Panch (Five) Asymmetries in the Dialog of Civilizations:
A Hindu View
Rajiv Malhotra
The Infinity Foundation
To have a genuine dialog of civilizations, the 'other' side (in this
case the Hindus) must be present as themselves and not via proxy, must
be able to use their own framework to represent themselves, and must be
free to anthropologize and criticize the west without fear of undue
censorship or academic reprisal. However, five asymmetries resulting
from the present imbalance of power often obstruct this dialog
today.
Before describing these asymmetries, I wish to clarify that I
represent neither pole of what has become a bipolar fight for the
representation of Indian culture: I am not representing the
Hindutva view, which should not be conflated with Hinduism,
because: (i) Hindutva is a political mobilization, (ii) it is a recent
20th century construct in response to contemporary situations, and (iii)
it assumes a specific (reductionist) package of stances, whereas most
Hindus pick and choose positions from an a la carte menu of
choices.[1]
At the same time, I do not deny their right to a position
within the vast spectrum of Hinduism, as one of many ways to be a Hindu.
At the other pole, is the theory of Hinduism defined as The Evil Brahmin
Conspiracy. Most Hindus I know belong to neither extreme, although there
has been a tendency for one pole to insist, 'if you are not pink, you
must be saffron', and vice versa. The vast middle is un-essentialized
space, where creative dialog can take place, and it is in this middle
space that I position myself and the observations below.
The five asymmetries, of which the first three concern academic
translations of Indic culture, are:
I. Anthropologist Versus Native Informant:
While unintentional in some cases, scholars often seem to operate on
the notion that distance (intellectual, cultural, geographic)
produces objectivity. But distance has been the antithesis of
dialog, and reciprocity is the key to dialog.[2] Western
anthropologists use native informants, who are typically poor and less
educated villagers paid to produce the data, and who typically place the
scholar on a pedestal because of their own limited material resources
and the glorification of India's xenophile elite. Scholars mine such
data, filter it through western lens, legitimize it with western peers
who are part of their own academic system, and too often assert this
Orientalist construction as 'the truth'. Few today do this overtly or
intentionally. However:
- There is little or no counterbalancing information flow to help the
villagers learn what was said and published about them by the scholars.
- There are hardly any independent surveys or focus groups in
the field to ascertain whether villagers disagree with the ethnographies
that become standard descriptions about them, or to point out what was
left out, distorted or improperly contextualized.
- Villagers should be able to give their own opinions of the scholar
as the 'firangi white woman' from America, including her exotic
or peculiar ways—they have agency. Researchers do
include how villagers react to, admit, get used to, or query the
scholar, but this itself is usually the dominant culture's own filtered
presentation.
- All measurements disrupt. I am unaware of any controlled studies
comparing a neighboring village that was not disrupted by such a
prolonged scholarly intervention, so as to evaluate the social
re-engineering side effect that the scholarship might be causing.
While there are many sensitive researchers, there needs to be greater
recognition of the need for reciprocity. This calls for
dis-intermediation of the role of anthropologist as knowledge broker
between the villagers and the American students. I do not yet know how
to achieve true 'independence', but a plurality of cross-cultural
worldviews would be better than one dominant view. For instance, besides
reverse surveys, native informants could get invited to panels via video
phones that are now very cost effective, with translators. Perhaps, the
scholar-as-broker feels threatened that the native informants would be
found to have agency after all, and to challenge decades of research.
This is especially severe when the White Woman's Burden drives the
scholar to impose her gift of agency on poor people presumed to have
none.
Are the native informants becoming victims of the scholars' violation
of trust? I propose that an interactive dialog between equal
civilizations become anthropology's new hermeneutics. I request that
scholars expand their work to enhance validation and symmetry. Exactly
how this could happen would need considerable joint exploration.
II. Western Scholar of Texts Versus Pandit:
The use of pandits is another method by which the west re-maps
Indian culture. Many pandits are simple and straightforward, not
aggressive compared to many western scholars, not into power games or
concern for royalty or intellectual property rights, and are trusting of
western intentions. The mis-appropriation of basmati rice and other
intellectual property may be used as an analog to appreciate that the
Indian ethos does not emphasize personal ownership of know how
(including spiritual knowledge), and that some of what the west does is
unethical and exploitative as per the pandits' own system of
professional ethics. One must inquire whether the publish-or-perish
syndrome and personal egos cause some scholars to try to own
pre-existing knowledge and to reduce pandits to native informants,
whereas in their own tradition they deserve respect as great humble
teachers.
Furthermore, since pandits are rarely invited as respondents or
co-authors when the work gets presented, they do not always find out
what finally gets published, and their interpretation sometimes gets
distorted along the way. For instance, when scholars write that Ganesha
symbolizes the limp phallus, or when they over-interpret sati as a
defining feature of Hinduism, should the reader not be told what
the insider has to say also? Sanskrit terms that deserve thick
descriptions often get reduced to simplistic Eurocentric and Abrahamic
representations.[3]
Even comparative religion is often framed in a
paradigm of western superiority. Is it that scholars see pandits as not
having western PhDs, and hence as not legitimate experts of their own
tradition?
III. Cognitive Scientist Versus Yogi/Meditator:
The laboratory measurement of higher states of consciousness achieved
by advanced yogis and meditators is at the cutting edge of transpersonal
and humanistic psychology, mental health, neuroscience, and
phenomenology. And some Indic theoretical models are at the center of
the philosophy of quantum physics based emerging worldviews. But many
ancient Hindu-Buddhist inner science discoveries are being
mis-appropriated and/or plagiarized:
- 'Lucid Dreaming' is the western name for Indo-Tibetan nidra
yoga, and Stanford's Stephen LaBerge is nowadays the acknowledged
discoverer.
- 'Mindfulness Meditation' is Jon-Kabat Zinn's trademarked
repackaging of vipassna.
- Herb Benson repackaged TM into his 'Relaxation Response' and now
runs a multimillion dollar business based at Harvard, claiming these as
his discoveries. Numerous spin-offs in mainstream stress
management and management consulting theories came from this source.
- Rupert Sheldrake recently 'came out' in an interview acknowledging
that his famous theory known as 'Morphogenic Resonance' was developed
while researching in India's ashrams.
- Ken Wilbur started out very explicitly as an interpreter of Sri
Aurobindo's philosophy for the benefit of psychologists, but now places
himself as the discoverer on a higher pedestal.
- Esalen Institute appropriated J. Krishnamurti and numerous other
Indic thinkers into what its contemporary followers regard as it own
'New Worldview'.
- Thomas Berry, Brother Keating (successor to Bede Griffiths), and
others have constructed the New Liberal Christianity, using Indic
appropriations. Jewish scholars have likewise constructed the
'non-dualistic Kabala' based on Vedanta.
This is only part of a long list: the core of the emerging 'western'
worldview and cosmology involving physics, cognitive science, and
biology is being rapidly built upon repackaged Indic knowledge, but too
frequently the source is being erased and over time. Yogis and
meditators, who should be regarded as co-discoverers, usually remain
anonymous 'laboratory subjects' and native informants.
Does this remind us of the way America is said to have been
'discovered' in 1492, as though the millions of Native Americans who
lived here for thousands of years did not matter? It became a bona fide
discovery only when Europeans registered it as such. Because land owned
by the natives had not been recorded in European registration systems,
their ownership was declared illegitimate. Much of the Renaissance and
Enlightenment of Europe was based on the appropriation of Indic and
Chinese civilizations, and yet these civilizations were demonized to
justify colonialism.[4]
I have been told in private by some of the cognitive science
mis-appropriators that they respect Indic traditions greatly and
personally know them as the sources, but that in public the distancing
is good for book sales and for securing research grants, and that the
stamp of 'western science' is what legitimizes these traditions. Their
position, stated quite openly in many cases, is that discovery occurs
only when the west appropriates something. This appears to be a
racist theory of knowledge, one that denies agency and rights to non
westerners. Also, while plucking the fruits, there is no attempt by
these appropriators to nurture the roots of the source traditions.
A plausible theoretical model for this is: The west plagiarizes from
Hinduism-Buddhism with one hand (i.e. cognitive science), while another
western hand stereotypes the source as 'caste, cows, curry' exotica and
worse (i.e. anthropology/religious studies). The academic arson
referenced above is merely a continuation of the age old 'plunder
while you denigrate the source' process at work. It is a
continuation of the paganization of pre-Christian religions while at the
same time appropriating many central elements from the pagans into
Christianity.
IV. RISA Versus Hindu Diaspora:
The Hindu Diaspora, which includes non-Indian Hindus in
yoga-meditation centers, is usually kept out of the RISA fortress.
Huston Smith, in the Spring 2001 Harvard Divinity Bulletin, describes
certain western scholars' attitude towards Hinduism as "colonialism
updated". When compared to science, technology, business, and other
professions where Indians now routinely achieve the highest positions,
Indology remains perhaps the last holdout of colonialism. Indians with
self-esteem and experience in dealing with westerners are seldom
included as dialog representatives in a joint enterprise to study the
tradition.
Meanwhile, Indian Marxists and Macaulayites—born again as
'progressives' after the Cold War—dominate India's academe, and often
power broker and become strategic allies with western academicians as
experts on India. But there are many contradictions in these
intellectual sepoys: (i) While many are Subalternists, India's masses,
classics and culture are often alien to them, and they disrespect and
caricaturize Hinduism in a reductionist Eurocentric way. (ii) Instead,
they know mainly western thought and hermeneutics. (iii) Yet, their
careers are based on being proxies for the very tradition that they
regard as a scourge.[5]
The phenomenon of South Asianizing, which has
emerged from this confluence of excessive ethnography and Indian
Macaulayism, has subverted Hinduism's universal truth claims. Contrast
this with other world religions—for instance, Christianity is not
defined in terms of Middle Eastern ethnography, although it is
studied also in sociological terms. Furthermore, the Diaspora
feels that the ethnographies of South Asia get superimposed as their
image.
Anyone speaking assertively for Hinduism is too often branded as
Hindutva, saffronist, fundamentalist, fascist, fanatic, neo-BJP,
nationalist, or equivalent.[6]
In fact, the only way to be a good Hindu
in the eyes of some is to behave in accordance with Orientalist images.
V. Asymmetric Hermeneutical Power:
There is asymmetry in the license to criticize: RISA and its scholars
control the vyakhya (i.e. hermeneutics, right to criticize, what
is deemed important and interesting, etc.) , manage the adhikara
(i.e. appoint those in charge of gate-keeping the academic channels),
and sometimes even field the persons who represent the Hindus. Any
in-bred, pedigree-based, closed system is likely to slip into
stagnation. When opposed by truly independent outsiders (i.e.
those who do not seek visas, PhDs, jobs, tenure, etc.), some RISA
members have resorted to intimidating name-calling to affect censorship.
Sometimes, this attack on the messenger deflects from the message. The
trial of Sri Ramakrishna in absentia, with no defense side
allowed, is an example of what happens under such asymmetries of
power.
But Hindus have a long standing tradition of making fun of their
gods, since they do not fear blasphemy. Hindus can summon a god,
argue and make fun of him, even scold him with impunity—in a process
called 'nindastuti'. Being prone to questioning and challenging
gods, they do not hesitate to challenge human icons either. Therefore,
it is not uncommon to find Hindus using satire, parody and caricatures
in what outsiders regard as 'attacks' on those scholars who proclaim
god-like status. Nicholas Gier used "Titanism" to describe Hindu gurus
who are larger than life and assume unquestionable authority. But in the
Indian mind, the West has a Titanic presence. There are Scholar
Titans dominating Hinduism Studies, who have usurped the ultimate
authority that traditionally belonged to the Vedas—a sort of
colonialism.
Hindus feel disenfranchised and outcast in the academic study of
their religion, perhaps because of a smaller presence of the
practitioner-scholar than in the case of Buddhism, for instance. Hence,
they resort to this traditional method of dealing with arrogance from
the gods. Until two years ago, there was one-directional name-calling,
only by the scholars. But then Hindus made several internet forums which
scholars could not control, and these have become vehicles to mobilize
and develop counter name-calling back to scholars. Frankly, this is
unproductive, and the time has come to move beyond rudeness and
name-calling in either direction.
Concluding Remarks:
While I have focused on the 'problems' here, let me close by saying
that many RISA scholars have been very sympathetic, have devoted their
lives to positive and fair scholarship, and have had the courage to step
out of the orthodoxy of scholarship. Learning from the way blacks and
women achieved symmetry, we need non-Hindus in RISA to stand up to
blatant asymmetry before real progress is made. Hopefully, we can
together evolve a better and more liberal understanding of Hinduism. The
mere fact that this panel was held is a great step. Thank you for
inviting me.
References:
1. For instance: (i) I have criticized the
introduction of astrology as a 'science' into the academic curriculum,
and the notion that there is a 'Vedic Science'. (I have argued that
Newton's Laws of Gravitation are not 'English Laws' or 'Christian
Science'). (ii) I have expressed concern that the Aryan theory
controversy is overdone in its significance, at the expense of more
serious issues. (iii) I do not subscribe to the literalist
interpretation of the Puranas—neither to claim hi-tech accomplishments
(that the Hindutva believe), and nor to essentialize the verses
suggesting social abuse (that westerners like to rub in). (iv) I have
written about the general intellectual shallowness in Hindutva
scholarship, at least in its current stage. (v) I am against the
demolishment of mosques, even when there is compelling evidence
(including from Muslim sources) of some of these having being built by
destroying Hindu temples. [Return to text]
2. Karen Brown, the anthropologist of religion,
speaking at the World Conference on "Gender and Orality"—May 2001,
Claremont CA, proposed the following as the credo for western
anthropologists: "The people and cultures that we Westerners study
deserve our respect, reciprocity, and responsibility." [Return to text]
3. Examples of terms deserving better treatment
include: murti, deva, varna, lingam, tantra, agni, sati, atman, etc.
[Return to text]
4. See for example, J. J. Clark's book,
Oriental Enlightenment. [Return to text]
5. These elites are not anchored in the tradition.
Western scholars are often shocked to learn: (i) Indian scholars of the
humanities (especially history and sociology), who claim to study Indian
civilization in the eye's of the western academy, seldom have any
education in Sanskrit or the Indian Classics; (ii) Sanskrit and Indian
Classics were abolished in post-Independence India in the name of
'secularism' and to promote 'modernity' by eradicating 'intellectual
backwardness', whereas in the west it would be unimaginable to be an
expert in the western humanities without having a grounding in Greek
Classics. To get a good education in Sanskrit, Indology, or Religious
Studies, one must go to a university in the west as India's own
education system abolished these fields. [Return to text]
6. As one example only, those adopting a
literalist interpretation of Indian texts are often deemed as
fanatics, nationalists, and fundamentalists. But in Bible Studies,
literalist interpretations are a well-respected hermeneutical approach.
George Gallup's book of surveys of Americans' religious beliefs says
that over 50% of all Americans believe in the literal
interpretation of the Bible. Yet, we don't denounce the majority of
Americans as fundamentalist-fanatics. In the case of Islam, the Koran is
viewed as the literal history and not metaphorically by the mainstream.
Personally, I prefer the metaphorical interpretation of all religious
texts, but feel that literalist interpretations are a person's right
without facing abuses. [Return to text]
Back to top
|
