiv Malhotra >Publication: Sulekha.com >April 20, 2004 >URL: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305924 > >Background > >In our world of constant change, many entrenched paradigms and >worldviews are being challenged by marginalized voices. As a patriotic >American, I consider these healthy debates as another stage in the >series of progressive movements, like civil rights, feminism, gay rights >and other movements that started as underdogs and outsiders to the >established power structure and had to battle at great expense for every >bit of progress they won. The 19th century Irish ><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415918251/qid=1082071168 >/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7310345-3544709?v=glance&s=books>fought to be >included as equals in America, followed by the Jews ><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081352590X/qid=1082071284 >/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7310345-3544709?v=glance&s=books>and various >other new groups. Eventually, the efforts of each of these groups paid >off, and these movements reinvented and strengthened our nation. >However, pluralism should also go beyond the inclusion of different >racial and ethnic groups within the paradigms of a monolithic culture. >There needs to be a welcoming of perspectives that both complement and >occasionally compete with the dominant Western mindset. As the recent >geopolitical trends reveal, many Americans, even at the highest levels >of government, academia and media, are often unequipped to deal with the >growing resistance to the imposition of Western frameworks upon other >traditions. Globalization is not going to be the Westernization of the >globe. Budding discourse outside the purview of academia is increasingly >challenging the monolithic and hegemonic position that Western ideals >have assumed through the past few centuries. > >Particularly misleading has been the West's reliance upon foreign >cronies (often positioned as institutional "experts") who reproduce and >propagate the same Eurocentrism ><http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_rs/h_rs_malho_euro_frameset >.htm> (or should we call it "American-centrism") that they have learnt >by mimicry from Western institutions. They do this largely to gain >admission into the Western Grand Narrative and they do a disservice to >long-term American interests. > >Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of many Indians who are in >humanities and English language media, located both in the West and in >India. They have found that such mimicry serves them well in their >fast-track quests for greater name recognition and prominence than would >be achieved if they were to expose the establishment's blind spots. >Globalization requires a challenge to the well-entrenched discourse: >Dissenting public intellectuals should be given a fair chance to >articulate from outside the walls of the academic and big media >fortresses. Given the expanding Indian-American community and the >increasing importance of India in the American mind, new minority >Indian-American voices have emerged outside the establishments' walls, >and these are very slowly being taken note of, if not always >sympathetically. > >When Washington Post was recently approached by the public relations >campaigns emanating from Emory University and other supporters of the >powerful Wendy Doniger, a door was opened for the Post to play a >responsible role in bringing out serious blind spots of >Eurocentrism/American-centrism that reside deep in America's higher >education. As shown below, the Post bungled up this opportunity by >regurgitating the narratives supplied to it by the establishment of >India Studies. > >Washington Post's front-page article entitled, "Wrath Over a Hindu God: >U.S. Scholars' Writings Draw Threats From Faithful," by Shankar Vedantam >(April 10, 2004; Page A01) misrepresents the topic by failing to >highlight the central issues being debated, namely, systemic ideological >biases within academia, while caricaturing the community's dissenting >intellectuals in ways that approach Hinduphobia. Its strategic timing on >Easter weekend, which is charged with Christian emotions especially >after the "Passion" movie, was a serious setback to America's pluralism. >It has the effect of misdirecting the casual reader towards an >intellectual cul-de-sac and away from serious inquiry. The Post's >article could discourage further dissenting discourse, which would >stifle much needed reform and progress within academic scholarship. > >Intellectual corruption > >It is good that government corruption and corporate corruption have come >under considerable public attention in the US. But academic corruption, >the core issue that I have tried to examine for the past several years, >remains largely ignored by the public. Just because this corruption >trades not in conventional monetary terms but in terms of career >advancements, book sales, political ideological promotion and evangelism >does not make it any less harmful. The biases in the Post's article (as >explained below) illustrate the further need to look into media >corruption. > >The key issues deserving examination in both cases are these: Who >controls the discourse, how do they exert control over it, and what are >its consequences? > >Government corruption in countries like India is often the result of a >concentration of power over the control of commerce. Analogously, >channels of knowledge distribution around the world are often controlled >by vested interests, and I have highlighted this extensively in the case >of knowledge about India and especially about Hinduism. A small subset >of Western-controlled knowledge producers about India control the >academic journals, conferences, grants, PhDs, appointments and award >committees. If a similar control existed over commercial distribution >channels, it would be grounds for anti-trust action against the >monopolists. > >For exposing this and especially for naming specific parties (whom I >have referred to as the "cartel"), the wrath of the gods of the India >Studies establishment has descended upon me. The results of this wrath >are evident in the manner by which they successfully manipulated the >Post's journalism. (For more about the cartel, see my The Peer-Review >Cartel ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040202&fname=rajiv&sid=1 > >, Cartel's Politics ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040212&fname=rajiv&sid=1 > > , Cartel's Theories ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040211&fname=rajiv&sid=1 > > , Asymmetric Dialog of Civilizations ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=156155> ). > >Power and the construction of "truth" > >At the same time, the Post's article opens up an opportunity to see how >the media, as a channel of information distribution, is sometimes >manipulated by vested interests that have the power to do so. It is an >interesting hypothesis outside the scope of this article that the same >nexus of power exerts an unfair advantage over both the academic >discourse and the English language media in the case of India-related >writings, because the academicians often function as public >intellectuals and media experts. > >Alvin Toffler explained how knowledge is constructed by those in control >of the process: "Virtually every 'fact' used in business, political life >and every day human relations is derived from other 'facts' or >assumptions that have been shaped, deliberately or not, by the >preexisting power structure. Every 'fact' thus has a power history and >what might be called a power future.[1]" > >Former US Ambassador to India, John Galbraith, went further and >blatantly downgraded the claims of objectivity in these so-called >truths: "[T]he required doctrine need not be subject to serious >empirical proof...It need not even be seriously persuasive. It is the >availability of an ascertainable doctrine that is important; it is that >availability and not the substance that serves.[2]" > >The Post's article dishes out what Galbraith calls "the availability of >an ascertainable doctrine" that is devoid of "substance" or "empirical >proof." The established doctrine is promoted as a given without >analysis. > >Nietzsche explained the harmful consequences of such pre-packaged bias >that enjoys widespread media distribution: "The reputation, name, and >appearance, the usual measure and weight of a thing, what it counts for >- originally almost always wrong and arbitrary - grows from generation >unto generation, merely because people believe in it, until it gradually >grows to be a part of the thing and turns into its very body. What at >first was appearance becomes in the end, almost invariably, the essence >and is effective as such." Just as Wendy's Children ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=239156> trivialize >Indian texts and practices by publishing highly influential caricatures >of Hinduism, so also the Post's article illustrates how the dominant >media can trivialize the issues being raised by the dissenters. Both >play into the hands of Hinduphobics, such as aggressive evangelists, >Indian communists (including those who relocated to US campuses after >the collapse of Soviet sponsorship in India) and other subversives who >regard the fabric of Indian society as a scourge and an obstacle to >their idea of "progress." (For more on this subversion, see my >Preventing America's Nightmare ><http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jan/21rajiv.htm>, Axis of >Neocolonialism ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=218625> ). > >Colonized minds > >Edward Said's important book, "Orientalism," after being fiercely >attacked, created a whole new trope in the discourse on colonialism. >However, the scholars who are now in this field (known as post-colonial >studies) are themselves a part of the academic empire controlled by the >West. The brilliance of this new empire is that, whereas the British >Empire relied mainly upon European scholars of Indology (with Indians >largely as native informants) to construct and propagate ideas about >Indians, the new empire has successfully lured ambitious Indians into >prestigious jobs provided they sublimate their own identities and serve >the dominant culture > >This makes the criticism of the biased discourse on India much harder, >because the strategy has been to deploy Indian intellectual sepoys >against any Indian dissenting voices. The same scholar who is deeply >invested in subtle and sophisticated India/Hindu-phobia in his/her day >job in a Western institution is also charming and manipulative at >impressing and disarming the fellow-Indians. S/he easily slips into >Indian attire, recites Urdu poetry, even sings bhajans, and expresses >great sympathy for India's poor. In fact, if it were not for their >artificially Indianized unctuous obeisance to the prevailing powers, >many such Indian intellectuals would get devalued in the eyes of the >Western institutions they serve. > >Consequently, despite its many positive contributions to Western >civilization, Hinduism continues to be studied using Western >chauvinistic paradigms by packaging the "Hindu other" as "exotic," and >by the Washington Post as "violent," and by ignoring devout Hindus who >are normal, modern, intelligent persons and who could be a physician, >neighbor, classmate, boss or colleague. > >As analogies, imagine if the dominant culture had appropriated >articulate blacks to fight against civil rights, or if the male >chauvinists had appropriated enough bright women to fight against >feminism, or if gays were to be hired by institutions to refute gay >rights' discourse. Besides derailing the minority movements, such a >sellout would have also harmed American society in the long run while >helping make a few big careers in the short term. > >That this strategy - of getting bright Indians to fight against India - >continues to succeed is a tribute to the long-range impact of the >British colonialists. > >This trend is now being spread like a cancer by Indian brown sahibs >based in the West and with followers in India's elitist higher >education, media, and most of all, foreign-funded NGOs (Non-Government >Organizations). The fight between India's Left and the Hindutva Right >(in which I distance myself from both sides because neither side is >sufficiently in tune with the overriding global forces at play), is a >subset of the bigger global project of exacerbating the "Indians versus >Indians" cleavages. (See my Human Rights' Other Face ><http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/10rajiv.htm> , Conversion Agenda ><http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/10rajiv1.htm> , Indians undermining >India <http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/10rajiv2.htm>.) >In my telephone interview with the Post's journalist, Mr. Vedantam, and >in follow-up emails to him, I had focused mainly on the above issues of >the power-equation concerning the construction and distribution of >knowledge about India. Besides ignoring my central thesis in its >article, the Post has also failed to provide me an opportunity for >rebuttal and correction, even though I have written to it that I was the >main person named and was (mis)quoted by it. > >Therefore, just as my Sulekha article exposing CNN's bias ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=163061> favoring >Pakistan over India had pressured CNN's headquarters in Atlanta to >initiate a dialogue with the Indian-American community, I hope this >Sulekha article will cause some honest introspection in the hallways of >Washington Post's media circles. > >As the following details will demonstrate, the Post's article used the >technique of branding certain individuals and manipulatively framing the >issue as substitutes for presenting the facts themselves. It denied its >readers the chance to see both sides of the facts to be able to make up >their own minds. Mr. Vedantam does the thinking for the readers and puts >out his own biased spins, while using a journalistic style that appears >to be quoting all sides evenly. > >Post's biased framing of the issues > >After Mr. Vedantam had called me for an interview and also asked for >leads for his story, I wrote to him cautioning that "a lot depends on >how things are framed." My point is that if an interview with President >Clinton was framed in the context of sexual harassment, Clinton would >come across negatively, whereas if he was interviewed in an article >about social-security reform he would be seen in another light. >Therefore, I wrote Mr. Vedantam an email explaining the importance of >properly framing his article: > > "If the framing is about dangerous Hindu hooligans attacking >scholarly Western academicians...then the setup would work against me, >no matter what. It would be party A making accusations against party B >(within this overall framework), and B would be depicted as a defendant >denying the charges. On the other hand, it could be framed as the >[academic] Empire now doing what the British Empire [of Indologists] >once did by way of a hegemonic construction of Indian culture, in tacit >and/or explicit support of evangelists and/or [indian separatist] >subversive activities. Here, I would be a voice of dissent causing >anguish to a Goliath not used to being criticized by the very culture it >denigrates with impunity. This framing would be Gandhi's satyagraha, >Nader's consumer activism...If the academics or their PR firms >approached Washington Post for the story...then the die would have been >cast in favor of the former framing already by the time you interviewed >me. As you know, framing is everything." > >However, I did not suspect an ambush from the nation's most prestigious >daily newspaper. > >I also wrote to him about my position as follows: "I have championed the >case for de-monopolizing the religious studies by adding >practitioner-scholars...What we seek is the same kind of seat at the >table of discourse about our tradition as blacks have in black studies >and Jews, Christians, Muslims etc each have in their respective >portrayals. But when the native informant starts to answer back it is >seen as an "attack" because they are just not used to treating us as >equals. However, over the past 32 years since I have been in the US, >Indians in many other professions have upgraded their standing and are >not second class anymore - so why not in the academic field of religious >studies? Why is that a bastion of prejudices still? It is only a matter >of time before they will realize that the field will get enriched and >expanded with more voices. My sense is that this resistance comes from >the old guard who has lots to lose." > >Hinduism has an old tradition of debate and criticism and this must be >encouraged in order to continue to develop and not become frozen into a >canon of final truths as in the case of the Abrahamic religions. There >are multiple sides to the truth that are legitimate, but Mr. Vedantam >did not do justice to the counter-views to the thesis he had set out to >promote. > >Post ignores the debate: > >I further suggested that Mr. Vedantam should contact both sides at Emory >University who are engaged in the debate about the denigration of Ganesh >by Courtright. A Diaspora group of successful corporate executives, >entrepreneurs and academicians, called "The Concerned Community" is >representing the Hindu position, while Emory is being represented by >Prof. Flueckiger and the Dean. (Neither side asked me to be included, so >I was never present, even though I was told that both sides cited my >writings on Sulekha.) Unfortunately, Mr. Vedantam's article did not >reflect that debate at all. > >Is the Gita a "dishonest book"? > >Wendy Doniger's telling statement, as quoted in the Philadelphia >Enquirer, that "the Gita is a dishonest book," which sparked the whole >matter, is not even mentioned by Mr. Vedantam. How are the Post's >readers expected to evaluate the "reaction" of the Hindus when they are >not told what exactly Doniger said that caused their anger? Mr. Vedantam >camouflages Doniger's denigration of the Gita and many other hate-ridden >statements by dignifying her work as "academic" and "scholarly" use of >"Freudian psychoanalysis" of Hindu texts and symbols. The reader is left >imagining a bunch of irrational and emotionally charged Hindus ganging >up against some high-flown scholarship. > >Post ignores academic criticisms of Doniger's school: > >Mr. Vedantam ignored several links that I sent him of the writings of >Harvard's Professor Michael Witzel, in which Witzel concretely and >authoritatively criticized Doniger's mis-translations of Indian texts. >(See: Witzel debunks Wendy - examples # 1 ><http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9511&L=indology&P=R1167>; #2 ><http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9511&L=indology&P=R1031>) >Prominent psychology researcher, Dr. Alan Roland ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=270005>,'>http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=270005>, has written >extensively to explain the serious flaws in Doniger's methods, but Mr. >Vedantam did not refer to this or any other major criticisms from >various important academic scholars. Also, I suggested that he interview >Prof. Antonio deNicolas, ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=250918> Prof. >Balagangadhara ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=248359>,'>http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=248359>, Prof. >Ram-Prashad Chakravarti, Prof. Shrinivas Tilak ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307085>,'>http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307085>, Prof. >Narasimha Sil and many others who have been involved in this controversy >for years, and who are within the academic community. But he ignored >them because their perspectives would have devastated the mission behind >the PR machinery. (See endnote for a partial list of articles by various >dissenting scholars.)[3] > >For example, Mr. Vedantam interviewed Prof. Ramdas Lamb, a white >American academic scholar of religious studies who is a Hindu. Prof. >Lamb provided direct examples of prejudices against Hinduism and >personal instances of being targeted as a Hindu scholar by the academic >establishment. But Mr. Vedantam remained skeptical no matter what >details or evidence were provided and appeared quite keen on eliciting a >quote that would support his preconceived thesis. Naturally, he did not >use any of Prof. Lamb's quotes. > >Post ignores Doniger's refusal to debate: > >Mr. Vedantam also failed to point out that when my criticism of >Doniger/Courtright was about to be published at Sulekha, Satya >Prabhakar, CEO of Sulekha, wrote multiple times to Prof. Doniger to >invite her to write her side of the controversy on Sulekha. But she >wrote back, refusing each time. Furthermore, I have saved about a dozen >emails which I wrote to Prof. Doniger (that were copied to many of her >peers), asking for her critique of my draft paper so that her side may >be included as well, but she refused arrogantly and wrathfully. > >Post ignores why Doniger was dropped by Microsoft: > >Mr. Sankrant Sanu wrote a thoughtful critique of Microsoft Encarta's >treatment of religions, by comparing how it portrays Hinduism, Islam and >Christianity on specific topics. Mr. Vedantam failed to cite even one of >the dozens of concrete examples given by Mr. Sanu that clearly show how >Doniger's Encarta article stereotyped Hinduism in sharp contrast to the >positive and lavish praise given by Encarta to Islam and Christianity. >Mr. Sanu's comparison led Microsoft to reach a carefully informed >decision to discard Prof. Doniger's article on Hinduism, but the Post >concludes with the suggestion that there was racial bias because >Doniger's name is not Sharma. However, Prof. Doniger's article should >have been removed even if she had changed her name to Wendy Sharma. The >objections were to the validity of her scholarship, not to her last >name. > >It is telling that Prof. Doniger is defended not on the basis of her >positions but through attacking those who raise objections to her >scholarship. The suggestion of racial bias is a repugnant, convenient >ploy to divert attention. If Prof. Doniger were secure in her >scholarship, controversy about her background would not be an issue. > >Post rationalizes Courtright's "limp phallus": > >The Courtright controversy is about that author's fabrications, such as >his claim that Ganesha's trunk represents a "limp phallus" so that >Ganesha would not have sex with his mother, Parvati, in competition with >the "hard penis" of his father, Shiva. Without pointing out that there >was no authentic basis for this, Mr. Vedantam tries to rationalize >Courtright's claim as legitimate "scholarship" and caricaturizes me as >being emotionally "offended." He is also wrong in stating that >"Malhotra's critique produced a swift and angry response from thousands >of angry Hindus" who wrote to Emory University's president. In fact, it >was two years after my article that the Atlanta Diaspora wrote to Emory, >and their action was precipitated by evidence that the Baltimore museum >had used Courtright's views to interpret Ganesha's imagery in their >exhibit and book used to educate American schoolchildren about Hinduism. > >Mr. Vedantam further uses Doniger's ad hominems that I am simply >"ignorant" because I criticize her school of thought. But it is Mr. >Vedantam who seems to be ignorant of the writings by Doniger, >Courtright, Sanu and others whose works I had referred him to. (For >details on the denigration of Ganesha, see article. ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305890>) > >Post confuses unrelated matters: > >The Laine book controversy is entirely unrelated to the Courtright >controversy, and Mr. Vedantam's use of the former to frame the latter is >an act of irresponsible sensationalism. To help Mr. Vedantam on the >complexities of the Laine issue, I had sent him a link to a set of >balanced articles in Outlook India ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040412&fname=Shivaji+(F) >&sid=1> (India's leading left-of-center magazine - also see latest >update <http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=332120>), along with >the following perspective: > > "The ban on the [Laine] book, international prosecution of the >American author, and tacit support for the violence came NOT from >BJP-affiliates but from the Congress affiliated NCP which runs the state >government in that given state...Maharashtra's politicians are fuelled >by local cultural sentiments just as in USA or elsewhere. Shivaji is >hero #1 no matter which party wants the votes...It's interesting that in >framing this issue, the point noted above...has been ignored in all the >discourse on RISA lists about this controversy and in other Western >media coverage." > >It is important to distinguish between ethnic chauvinism and religious >chauvinism, even though both are bad. Ethnically speaking, just as there >is Texan chauvinism, French chauvinism, Chinese chauvinism, Japanese >chauvinism, so also there is Bengali chauvinism, Punjabi chauvinism, >Tamil chauvinism, Kashmiri chauvinism, Maratha chauvinism, and so forth. >The Sambhaji Brigade which was accused in the attack is not a Hindutva >group but a Maratha (ethnic) group opposed to BJP and Hindu Brahmins, >and their vandalism of priceless Sanskrit manuscripts cannot be >portrayed as a "Hindu" act. This was recently explained to me by >Maharashtrians who classify themselves as leftists, and who saw the book >as a distortion of Maratha's secular history. So the Post is blatantly >wrong in insisting on a narrative of Hinduism causing vandalism, and >also in claiming that Hindus consider Shivaji's parents to be divine. >Similarly, the attack by Wendy's Children against Sri Ramakrishna >angered Narasingha Sil, a leftist Historian, who made it clear that he >is not a Hindu but that his Bengali sentiments were hurt by what he >regarded as academic fraud. > >Post ignores similar protests from non-Hindus: > >I am not in favor of banning any books, because I prefer that the >opposing voices should be given comparable distribution channels to >express their side. Regardless of one's position on this, the principle >of consistency and symmetry should be applied to all religions. >Therefore, Mr. Vedantam should have contextualized his story by >mentioning the West Bengal state's Communist government's ban on Taslima >Nasreen's autobiography, Dwikhandita, because that book was offensive to >Indian Muslims, and the US media's decision not to show a controversial >documentary on Ronald Reagan because of public sentiments. >Just this past week, M.F. Hussein ><http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=332087>, India's best-known >artist, completely withdrew his movie, "Meenaxi," with no more than a >graceful remark that "some Muslims took exception to one of the songs." >The fierce objection from many powerful Muslim groups was on a >relatively mild problem (as compared to the academic scholarship that >Ganesha represents a limp phallus), namely, that the name of one song >was a phrase that refers to Allah in the Quran, and that its use to >honor the heroine was an act of blasphemy. Unlike Courtright, Hussein >did not make any attempt to turn this into a campaign to be seen as a >"victim." Nor did Indian writers protest against any of these violations >of "intellectual freedom," because the institutional scripts they follow >did not encourage them to do so. > >Good journalism for Post to learn from: > >One must note that The New York Times also had similar Hinduphobic >tendencies for years, until it replaced Barbara Crossette and Celia >Dugger with Amy Waldman. Ms. Waldman has started to write with balance >and understanding of Indian culture. Unfortunately, Dugger seems to have >recently returned to the Times, and the same old India/Hindu denigration >has resumed. Perhaps, the Post should consider hiring Ms. Waldman to >upgrade its knowledge of India. > >Post's selective branding > >Sankrant Sanu, whose critical review got Wendy Doniger's article thrown >out from Encarta, is described by the Post as a "Hindu activist". By >labeling him in this way, Mr. Vedantam diverts the focus on the >"branding" of the critic rather than on the substance of his position. >Readers are led by Mr. Vedantam to disregard the factual details, and to >merely apply the stereotypes they have been told about "Hindu >activists." It is telling that Mr. Vedantam goes out of his way to >bracket Arvind Sharma as a "practicing Hindu," conveying the impression >that his religious affiliation impacts his academic objectivity, whereas >he does not bracket Doniger, Courtright and Prashad with their >religious/political affiliations. > >While I prefer that a person's intellectual positions should be >evaluated only on their own stand-alone merits and not framed by the >individual's personal affiliations, any labeling or absence of it must >be applied consistently for everyone. Furthermore, even when the >protagonists might be engaged in name-calling, a journalist of a >respectable paper claiming to report from a neutral position cannot be >biased in the use of labels. > >Post fails to label Vijay Prashad as "communist activist": > >Vijay Prashad, who is quoted to oppose me, is introduced by Mr. Vedantam >simply as a college professor from Trinity College, whereas it is his >non-academic affiliations that are more relevant to his intellectual >positions on these issues. To be equal in labeling all the individuals >he quoted, Mr. Vedantam should also have labeled Vijay Prashad as a >communist activist, because he is the most prominent US-based advocate >for the Communist Party of India (Marxist). > >Furthermore, Mr. Prashad's widely read article, "An Afro-Dalit Story ><http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/march2000prashad.htm>," has generated >awareness and sympathy for leaders of the Afro-Dalit Project, which is a >politically charged revisionist history claiming that Dalits are Indian >blacks and that non-Dalits are Indian whites, and that Dalits are slaves >of Indian whites. Under the umbrella of fighting racism, the project >(supported by segments of the Christian Church in its attempt to divide >Indians) superimposes the US black/white racial tensions onto Indian >society. Potentially, this is a dangerous tool to sow the seeds of >discord and violence between African-Americans and Indian-Americans >because such communal divisions are already proving to be deadly within >India. The violent Dalit Panthers group in India and the Dalitistan >separatists are all based on this bizarre "academic" account of history. >In fact, some Dalit leaders are very critical of Vijay Prashad ><http://www.ambedkar.org/News/hl/Response to.htm>, because they see him >as a high-caste communist opportunist and find his methods of >championing the "downtrodden" to be inauthentic. Mr. Prashad has denied >supporting the Afro-Dalit Project, but he is in the midst of several >controversies and Post's readers would be able to situate his remarks >better if they had his background. > >Nor did Mr. Vedantam introduce Mr. Prashad as co-founder and leader of >FOIL (Forum of Indian Leftists), a role that is widely promoted and one >that Mr. Vedantam knows from my debate with Mr. Prashad that I had >referred him to. Clearly, if Mr. Vedantam wanted his readers to think of >Mr. Sanu as a "Hindu activist" while evaluating the critique of Encarta, >by the same token, he should have also made sure that his readers would >know of Mr. Prashad's Communist Party's fights and FOIL's fights against >Hinduism. This reduces the aura of neutrality in Mr. Vedantam's article. > >An example of FOIL's anti-Hinduism ><http://www.proxsa.org/resources/ghadar/v5n2/organizing.html> is its >rejection of Mahatma Gandhi's favorite spiritual song that was >specifically meant to syncretise Hindu-Muslim names for the Supreme >Being, i.e. Ram and Allah, respectively. FOIL activists write: > > "FOILers had made the request that we not sing bhajans such as >Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram among our group chants...Several >anti-communalism efforts possess a very romantic notion of Hinduism in >their condemnation of violence...Besides, many expressions of patriotism >have become indistinguishable from Hindutva discourse - for instance the >phrase 'Jai Hind'...Without de-centering Hindu idioms and Indian >nationalism, we will remain only nominally, not genuinely, a South Asian >group..." > >The mindset reflected in the above quote deepens the separation between >Hindus and Muslims rather than fostering their integration into one >community. Since Hindus would not object to Muslims singing Islamic >songs that would also include respect and praise for Hindu deities, it >would be better to equalize through mutual inclusion rather than >exclusivism. Furthermore, the term "Hind" was how the Mughals and the >more recent 20th century Muslim scholars (including Iqbal) referred to >the sub-continent that the US State Department has re-named as "South >Asia." One wonders why all these anti-nationalists accept the >redefinition of identities forced by India's partition (an act of >"nationalism") and by US foreign policy towards non-Western "areas" >(another act of "nationalism"). Is the Hind that was so dear to the >Mughals and to Iqbal being rejected just because the scholars work for >Western institutions? > >Post ignores India's Evangelism-Left axis: > >To fully understand what is behind the so-called objective scholarship >and reporting about Hinduism, one must see this as an extension of >Indian politics. A good example is the recent reporting on Hindu schools >spreading in India's tribal areas, which is a four-part issue in which >most reporters and scholars conveniently omit the parts that contradict >their personal politics: > > 1) Part 1 is the decades of foreign-funded Christian evangelism >in India's tribal areas. Texas-based "Gospel for Asia ><http://www.gfa.org/>" is one example: Its fund-raising video tapes >proudly advertise its aggressive sales campaigns against Hinduism. These >tribal conversions to Christianity have created vote banks for Indian >Communists who collaborate with the missionaries in a deal whereby the >missionary harvests the soul while the Communists harvest the vote. This >over-aggressive evangelism ><http://www.kentaxrecords.com/iaca/feature_hijack.htm>has utilized the >spread of false information about Hinduism. There have been many reports >that these forces are promoting separatists in India ><http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=323163>. No treatment of >India's religious tensions can legitimately skip this >religion-politics-globalization axis and jump straight to the Hindu >response as though it were the first cause. > > 2) Part 2 is the Hindu response, as recently explained in NDTV's >article ><http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Polls2004&slug=BJP+c >onsolidates+tribal+votes&id=52366&callid=1&category=National&headline=BJ >P~consolidates~tribal~votes>. This response has consisted of >establishing Hindu equivalents of Christian missionary schools, and this >has succeeded in taking votes away from India's Communist parties which >collaborate with Christian missionaries for religious vote banking. The >RSS has been called the "Baptists of India." For centuries, Christians >have promoted education as their entry strategy into heathen territory >worldwide, and now Hindus are merely using the same strategy in reverse. > > 3) Part 3 is the propaganda in US mainstream media and academia >in which Part 1 is completely ignored, and the story is contextualized >starting with Part 2 as "Hindu fundamentalists" conning NRIs to send >money to these Hindutva schools. (See example. ><http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/ >04/16/MNGFV6530M1.DTL>) There has been a massive US campaign led by >Vijay Prashad against the Hindu educational response in tribal India, >without ever mentioning his own conflict-of-interest: His Communist >Party of India (Marxist) is the major recipient of the votes of >Christianized Indian tribes. > > 4) Part 4 is the missing balanced analysis that could only come >from writers who are not politically invested in the left/right >dichotomies and who have taken the time to honestly research all sides >of these complex matters. An unbiased analysis would have to compare: >(i) the tribal "Hindu education" with the "Christian education" by >missionaries, (ii) the role of tribal education to construct political >constituencies (i.e. vote banking), and (iii) the role of global funding >sources in each, including the quantities of funds involved. One must >understand the axis between religion and all political parties in India, >between political power and the distribution of bribes, and between >global religions and internal centrifugal forces. Indian Left's strange >role in all this, unknown to Western readers, is explained in >Ramachandra Guha's critique of the Indian Left ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040331&fname=ramguha&sid >=1> as identity politics with caste as the "fundamental axis of Indian >society." Those who try to resist these foreign-funded centrifugal >forces are being simplistically branded as "fundamentalists", >"nationalists," and other pejoratives. > >Post ignores evangelism's role: > >Furthermore, given his style of labeling certain individuals, Mr. >Vedantam should also have explained that Emory University is run by the >Methodist Church, and should have given the backgrounds of some of Emory >University's powerful faculty who have pulled strings on the Courtright >controversy. A prominent figure in this has been Prof. Joyce Flueckiger, >Director of the Program in South Asian Studies where Paul Courtright >works. > >Mr. Vedantam failed to report that Ms. Flueckiger was born and brought >up in a family of fundamentalist Christian evangelists in India, as >explained in the following Atlanta magazine article: "The relationship >she shares with India seems to be genetically inherited as her parents >were Christian missionaries there, and spent 41 years of their lives in >Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh. Her dad ran a boarding school of higher >secondary education and also trained Indian Christian ministers and >pastors, while her mom worked on development projects for women." >(Atlanta Samachar, July 3 - July 9, 2003, page 10.) > >Ms. Flueckiger specializes in doing "field work" in India's backwaters, >in the heart of the politically charged tribal areas where >foreign-sponsored Christian evangelists and Maoists confront authorities >in what often leads to violent clashes. The "field data" about such >clashes may be presented in Washington, DC, before the US Commission on >International Religious Freedom, to prove human rights violations by >India against Christian evangelism. The public description of her >specialty is to "research on modern Indian attitudes on religious >traditions, women and the role they play in religion." She has conducted >many year-long projects in India, presumably to discover innovative ways >to "save" the poor heathens who are suffering under the burden of Hindu >culture. She is reported to be "passionate about India" and has great >"fondness" for it. > >When she reached age 18, Ms. Flueckiger went from India to USA to go to >the Christian fundamentalist college, Goshen College ><http://www.goshen.edu/aboutgc/>, whose web site describes it as "a >four-year residential Christian liberal arts college rooted in the >Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition. The college's Christ-centered core >values. <http://www.goshen.edu/aboutgc/values.php>..prepare students as >leaders for the church and world." > >Her college goes on to describe its core values as follows: "We are led >by Christ in our search for truth. Corinthians 3:11: 'For no one can lay >any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is >Jesus Christ'...As a learning community, we foster a journey of lifelong >learning, encouraging one another to seek truth with fervor. This spirit >of academic excellence enriches our relationships, our world and our >faith in Jesus Christ." The college authorities then invoke further >Biblical quotations to tell students that "we are ambassadors for >Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on >behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." The college's education mission >statement lists "Christ-centeredness" as its primary core value. >Prof. Flueckiger now serves on the prestigious Executive Committee of >the US Government's American Institute of India Studies ><http://www.indiastudies.org/hp.htm>, making her a politically powerful >person in this field. > >Scholars like to have their work seen as being separate from their >personal lives and ideologies, and are most uncomfortable when the >potential biases implicit in their personal lives get exposed. Mr. >Vedantam's introduction of her and of Mr. Prashad as "college >professors" is a common way of hiding all personal biases behind the >aura of objective truth. > >Post should level the playing field: > >Ms. Flueckiger must instruct her PR people that they should not drag >into the discourse the "Hindu activist" branding of others, because it >would invariably boomerang against the scholars and their institutions, >since they would also be exposed as being neck deep in >political-religious agendas. Hopefully, scholars shall focus on the >intellectual positions of others as being stand-alone propositions >worthy of critical examination, in the same way as they want their own >work to be treated. > >The point of all this is that Mr. Vedantam failed to mention the deep >investments that Ms. Flueckiger, Mr. Prashad and other scholars have in >their personal beliefs and political activism, while over-emphasizing >the personal religious beliefs of only the Hindus. This one-sided >application of branding makes his article suspect. The reader is led to >assume that one side is applying universal (bias-free) reasoning, while >the other side is emotionally "attacking" from a position driven by >fundamentalism or worse. > >A scholar's agendas become especially tricky to uncover when the scholar >uses academic affiliations, resources and legitimacy for political >activism on behalf of the political parties and religious institutions >to which s/he belongs. Mr. Vedantam quotes only the academic >affiliations of these dual-affiliated scholar-politicians, and >completely ignores their more relevant political/religious affiliations. > >It would be an interesting exercise to evaluate to what extent some of >these India Studies scholars are academicians with political/religious >beliefs, and to what extent they are politicians or evangelists who have >infiltrated academics as an ivory tower for distributing their >ideologies. > >The personal affiliations of Vijay Prashad, Joyce Flueckiger, Wendy >Doniger and Paul Courtright must be given the same kind of branding as >the article gives to those being labeled as "Hindu activists", >"Hindutva", "fundamentalists", and so forth. Hence, because Prof. Arvind >Sharma is referred to as a "practicing Hindu," Mr. Vedantam should have >introduced Vijay Prashad as a "Communist activist," Emory University as >being a Methodist Church institution whose South Asian Studies >department is being run by a "fundamentalist Christian evangelist with >family-run conversion programs in India's tribal areas." >Alternatively, he should use my advice and leave everyone's personal >beliefs out and take their intellectual positions seriously. The >cardinal principle that I asked for and was denied by Mr. Vedantam is >symmetry of portrayal. > >For removal of doubt, I wish to clarify that I am not troubled by Ms. >Flueckiger or anyone else being a Christian fundamentalist or about Mr. >Prashad being a Communist. Each of these ideologies has many positive >things in it, while I disagree with many other aspects. In fact, I have >been involved in an internet debate with Vijay Prashad, ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040115&fname=rajiv&sid=1 > > during the course of which I have gained an appreciation for many of >his positions and activities. We agreed to avoid personally labeling >each other and to debate only the issues and positions on a stand-alone >basis. I do not wish to pry into any scholar's private life and all the >facts given here are from public sources on the Internet. >My point in citing personal ideologies of scholars is only to show >inconsistencies in the style of Mr. Vedantam. > >Post ignores academic dissention: > >Finally, to reduce the feeling of polarization between the academy and >my positions, I must mention the breath of fresh air that comes from >certain scholars who dare to dissent, such as the email on risa-l by >Prof. Pratap Kumar ><http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07775.html>, an Indian >Christian settled in South Africa, who criticizes the privileging of >Christian approaches in the study of Hinduism in the so-called "secular" >institutions: > > "Christianity is the only religion that is taught at >Universities with so many sub-disciplines such as New Testament, >Christian Theology, History of Christianity, Old Testament, Practical >Theology, Christian Ethics, Missiology and Evangelism and Christian >Education...[T]he theological method that has dominated the teaching of >Christianity has somehow been introduced to teach all the other >religions...[Furthermore,] most of the religions in the west are taught >by non-Hindus, Non-Muslims and so on...Christianity should be taught in >the same way as any other religion would be. The study of religion would >be liberated when Christianity would be taught by non-Christians just as >any other religion would be at the universities. This would then not >only level the playing fields, but also address the rather awkward >question as to who speaks for Hinduism or Christianity or Islam..." >Prof. Young <http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07773.html> >from Canada was even more direct: > >"Hindu studies are the only example I know of where a religious >tradition is taught primarily by outsiders, and while it was at some >points in the past hard to know how to remedy that, we owe Rajiv >Malhotra a small bit of recognition for making us see how very odd that >really was." > >'Activism' or 'Public Relations' > >Mr. Vedantam characterizes my dissent against the India Studies >establishment as an act of "public relations" for India, Inc. He uses a >quote from Mr. Prashad that such PR should be exclusively the job of the >Indian government. > >To appreciate how ridiculous this position is, consider that an >equivalent proposal would be that criticisms of mis-portrayal of blacks >in America should be a PR job solely for African governments. Besides >being impractical, if it were implemented, it would undermine the >hard-earned progress in African-American Studies. > >Post ignores Hinduism as an American religion: > >Mr. Prashad also fails to consider that Hinduism is an American minority >religion, just like Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Wicca, etc., are, and that >Americans have every right (and responsibility) to defend it against >false stereotypes. His blind spot is the result of South Asianizing the >discourse wherein Hinduism is denied legitimacy outside its ethnic South >Asian contexts. While Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism are >treated as world religions, many scholars continue to limit Hinduism as >exclusively a study of South Asian geography (alongside snakes and >monsoons) with no universalizable value. > >But an increasing percentage of American Hindus are born in USA and are >not South Asians as such. Besides the second-generation NRIs, there are >18 million white Americans who practice yoga as a physical and/or >spiritual discipline, meditation, vegetarianism, Ayurveda and other >Hindu practices. Within that number are white Americans who call >themselves Hindus. Unfortunately, the view of Hinduism as an ethnology, >which is brought about by conflating the anthropology of South Asians >with Hinduism, permeates India Studies. This robs American Hindus from >active participation in contemporary American civic life as >practitioners of a universal faith. > >Furthermore, India's secular constitution makes it tough for the Indian >government to do what Mr. Vedantam calls "PR," for Ganesh or any Hindu >deity. If the Indian government were to do this, one may expect Mr. >Prashad to attack it as "saffron" policies of the government. So his >position is self-contradictory. Also, should Mr. Prashad's own >"activism" be viewed as PR for the Communist Party of India (Marxist), >operating from US campuses? > >Post ignores American multiculturalism dynamics: > >Mr. Vedantam should research how other minority cultures are >representing themselves positively in the US. As exemplars of cultural >ambassadorship and as potential role models, I pointed out to him that I >had studied the work being done by the Japan Foundation, ><http://www.jpf.go.jp/> China Institute, ><http://www.chinainstitute.org/>Korea Foundation, <http://www.kf.or.kr/> >Tibet House <http://www.tibethouse.org/> and various others. Many >Europeans, including the French, Germans, Italians, English, Irish, etc. >also play a far greater role in their cultural portrayals in the US >education system and media than do Indians. > >Post ignores the example of Japan Studies: > >One finds that Japan Studies chairs, programs and academic faculties >greatly outnumber those established in India Studies, demonstrating that >American political and commercial interests have driven the humanities, >and not a purist or "objective" criteria. Why should India be considered >less important than Japan, which has one-tenth of India's land and >population? Why does Japan have a massive academic division all for >itself, whereas India is lumped alongside several other countries into a >tiny "South Asian" category? > >The emphasis on Japan in Asia Society and various universities' Japan >Chairs was largely corporate-funded. Academicians are uncomfortable >acknowledging that their institutions are not entirely driven by >"academic freedom" but are powered more by the strategic interests of >the American polity and also by the financial clout of a given nation in >international economics. Aren't these scholars who are supposedly >leftist/liberal, anti-imperial, anti-colonial etc., operating with >double standards? Mr. Prashad should rethink his advice. > >In fact, one could argue that there is less change going on in Japan >than in India, and hence, the latter deserves more funding for research >and teaching in order to replace the old school thinking. Furthermore, >if India's geopolitical/economic importance today could be approaching >that of Japan's 25 years ago, then why do we not have the same kind of >groundswell of support for India Studies today as we saw for Japan >Studies 25 years ago? Why is there no massive rethinking and realignment >of academic India Studies? > >Most serious professions periodically subject themselves to such >critical self-reflection, and bring in outside consultants for >evaluation, rather than becoming defensive when reasonable issues are >raised. The academy must correlate the trends in country-specific themes >over the past 25 years with US geopolitical and economic interests at a >given time. An objective report would also point out that many "India >experts" today are simply in the wrong kind of specialty - i.e. they are >in the "caste, cows and curry" kind of scholarship - and that their >re-training in mid-career might not be easy. So a real problem causing >angst in the academy against independent watchdogs could be its >unwillingness to address the issue of deadwood amongst academic peers. > >Post ignores Pakistan Studies: > >Indians would be even more surprised to learn that Pakistan has a >stronger positioning in many South Asian Studies departments than does >India, despite the fact that Indian faculty and students far outnumber >Pakistanis. For example, the Pakistani web site, Chowk, ><http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003167&channel=university >ave> proudly reported: "The highly acclaimed Center for South Asia >Studies at the University of California at Berkeley held its 19th South >Asia Conference...It appears that the 'short list' has finally arrived >from Pakistan as to the choices from amongst which one person will be >the first academic to hold the new Quaid-e-Azam Chair of Pakistan >Studies at U.C. Berkeley." > >Some Indian-American scholars attacked me on the H-Asia internet list of >Asian Studies scholars, because I had suggested that there was a >Quaid-e-Azam Chair at UC Berkeley and that the selection was influenced >by Pakistan's government. My whistle-blowing angered the scholars, who >insisted that they had only "objective" and "academically independent" >programs and that there was no such Pakistani chair. However, the above >quote from Chowk clearly proves them wrong. (I suppose, because of my >whistle-blowing here, Pakistan's government and the US academy will stop >mentioning these ties publicly!) > >Another prominent example of US-based influence is Farooq Kathwari, a >businessman and Chairman of Ethan Allen, who is a hardcore pro-Pakistani >lobbyist and who is funding a Kashmir nationalist group in USA ><http://www.kashmirstudygroup.org/>with considerable political backing >from certain US politicians and from South Asian Studies scholars, >including many Indian-Americans. For example, Gauri Vishwanathan, >Director of Southern Asian Institute, Columbia University is amongst the >academic leaders who facilitate academic forums ><http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/REGIONAL/SAI/conferences.html> where Mr. >Kathwari and others such as Saeed Shafqat, Quaid-e Azam Distinguished >Professor of Pakistan Studies, Columbia University, get their political >positions legitimized as "objective scholarship." > >Post confuses education as PR: > >A good example of positive re-education about Islam in USA is the new >course on Islam ><http://www.teach12.com/store/course.asp?id=6102&d=Great+World+Religions >:+Islam> prepared by Prof John L. Esposito of Georgetown University. The >motive there is the opposite of denigration under the guise of "academic >freedom." Rather, it is to reduce the level of Eurocentrism and >Christian-centrism that is sweeping the nation. One is hard pressed to >find very many such examples about teaching positively on Hinduism on a >large scale. > >A different trend that is disturbing is that the US Congress is >considering a new bill <http://www.house.gov/tancredo/ohoh/>that would >further expand the teaching of "Western Civilization" at all levels, >implicitly equating patriotism with Eurocentrism. Its dangerous effects >of xenophobia at home, in foreign policymaking, and in the global >economy must be considered carefully. The traditional strength of >America has been its assimilative quality, which is now taking it away >from its European/Western origins towards Asian and other cultures. This >must not be reversed, or else America could become stifled as another >Japan-like homogeneous aging population that would lose its innovation >and global competitiveness. > >Freedom and censorship > >At a recent conference in Ohio, I was delighted when Prof. E.C.G. >Sudarshan, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in physics, and the >event's honoree, mentioned in his acceptance speech that he very much >appreciated my work against academic monopolies of knowledge, and that >he wanted to lend his support to me. He went on to explain that in >physics, it was perfectly okay to criticize scholars' work in order to >point out possible errors. He was horrified by a paper that had been >presented on the previous day (by a young Indian-American scholar from >UC Berkeley), in which the unfortunate ban of Laine's book was somehow >conflated with my work that was completely unrelated to Laine, and in >which my criticism was being labeled as an attack on "academic freedom." >Academic freedom, explained Prof. Sudarshan, did not give immunity to >lie and get away with it. It was not at the expense of anyone else's >right to criticize. > >In anticipation of any accusations that this Sulekha article "censors" >Washington Post, I wish to say the following: Only those in power over >the institutions of knowledge production and distribution have the >capacity to censor, and clearly, it is the Post which enjoys >overwhelming superiority in readership and brand credibility over any >medium available to argue my side. Whistle-blowing and bringing >attention to prejudices is not censorship. > >In light of this accusation by some scholars, that my criticism denies >them "academic freedom", I present two lists of activities below. The >first list shows the academic system's techniques which I feel results >in their controlling the knowledge flow. The second list contains what I >advise dissenting voices to do in order to try to change the established >discourse. I believe that the first list limits the discourse while the >second expands it. But each reader must decide which of these two would >expand the discourse and hence freedom, and which one amounts to >censorship. > >List #1 - Power over India Studies: > >There are many methods being used by those in power to control the >content and channels of information. These methods include the >following: > > 1) Funding of India-related studies is dominated by the US >Government, Christian Churches, certain Christian private foundations >(such as Pew Trust, Templeton Foundation, Luce, etc.), various "secular" >Western foundations that are rooted in Western frameworks and categories >(such as Ford, Macarthur, etc.), and Western universities. These funds >are also funneled through complex and often hard-to-track ways into >India's NGOs, higher education and English language media. Grant >applicants know what to propose in order to maximize their chances of >being funded. > > 2) Dissenting perspectives are at first discouraged by the >established scholars, and if they persist they are simply ignored. This >could be either subtly applied, by including the dissenting perspective >as a nominal side-show without mainstream coverage, or it could be >blatant by organizing a formal boycott. For instance, it is common >practice for many scholars not to show up at events where the speakers >would include those critics who are outside the control of their coterie >of peers. > > 3) The scholars in power rarely invite genuinely dissenting >voices as equals on their own panels. When such voices show up in the >audience, they get tagged once their direct and embarrassing questions >become known, and the underground network rapidly spreads rumors about >them as undesirables and trouble-makers. The result is that at future >events, the moderator/chair tries to not even acknowledge such >questioners from the audience. > > 4) A very common technique is to criticize dissenters in >absentia. For example, Paul Courtright has been recently traveling to >speak at half a dozen universities. I have been the main target of his >attacks at these talks, and yet nobody in the system has had the decency >of even letting me know of these events in advance, much less of >inviting me to participate and be able to give my side of the facts. >However, at one recent by him, "Studying Religions in an Age of Terror," >in Chicago (1st April, 04), thanks to a couple of honest and courageous >academic scholars, Courtright was confronted by the audience with some >hard issues, and he felt stumped as he had not anticipated criticism. >This hit-and-run tactic consists of first using a forum where the >dissenting individual is absent or even disallowed membership, and >second by disallowing the dissenter the opportunity to respond in a >balanced forum. > > 5) The branding-labeling of dissenters in pejorative ways serves >to discourage readers from delving into the issues, because most people >are too busy to be able to invest quality time on such matters. > > 6) Insiders who join or support the dissent often get >black-balled and their careers suffer. On the other hand, those who >mimic the obedient Indian role-models promoted by the establishment >enjoy fast-track advancement. > > 7) Indian scholars engaged in post-colonial studies are usually >ill-equipped in any non-Western epistemologies, and hence they utilize >the very same Western epistemologies that they claim to criticize. > > 8) The academic system controls from within who is licensed to >do scholarship (e.g., by admitting only those who have Western >humanities credentials), and hence who is to be able to criticize. > > 9) When there is a closed circle (or cartel) of experts in a >specialty, the peer-review process can itself be a form of censorship, >as explained in my extensive article on The Peer-Review Cartel. ><http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040202&fname=rajiv&sid=1 > > > 10) Many Western-based South Asian Studies scholars are members >of or are affiliated with specific Indian political parties and/or >political NGOs. These NGOs range from Dalit separatists, Christian >proselytizers, Communist parties, etc., just to name a few. Western >academic positions are used to provide forums of respectability, >fund-raising and travel sponsorship for their Indian political >counterparts. This utilizes the credibility of the Western-based >scholars' institutional affiliations, to bring credibility to their >India-based political partners. Meanwhile, the Indian side of this axis >provides filtered data to the Western-based scholar, as well as an >organized channel in India to distribute the ideology of the >Western-based scholar. In this regard, my suggestion a few months ago to >Mr. Prashad that all such affiliations should be disclosed is yet to get >a response from him. Only such a transparent disclosure would tell the >public the extent to which certain academic scholars double up as >US-based branches of specific political parties and movements in India. > > 11) The movie, Schindler's List, has a powerful scene in a Nazi >camp: An S.S. guard is angry at the Jewish inmates because the >construction work is not progressing well. So a young and confident >Jewish woman walks up to the guard and says politely, "Sir, I am an >engineering manager by profession and, if you allow, I could lead this >project and get the work completed." The guard instantly points his >pistol at her head and shoots her dead on the spot. The lesson is that >leaders of dissent are to be targeted, as they are considered dangerous >because they have the capability to explain things to their people and >to get them to revolt. I have been successful in bringing important >issues to the attention of the general public in a language and style >that is accessible and forthright. Hence, they asked Mr. Vedantam to >portray me as the ring-leader to be targeted. In fact, Mr. Vedantam >wrote to me implying that I was considered "dangerous" by Wendy Doniger, >and he seemed to expect me to accept this characterization. But he has >failed to provide a criteria or any evidence of being "dangerous," and >relies entirely on Doniger's wrathful outpourings. > > 12) Different yardsticks are being applied to Hinduism as >compared to other religions, when loaded terms like "fundamentalism" or >"intolerance" are used. A Christian's or Muslim's tolerance is not >expected to include his/her willingness to withstand insults against >his/her religion; but a Hindu is declared as intolerant if he protests >when his faith is insulted by zealots. Similarly, religious >fundamentalism should mean exclusivism, especially when it is based on a >literal interpretation of religious texts. By this definition, the vast >majority of American Christians and the Muslims of the world are >fundamentalists, as per surveys by Pew and Gallup. Hindus have no >requirement for exclusivism or evangelism, and do not need the >de-legitimization of other religions as a precondition to legitimize >their own. However, the term "fundamentalism" is routinely applied to >dissenting Hindus without any critical review of what they are >dissenting about. When such flaws are pointed out, the individual is >demonized as a fanatic, simply for speaking up and challenging the >discourse. > >List #2 - Satyagraha methods: > >To break these monopolies and to de-censor the field, the following list >gives some of the techniques that dissenting humanities scholars and >public intellectuals should consider adopting: > > 1) Indian-Americans who have become successful in a non-academic >field, and who are assertive, articulate and autonomous thinkers are >perceived as a threat to the humanities' establishment when they start >to get involved. This is partly because the system cannot control such >persons by using its normal carrots and sticks, and partly because such >individuals are self-assured because they have succeeded in competing >with Westerners in their professions. The humanities lag behind other >professions where Indians have pierced through the glass ceiling, such >as information technology, medicine, engineering, science, finance, >corporate management, and entrepreneurship. The Western Grand Narrative >does not yet have standard scripts for Indians in India Studies to be >challengers of established theories and positions, in the same manner as >Indians in these other professions have rewritten the scripts (and in >some cases the trajectory of the professions themselves) of the American >Grand Narrative to make themselves equals. This is what the humanities >must learn from other professions where Indians have broken through >walls and ceilings. So we have a tale of two kinds of NRIs in America: >shiners and whiners. The whiners are in professions that (i) pay less >than the shiners make, (ii) are still under the Eurocentric glass >ceiling, but (iii) are very influential as writers, journalists and >humanities scholars of Indian culture and identity. The shiners' kids >are nowadays being mentored by the whiners to become South Asians in US >colleges. > > 2) Gandhi's satyagraha method shows us how to intellectually >challenge in a defiant tone, yet from a position of moral authority and >intellectual competence. Those with academic tenure should join the >non-academicians in satyagraha, as their service to their own >profession, to their traditions, and to the American nation. >Unfortunately, few so far seem to have the required combination of >selflessness, clarity and courage. > > 3) Product innovation can overcome monopolistic controls over >the channels of distribution. (See example ><http://www.indianscience.org/scope.shtml> of one such project.) Also, >one may identify new target audiences that the academic establishment >has ignored, and develop new distribution channels to reach them: >Diaspora adult education, children's education through animation and >computer games, and web-based education are some examples of >considerable potential. > > 4) Direct criticism of the establishment in front of the >financial donors would result in a decline in donations to abusive >programs: This is reported to have happened at Emory University already, >causing the establishment to take this matter very seriously and to >launch its counter-offensive using PR to plant articles in the >mainstream press. (Harvard also faces resistance in its $15 million >fund-raiser from Indians, given the community's awareness about some of >its biased work. A growing number of NRIs see Harvard's South Asia >program as one of the top sepoy academies, in sharp contrast to the >positive role of its business school and other programs.) Such financial >pressure forces the promoters to pay closer attention to the issues >being raised, rather than flippantly dismissing these complaints or >turning them over to hired public relations firms to influence >journalists. > > 5) Young academic scholars who are not yet on a >sepoy-in-training track should get briefed on these various moral and >intellectual issues from a variety of perspectives so they can act as >independent thinkers. > > 6) India-based pandits, native informants, journalists and NGOs >should get briefed on these issues, so that some of them might refuse to >get appropriated. Those who continue to get appropriated would at least >negotiate higher compensation as their price to sell-out, and this would >adversely impact the system's ability to procure a large army of such >resources. > > 7) The most important point to bear in mind is what not to do: >Under no circumstances should a dissenter encourage or endorse, even >implicitly, anyone who advocates the use of violence. Besides legal and >dharmic breaches, this would surely backfire against any legitimate >goals. Rather, one should constantly use Gandhi's method to raise the >moral and intellectual standard and compel the other side to match. >Censorship is the enforcement of monopoly over knowledge. Only a party >with power and authority over the system of knowledge production and >distribution is capable of censorship. The dissenting voices lack the >required systemic authority to be able to censor. Therefore, no amount >of protests from outside the gates of power can be considered as >censorship. > >Hinduphobia >Is Post unaware of Dotbusters? > >The Infinity Foundation has recently sponsored a research project for >two college professors to document the history of the "Dotbusters," a >violent crime gang in the 1980s that specifically targeted Hindus in New >Jersey. (The "dot" in the name with which they signed their criminal >acts referred to the bindi on Hindu women's foreheads.) Preliminary >examination of the archive shows that this gang was largely driven by >Hinduphobia involving ignorance and stereotypes. > >My Chinese-American and Japanese-American friends were surprised that >there had never been serious US academic study of the Dotbusters, >whereas the academy has studied other Asian minorities' struggles. While >it is fashionable for South Asian Studies to have media events, >conferences, seminars, PhD dissertations and courses on human rights >violations in India (especially those where Hindus get accused), >ironically, the land which exports human rights and studies others' >violations has not studied the killings of Hindu Americans right here at >home. > >This new research project will allow us to compare today's media >Hinduphobia with that which informed the Dotbusters. > >Little India magazine's November, 2003, issue gives statistics on an >enormous increase in hate crimes against Indian-Americans - crimes that >are specifically against ethnic/religious identities. Recent research >available from Pew Trust shows a disturbing trend, namely, that >Americans believe Islam to be the highest and Hinduism to be the second >highest cause of religious violence, while rating Christianity as the >religion that is least prone to causing violence. In another recent >survey cited by Prof. Wuthnow of Princeton University, 25% of Americans >associate Hinduism with "fanaticism." > >Such false stereotypes reflect poorly on the media's performance in >informing the public. > >The American public badly needs to be positively re-educated about >minority American religions, but Washington Post seems to have >unintentionally spread Hinduphobia. > >The term "Islamophobia ><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0756730864/qid=1082117002 >/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-7310345-3544709?v=glance&s=books>" has been >successfully coined by academicians and public intellectuals who are >keen to expose and dispel the biases against Islam. A Google search on >"Islamophobia" gave 27,300 hits. By contrast, a Google search on the >category, "Hinduphobia" gave only 29 hits. What does this lack of public >awareness about Hinduphobia tell us? > >Indian writers' inferiority complexes: > >Until I came across the Indian-American author, Richard Crasta, I had >believed that such prejudices were being caused mainly by Westerners. >However, Crasta explains that these biases are amplified by a mindset >that afflicts many Indians because of their own inferiority complexes. >In his provocative book, "Impressing the Whites: The New International >Slavery," he writes that "ethnic shame is a phenomenon that is >particularly intense among Indians abroad and particularly those in the >U.S. and U.K... Ethnic shame is the opposite of ethnic pride..." >Crasta goes on to explain the role of certain well-known US-based >organizations in cultivating this Indian identity shame and Hinduphobia: > >"Indeed, many of these immigrants are so terrified of voices that may >offend the Masters that they will themselves act as filtering devices, >as local policemen of thoughts. Organizations like the Asia Society, >South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA), and many ethnic newspapers >regularly act as cheerleaders for those Indians who have impressed the >whites, and as bouncers to keep their scruffy and impolite brethren from >disrupting the harmony: on one occasion even trying to drop a >'trouble-making' Indian author from the program at the Asia Society." >Once I became open to examining Richard Crasta's perspective several >years ago, I started to examine the evidence carefully and realized that >his courageous thesis had merit. He shows that Hinduphobia is often a >subconscious conditioning of Indians: "The carrot and stick are so >discreetly transferred by Third World writers onto their internal censor >that they are often unconscious of their own self-censorship." >Ironically, this coterie of self-alienated Indians is being deployed by >the academic/media establishment to attack the dissenting voices. Might >Mr. Vedantam be an unwitting victim of this malaise? > >Furthermore, the system has created career incentives to encourage >Indian journalists into cultural self-castration. SAJA gives Mr. >Vedantam importance partly because of his affiliation with the Post, as >this helps to legitimize SAJA in the eyes of young journalists looking >for media contacts and jobs. Mr. Vedantam, in turn, consults SAJA >friends and adopts their biases, such as the biases reflected in his >article, and so becomes a hero for them. Like any system built on power, >it is a closed and self-sustaining system to control the information >channels and to perpetuate itself. > >After her New York trip with SAJA journalists, Tavleen Singh ><http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=36742> wrote an >excellent analysis of Indian journalists' inability to interpret India, >much less to be able to predict future trends. She explained how these >Indian journalists often have serious blind-spots in their understanding >of India. Because Western and often Indian media looks at SAJA as a >credible source for referrals, SAJA's new leaders should do some >introspection. > >SAJA's tilts on content/framing and on who gets the awards and various >speaker spots are a projection of the systemic biases, often >unconsciously applied. The trend has been to pander to the Celia Duggers >and Barbara Crossettes of the media world as credible authorities on >India, even though they tend to be unimportant in the mainstream >American media and have poor educational backgrounds on India. >Journalism and Hinduphobia: The principles on which such hatchet jobs >are done in the mainstream may be summarized as follows: > >1) It is assumed that most readers do not have the time or wherewithal >to delve into the details for themselves. Therefore, given the >credibility of brand names like Washington Post, readers will believe >whatever is dished out to them - a case of credibility by association. >This means that the Western biases are most dangerous when planted into >the minds of Indian writers and when such Indians get planted into jobs >in mainstream academia and media. > >2) Given that this asymmetric power resides in the hands of a few, they >can and do take liberties with the facts. This is often done by the >tilted manner in which they: (i) contextualize the issue, (ii) frame and >brand certain individuals while placing others on pedestals as being >objective, and (iii) use a juxtaposition of unrelated data that is >cut-and-pasted into a guilt-by-association scenario. As demonstrated in >the Post's article, serious intellectual discourse gets conflated with >the angry outbursts of a few unrelated Hindus, so as to make all Hindu >dissention appear as fanaticism. > >3) Each time this exercise is repeated successfully, the negative brand >management program (i.e. Hinduphobia) becomes stronger, thereby making >the next episode of cultural demonology that much easier to construct >and sell. The system is self-replicating and can lead to catastrophic >consequences. > >Hinduism and Stockholm Syndrome: > >Hinduism is squeezed both from the American right and from the Indian >and American left. The right backs the Christian fundamentalist goals of >converting India and targets Hinduism as the last remaining and most >resilient bastion of pagan culture in the world. The intelligentsia of >the left is more complex and diverse in its reasons for the >thoroughgoing bias against Hinduism and Hindus: (i) there is a holdover >from an era of allegiance to pro-Communist movements; (ii) there are >fifth-column opportunist double agents; (iii) there is a fundamental >discomfort due to misunderstandings that Hinduism runs counter to >modernity; and (iv) there are social stigmas that article's such as the >Post's promulgate. > >The net effect of this is that many Hindus are intimidated into >accepting every insult that is hurled at them, for fear of being >subjected to further harassment. This may be viewed as a sort of >societal Stockholm Syndrome ><http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html>. The case for >Hinduphobia as an instance of societal Stockholm Syndrome is supported >by the following facts: > > 1) Most Hindus deny the existence of Hinduphobia, and many >interpret the episodes that are pointed out as positive markers of their >tolerance. Since many NRIs feel lucky to be able to enjoy lifestyles >which their parents lacked, they do not wish to rock the boat. Hence, >they prefer to hide their Hindu shame behind complicity or outright >support of Hinduphobia. > > 2) The lack of available research materials on Hinduphobia, as >contrasted with Islamophobia (even before September 11, 2001) and on >other kinds of xenophobia, indicates disinterest or even suppression of >the phenomena on the part of the academic scholars entrusted with >Hinduism Studies. This could partially be guilt or fear that the >scholars might be responsible for their complicity. > > 3) The few individuals, such as myself, who do speak up and >point out instances of Hinduphobia get fiercely attacked by the academic >establishment, especially if they locate the causes in the intellectual >discourse. > >In this regard, Hindus are very different from all other American >minority groups. The overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, >blacks, gays, Hispanics, etc., publicly claim their identities with >pride and they protest when falsely stereotyped. In doing so, these >other groups enhance America as a powerful multicultural society, a >responsibility that Indians have yet to understand because of the vast >differences between the nature of Indian and American approaches to >secularism: While Americans publicly celebrate their many distinct >religious identities, Indians were raised after independence to fear >distinctions based on religion, seeing distinction as a cause of >conflict because such conflicts were exploited by the colonial masters. > >Xenophobia and violence: > >In order to appreciate the seriousness of cultural branding, readers >must introspect on the following question: Does the Western media's and >public's apathy towards Iraqi civilian casualties (which has nothing to >do with one's views on the war against Saddam's government) correlate >with perceptions of Iraqi culture, and did Western media's choice of >images of Iraqi culture play a role in creating these (mis)perceptions? >In other words, if the war had been against a white Christian country >(say France, hypothetically), might things have been different? >Furthermore, history shows that genocides have been usually preceded by >the denigration of the victims' identities - showing them as irrational, >immoral, unethical and/or worshipping "false gods" and "idols", i.e. as >not deserving of the same human rights extended to "good" people. How >does today's Hinduphobia (such as Hindus worshipping limp phalluses, >pushing women to do sati, killing "innocent" missionaries, and nowadays >"attacking" erudite scholars) compare with the Eurocentric scholarship >in earlier times about Native Americans, Africans, Jews, Roma, and >others, who were subsequently victims of genocide? > >Mr. Vedantam's article provokes the following question: Are certain >writers today unconsciously providing the ammunition for potential >genocide of a billion Hindus later in this century, when economic and >political circumstances combined with over-population might precipitate >a global catastrophe? > >Educating Washington Post: > >Given the seriousness of American Hinduphobia, Washington Post must >review research data about the prevailing stigmas against Hinduism in >America, and should also conduct surveys amongst its own readers (and >its journalists and editors) to gain a better insight into the level of >misinformation that exists even amongst well-educated Americans. This >would enable it to better strategize its own portrayal of Hinduism, and >to avoid inadvertently fueling more hate crimes similar to the >Dotbusters. Given the emerging global role of India's democracy, its >developing economic resources, and its war on terrorism, Washington Post >should also consider the negative consequences of its anti-Hinduism bias >on Washington's law and policymakers. > >While responsible institutions like Washington Post are probably >horrified at the thought of unintentionally spreading Hinduphobia, many >Indian writers would rub their hands in glee for having hammered one >more nail into the heart of Hinduism, because this enables them to >disown an identity that has the stigma of being a scourge. >Unfortunately, many such Indians are chowkidars (gatekeepers) manning >the gates of the academic and media establishments and are deeply >invested in them. > >Call for introspection > >Meanwhile, the Hindu global gurus and most Diaspora leaders are on such >lofty clouds that they are easily fooled by simplistic doubletalk of >every religion being the "same", with a few garlands put around their >necks at public events, and with short-term personal popularities. They >have superficial insights into the global processes at work, and are no >match for the sophisticated intellectual machinery that has evolved over >centuries by the more extrovert and expansive traditions. > >Many well-meaning Indian Leftists need to seriously rethink, starting >from global and not local issues, because globalization overrules and >controls every localized issue today and this will increase further. >Those opposing globalization should engage in a renegotiation of >globalization rather than boycotting it. A reinvented Indian Left would >have much to offer India and the world. > >Finally, US policymakers on South Asia Studies should evaluate my thesis ><http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jan/21rajiv.htm>that any meltdown of >India's integrity as a nation-state would quickly facilitate Osama >Bin-Laden's successors' mission to Talibanize South and Southeast Asia. >Journalists must ethically portray Hindus as an important American >minority. To teach negative stereotypes about Indian culture would also >be a disservice to the American generation that will deal with >self-confident Indians in USA and in India's global commerce. > >The Washington Post's article adds pressure to Hindus to not complain >for fear of being tagged as "fundamentalists." For, if Hindus ever raise >their voices, someone like Mr. Vedantam will write an article about >violence and threats involving Hindus, no matter how unrelated, and then >juxtapose the given Hindu who is complaining so as to give the >impression of guilt-by-association. This is analogous to blacks being >made to fear that every time they complain some journalist will write >about black crime and include them in the narrative as though they had >something to do with it. Repressing victims of denigration is unhealthy >for society and journalists or scholars who engage in this bear moral >responsibility. > >Concluding remarks: > >The thoughts proposed in this article are work in progress. They are >intended to provoke discussion, and are expected to be changed and >corrected. They are presented here in there current state of flux >because of the urgency of the problem caused by the Post, i.e. with >respect to exacerbating the Hinduphobia that permeates beneath the >surface and yet remains deniable. The best way forward is to talk about >these uncomfortable issues in the same manner as blacks forced >discussions on racism in the public arena and women made male chauvinism >into a new category for study. Let us examine instances and theories >about Hinduphobia with an open mind. > >REFERENCES: > >[1]Toffler, Alvin, 1990, "Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at >the Edge of the 21st Century," New York Bantam Books. p.18. > >[2] Galbraith, John Kenneth, 1992, "The Culture of Contentment," Boston, >pp.97-98. > >[3] Visit these links: > >1) The Uses (and Misuses) Of Psychoanalysis in South Asian Studies: >Mysticism and Child Development by Alan Roland ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=270005> > >2) Love's >Child: The Way Of The Gods by Antonio T. de Nicolas ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=250918> > >3) India and Her Traditions: A Reply to Jeffrey Kripal by S. N. >Balagangadhara ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=248359> > >4) Kali's Child: Psychological And Hermeneutical Problems by Prof. >Somnath Bhattacharyya ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=275941> > >5) Are Hinduism studies prejudiced? A look at Microsoft Encarta by >Sankrant Sanu <http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=245733> > >6) When The Cigar Becomes A Phallus ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307042> > >7) Limp Scholarship and Demonology ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305890> > >8) Courtright Twist And Academic Freedom by Sankrant Sanu ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305899> > >9) On Colonial Experience and the Indian Renaissance: A Prolegomenon to >a Project by S. N. Balagangadhara ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=271421> > >10) Taking Back Hindu Studies by Shrinivas Tilak ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307085> > >11) The Dominance of Angreziyat in Our Education by Madhu Kishwar ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305813> > >12) Hinduism In American Classrooms ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=181242> > >13) Think Before You Eat Sweets ><http://www.sulekha.com/weblogs/weblogdesc.asp?cid=6988> > >14) 'Secularism', Colonial Hegemony and Hindu 'Fanaticism' by Arjun >Bhagat <http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=290314> > >15) Could The Emperor Just Be Buck Naked? by V. Chandrasekhar ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=259943> > >16) The Groan-I: Loss of Scholarship and High Drama in 'South Asian' >Studies by Yvette C. Rosser ><http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=261809> > > > > >******************************************** >Manthan is a moderated, invitation-only list. >Listadmin: owner-manthan >******************************************** > _______________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ 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.