 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
1. Introduction
Infinity Foundation (IF) is a non-profit organization based in New Jersey. Since its inception, IF has preferred to be called an Indic think-tank, rather than a Hindu organization. In their opinion, the term "Indic" is a broad category which includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and many other ideas emanating from India, including native interpretations of Christianity and Islam[1]. This was a major disagreement with many individuals in the early days[2] but IF was persistent. So the category "Indic" has gained more recognition now. There are two major categories in which IF operate: "Wisdom" and "Compassion". My paper deals primarily with the former. Under this category, the main focus of IF is to work in the areas of Indic Wisdom. One of the major initiatives of IF is to oppose the Eurocentrism. This paper will explore how IF perceives the mechanism by which Eurocentrism works. According to Rajiv Malhotra, founder of IF, his "U-Turn theory" is an innovative and pioneering theory which captures the framework by which Eurocentrism operates. The U-Turn theory has gained a lot of recognition among a certain number of Indian Americans in general and IF advisors in particular. Another important action-item of IF has been their emphasis on "emic (insider) v/s etic (outsider)" debate. While this distinction has been well known to academic scholars for a long time, IF has started to educate the Diaspora, including the Hindu leaders, about the distinction, the proper place and role for each, and that academic etic often conflicts with and contradicts with the emic views that Hindu leaders preach. IF has repeatedly emphasized for more Hindus in the religious studies departments to teach Hinduism. IF has also focused on educating Indian diaspora about this issue. Finally, IF is compared with other US minority organizations and also other Hindu organizations. This paper is based on a series of interviews with the founder and president of IF, Rajiv Malhotra[3], and the members of the advisory board[4], including Jayant Kalawar, Sanjay Garg[5], Sankrant Sanu[6], Arjun Bhagat[7], Krishnan Ramaswamy[8] and Susheila Bhagat[9]. Many of their opinions, ideas and arguments are also picked up from the essays on e-zine Sulekha.com by Rajiv Malhotra, Sankrant Sanu, S N Balagangadhara and David Freedholm, as indicated in the relevant references. Also, various scholarly essays from InfinityFoundation.com have been cited. Overall, the next section presents the problem of Eurocentrism and IF's initiatives and the last two sections compare IF with other similar organizations.
2. Wisdom Initiatives by IF
2.1 Problem of Eurocentrism Rajiv Malhotra introduces and describes the problem of Eurocentrism in the following way:
During the colonial era, the naive assumption of Western superiority was given authority by thinkers such as Hegel, who developed a "universal" theory of history, which was, in essence, a theory of European history in which the rest of the World was taken to be objects rather than subjects. For Hegel, as Edward Said has pointed out, Asia and Africa were "static, despotic, and irrelevant to world history."[10] Hegel's view of history was highly influential for both Marxist and humanist historiography. Since Hegel, Eurocentrism has often blinded the West to the parochialism of its supposed "universals". According to this paradigm, Europe possessed exceptional internal characteristics, which permitted it to surpass all other cultures in rationality. This paradigm reigns not only in Europe and the United States, but also among intellectuals in the post-colonial countries such as India. The Eurocentric periodization of history into Antiquity, the Middle (preparatory) Ages, and finally the Modern (European) Age is an ideological construct based on Eurocentrism which deforms world history. One must get past this reductionist horizon to open to a world and planetary perspective - and there is an ethical obligation toward other cultures to do so. According to the Eurocentric paradigm, modern subjectivity developed between the times of the Italian Renaissance and the Reformation and of the Enlightenment in Germany and the French Revolution.[11]
A foundational complaint that IF asserts is that the current education system and media in the USA and India are deeply Eurocentric, even though many would deny it – this shows that it is often unconsciously applied. This system is breeding the next generation of Eurocentric Americans. Many Indians have adopted this Eurocentric trend also. It started with what Malhotra has termed the Bengali Babu syndrome in the 1820s – the so-called intellectually sophisticated ones who called themselves the Bhadralok – and spread to other parts of India. Today's Bhadralok can be found teaching in US colleges.[12] To defeat Eurocentrism, nativity is being reclaimed not only in Indic traditions but most other marginalized peoples – Native Americans, Africans, European pagans, Tibetans, even inside Europe the nativists of France, Germany and Russia complain about cultural genocide by the English language forces. Given this thinking, IF is against homogenizing culture or religion. IF has prepared an extensive bibliography on Eurocentrism[13] and has written against Eurocentrism on many essays on Sulekha e-zine, such as Axis of Neocolonialism, RISA Lila Syndrome etc[14].
2.2 The U-Turn Theory
Ronald Inden explains that the West used the "other," and especially India, to define and construct itself.[15] This process helped the West in building its physical assets as well as in developing its intellectual plane. According to IF, the intellectual appropriation continues to this day. IF has developed a framework of appropriation by which the West has been intellectually constructing itself. Rajiv Malhotra has termed it as the U-Turn Theory. According to this theory[16]: "Appropriation occurs in the following five stages:
1. Student/Disciple: In the first stage, the Westerner is loyal to the Indic traditions, and writes with the deepest respect. Many such scholars have genuinely tried and aspired to give up their Western identities and adopt Hinduism/Buddhism very sincerely. In many instances, India has helped the person to "find" himself/herself. A large number of scholars remain in this stage for life, while others move on to subsequent stages, not necessarily in the exact sequence below.
2. Neutral/New Age/Perennial Repackaging: In this stage, Indic traditions are repackaged as "original" discoveries by the scholar, or relocated by interpolating within obscure Greek, Christian or other "Western" texts, or assumed to be generic thoughts found in all cultures. In many instances, this is the scholar's personal brand management to expand the market for the books, tapes and seminars, by distancing oneself from the negative brands of the "caste, cows and curry" traditions.
3. Hero's return to his/her original tradition: Once the ego takes over and the scholar's native identity reasserts itself, he/she returns to the Eurocentric tradition, typically Judaism or Christianity, with bounties of knowledge to enrich it. Alternatively, the scholar repackages the material in secular vernacular, such as "Western psychology" or "phenomenology" or a "scientific" framework. Now the sales mushroom, as the Western audiences congratulate themselves for their culture's sophistication. In some cases, this happens to Indians also who reject their Indian identity after gaining enough mileage out of Indic sources.
4. Denigrating the source: In this stage, into which only some scholars proceed intentionally, they denigrate the source Indic traditions. It furthers their claims of "originality" and absolves them from links to denigrated traditions. In some instance, stages 3 and 4 are in reverse sequence.[17]
5. Mobilizing the sepoys and becharis: This is the phenomenon whereby Indians become proxies for Western sponsors. Bechari is typically an Indian woman who perpetuates the idea that the Indian traditions are oppressive of women and only the Western feminism are liberating, so as to get some kind of recognition or gain in the West. These gains could be in the form of jobs, recognition as a scholar, invitation to conferences etc. The perpetuation of 'becharihood' of Indian women is used as a justification for 'white woman's burden'. The sepoys also push the Eurocentric agenda and fight against the natives, just like British hirelings did in 1857. They are the result of the Lord McCauley's agenda of "producing Indians with Western ways of thinking." Often they claim to be championing the subaltern causes, using this stage to gain recognition in the West. Becharis and sepoys tend to prove native cultures as the social criminal. This legitimizes the subversion of native culture in the name of human rights and hence becomes the civilizing mission for Western powers.
According to Rajiv Malhotra,
The U-Turn syndrome results in the [De-]/ [Re-]/ [Mis-] Contextualizing of Indic traditions: De-Contextualizing is mainly done in stage 2, re-contextualizing is done in stage 3, mis-contextualizing is done in stages 4 and 5. Related to the U-Turn is the phenomenon of backward projection, which refers to the tendency to use one's current context in order to reinterpret the prior stages of one's experience. For instance, it is common for scholars in stages 2, 3 or 4 to claim that their prior stint in stage 1 – even though it may have lasted for several decades - was misguided, or the work of the Devil, or because of being duped by an Indian guru, or the result of naiveté. Usually, great efforts are made to erase or downplay previous stages, often acknowledged with embarrassment, and only when asked to do so. The latest stage is given prominence and not just augmenting the prior ones. Many scholars of Indology – some of who might be characterized as the hippie generation - are personally in these later stages, and project their latest allegiance and identity to project backwards. For instance, it is common to hear the patronizing remark by many scholars that Indic traditions helped them become better Christian or Jew, and helped discover deeper layers of wisdom in their own religions than they were previously aware. Sometimes the U-Turns are done across multiple scholars and even across multiple generations. Many instances that appear to be U-Turns are simply cover ups by the followers or subsequent historians. As an example, the complete erasure of influences of Upanishadic and Vijnanavada Buddhism on Plotinus. Thomas McEvilley explains why this erasure is so central to Christianity and Western civilization[18]:
Translations of [Plotinus'] works may have a churchy kind of ring. The view of Plotinus as a kind of proto-Christian theologian may express, at least in part, a dread of finding possible Indian origins for the texts whose influence was to contribute to shaping the thought of Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart, and many other later western thinkers. So it is not only that "to admit 'oriental influences' on [Plotinus] was tantamount to besmirching his good name, but even more it would also besmirch that whole aspect of the western tradition that flowed from him. If Plotinus had passed massive Asian influence into the western tradition, there would be little point to call it western anymore.
According to IF, McEvilley goes into great detail to explain how the very foundations of Plotinus' thought were, in fact, the result of massive importation of Indian thought. The context shapes meaning in the popular mind. Some contextual contradictions in the popular mind, because of the U-Turns by individual scholars and/or by their followers, are given by Rajiv Malhotra as follows:
– The US Natural Law Party[19] is classified as a liberal political party. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had inspired the formation of this party. In spite of being an inspiration of the formation of a liberal party, Indic traditions are often labeled non-liberal or "right-wing".
– Eliot is liberating, but Hinduism (a major source of his inspiration[20]) is backward.
– Tielhard is Western, but Ramanuja (whose works led him to many key ideas) is Eastern.[21]
– Ayurveda is obscure among many Westerners, but Aveda (based on Ayurveda) is a chic brand with Western women.[22]
– Gita is "Eastern religion," but Baggar Vance (best seller fiction based on Gita, as acknowledged by its author[23]) is American literature.
– George Harrison is hip, but cremation and bathing in Ganga is stereotyped by Abrahmic religion as superstitious.[24]
Jung is "scientific," but Hindu ideas (which he borrowed as per his writings[25]) are ‘mystical.' I was interested in learning Malhotra's views on whether scholars are Eurocentric intentionally or unconsciously. He responded in the following way: "European colonial writers saw India as the theater where their European history was playing out, rather than viewing it from the Indians' perspective. Likewise, many Judeo-Christian scholars use Indic traditions Studies for their personal spiritual journey and to enrich their native religion. Not all stages take place in every case, and these stages might not happen in this exact sequence each time. Often, one scholar ends his/her career at a certain stage of this U-Turn process, and his/her successors and followers continue further along this process.[26] Rajiv Malhotra clarifies that Eurocentrism is most often unintentional and unconscious, because the person is immersed in the myths of Westernism. This U-Turn process has served, often unintentionally, as a way to plunder with one hand and denigrate the victim with the other. In earlier times, the Greeks appropriated some of their civilization from the Egyptians. Similarly, Christianity assimilated many pagan ideas, but the pagans got condemned. Rajiv Malhotra opines that subverting India's classics, while appropriating from them via a series of U-Turning scholars, is an important process for the sustenance of the myth of the West. In fact, Indology began as a massive, rigorous European undertaking during colonial times, and went through each of the above stages of U-Turn. It glamorized Indian classics until the 19th century. In the 19th centuries, the process of claiming Indo-European universal ancestry began. In the 19th century, Indian classics were suddenly declared to be of European origin, i.e. Europeans got aryanized. Consequently, Indian culture itself got denigrated as superstitious, primitive, and so forth, legitimizing colonialism as the White Man's Burden. Rajiv Malhotra accuses today's "South Asianized desis" (as they call themselves) of serving Eurocentrism in stage 5 of this process. Their knowledge of Indic culture is largely through stereotypes taught by persons from stages 2 through 4, which they have accepted and used to re-engineer their own identities. Also he alleges "Christian Yoga" to be in stage 3 at this time. Already, many Churches have entered stage 4 by denigrating Hinduism/Buddhism while promoting Christian Yoga.[27] He cites another example about New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art where Indian art from the Mughal period has been relocated into two sections called "Islamic Art" and "Irving galleries", separating it from its Indian roots, whereas there is no separate section for Hindu/Buddhist art. This is an example of stage 3 being brought to the museum's Islamic Art section. In my opinion, occurrences of U-turn are not new or unique to western scholars. Within Indic traditions, several thinkers have enriched their traditions by borrowing from other traditions. For instance, Shankara may have borrowed ideas from Buddhism to enrich Hinduism. Several Tantra traditions have borrowed from Hinduism to enrich Buddhism and vice versa. There are many examples of western scholars who have acknowledged the Indic influence on their work. IF does not seem to be against the genuine borrowing or adopting from diverse traditions. On the other hand, there are many examples in which the U-Turn seems just to be unintentional rather than as a conspiracy. The concern of IF seems to be the denigration of the source and outright plagiarism in some cases and simply ignoring the Indic sources in other cases. Malhotra seems particularly concerned when there is asymmetry of power and the party in control is appropriating, because he feels that such transactions might not be fair and equitable. If there is simply an exchange of ideas in an ongoing quest for truth, as in the case of Hinduism/Buddhism, it is one thing. But once one has created the Western structure of intellectual property and proprietary rights to ideas, as well as the necessity to support the Western meta-thesis of civilizational evolution as a means for perpetuating intellectual hegemony, that is when the problems arise. In today's environment all care is taken to document the sources of ideas, except when these ideas come from "native informants," in which case they can be claimed as one's own.
2.3 'Emic - Etic' debate in Religious Studies[28]
As observed by Rajiv Malhotra in many of his writings, for historical reasons, control over Indology has been with outsiders to these traditions, whom he accuses of having agendas ranging from colonialism, to proselytizing, to eradicating them as scourges in the name of "progressive secularism." No other major world religion has such a low percentage of insiders as does Hinduism in its academic study today – Malhotra states this as his observation, and says that quantitative data should be gathered by the AAR.
According to him,
Constructive theology and constructive sociology for any religion or tradition are usually done by those committed to practice the given system, which are, by definition, interested in keeping it alive and healthy in the competitive marketplace of ideas – i.e. the insiders are the creators of such innovations and are defined as practitioners. Constructions would be of interest to them because they would be its beneficiaries. On the other hand, the trend among outsiders, especially from competing religions, has been to view the tradition as fossilized and not alive – that makes it easier to understand and essentializing facilitates the colonial/neocolonial agenda. This is why it is important to restore control over Indic scholarship back into the hands of those who live by these traditions. The very idea of a living tradition is that it is embodied in those who practice it and this is not the same as a museum piece no matter how well appreciated.
Malhotra further opines:
The scholars located outside the Indic traditions are not free from contextual biases, because they are insiders to other (often competing) belief systems – based on culture, religion, race, gender, and political ideology. This dominance by outsiders, often from worldviews competing aggressively against the Indic worldviews for market share, has resulted in a biased and skewed selection of topics studied, with the content filtered and the contexts manipulated. Insider is not determined by Indian ethnicity or a Hindu name, for instance, but by practice: many Indians with Hindu names, including a new crop with PhDs, are programmed to think the outsider way and are non-practitioners. For all these reasons, one can see why constructive theology and sociology is the nemesis of RISA and other Indological control mechanism's, because as outsiders, such an approach would deny them control, and in general make their enterprise very difficult. Prosecuting a moving and diverse target is not as easy as hitting a static homogenized one.
In my opinion, by demanding more Hindus in academic study of Hinduism, IF is merely asking for a level playing field. In the cases of Islam, Christianity or Buddhism, the "etic" opinion is also represented by "emic" voice. On the contrary, due to lack of "emic" representation in the case of Hinduism, the "etic" opinion is not provided by "emic" voice. Obviously, the onus to solve this problem lies on Hindus themselves also. IF claims that educating Hindus about this issue is a key part of its mission. Seeing the results at Sulekha and elsewhere in the community, it is apparent that Infinity is making headway in this regard. I also think that the definition of "insider" should be broadened to include all the "outside" scholars who may not be practicing Hinduism but still be quite sympathetic to Indic traditions as an etic scholar.
3. IF in comparison with Hindutva organizations
Rajiv Malhotra personally disagrees with many of the policies and priorities of Hindutva Parivar, comprising the VHP (World Hindu Council), the RSS (National Volunteer Associates) and the BJP (Indian Public Party). These views have been the cause of considerable conflict between him and many Hindutva spokespersons over time. Here are some of Rajiv Malhotra's views that he has published numerous times[29]:
The quality of the Hindutva scholars leaves a lot to be desired. They have been devoid of rigorous scholarship and serious think tanks that would give them intellectual depth and broader perspectives, rather than mere political expediency. There is often a certain crudeness in many of their leaders, which, ironically, turns off many otherwise well-meaning Hindus, especially young ones. It's difficult to get a serious interaction going with many of them, because of their lack of the required background to be able to appreciate the points outside their narrow perspectives. They have a general disregard for complex arguments that don't seem to deliver immediate payoffs. This issue is related to an overall anti-intellectualism that seems to have prevailed through much of the history of the RSS. This has made them intellectually inbred, and many of their people come across like sycophants. Their geriatric leaders are out of touch with today's modernity, youth culture, and global perspective. Some of them refer to Native Americans as "Red Indians" and so forth, which illustrates how obsolete they are. Hindutva is a political movement. Yet it claims to speak for all Hinduism. But the Dharma cannot be so reduced or contained, especially by political movements. VHP has no right to taint the name of Hinduism in making its choices, as though they were acting on behalf of all Hindus, whereas they did not even get elected by a majority of Hindus to represent them. There is a need for pro-nativity scholarship that wishes to stay out of politics, and to focus on long-term goals that should interest serious persons from across the political spectrum. Linking Hinduism to national politics in India places it at the mercy of the ups and downs inherent in any politics. Hinduism should not to be in the hands of politicians. They are always one scandal away from being thrown out. Their personal image has started to define Indic culture's image, because they appropriated whatever they could for immediate gains politically.
At the same time, to balance out his criticism, Rajiv Malhotra approves Hindutva policies for certain things, such as:
1. They are standing up against the hegemony of Indian Marxism, and all the other Westernisms, and to their sponsored and syndicated ideologies.
2. They are fighting to restore Sanskrit and Indian classics in India - a reversal of the de-Sanskritization that became too entrenched earlier.
3. They are trying to remove caste from Indian society, as it was not a "Hindu essence."
4. Their movement to encourage charity and philanthropy includes some remarkable projects. The best proof of their success is that their opponents have attacked them because they are claiming a market share of philanthropic donations that was previously the monopoly of these opponents.
In my opinion, although IF operates in a different field from the Hindutva movement, and maintains an arms-length distance from it, it is under constant pressure to deny any political alliance. As IF strives to improve the portrayal of India and Indic traditions, it will have to ensure its work does not get misused by "right-wing" people. Steering clear of either extreme of the political divide will be a major challenge for IF. Those in academia opposing IF's decolonizing mission appear to be keen on branding IF with the "Hindutva" label as a way to delegitimize their efforts, despite the fact that IF is neither related to the Hindutva organizations nor in agreement with much of their agenda. Avoiding this branding will remain a challenge for IF given that this tactic has successfully been used by opposing forces in the past to marginalize and shut out Hindu and Indic-friendly voices.[30]
4. IF in comparison with Other US Minority Think-tanks
IF believes that Indian-Americans must learn from other minority experiences in USA. Their favorite models in this regard are of Irish immigrants and the Jews. IF has studied how the Irish fought and "became white."[31] This helped changed Protestant USA to Christian America because the Irish were Catholics. A similar account of Jewish people transformed the landscape of USA from Christianity to Judeo-Christianity[32]. Other non-Indic Asian immigrant groups that are most successful in negotiating their identity in USA include: Japan[33], China[34], Korea[35] and Islam[36]. These groups have powerful organizations with huge resources at their disposal by the support of their governments and wealthy communities. IF also has studied the role of the Christian philanthropic organization Pew Trust[37] in the religious studies across America. IF is fast spreading the awareness in the Indian American community about these issues. IF feels that Indians must learn American history and learn from other minority groups' experiences.
5. Conclusion
The most important bench-mark to judge or observe IF is to compare it with other minority think-tanks mentioned above. What IF seems to be urging is the level playing field. Minority groups from other Asian countries and other religions have been extremely serious about their portrayal in academia and media from many decades. The absence of Indian organizations in this arena is somewhat surprising. In the absence of other supporting organizations, IF is playing a key role in filling this vacuum. One needs to do a more thorough analysis of IF compared with other ethnic groups doing similar things for their respective cultures in the USA. Infinity Foundation has covered a huge territory in a short span of time without outside financial support from either the government or public donations. They started out with an equal emphasis on Wisdom and Compassion grants. Later, they were over-whelmed by the problems in the academic system which is now their key area of focus. From almost a one-man show, Rajiv Malhotra has succeeded in attracting many like-minded men and women as advisors to his foundation. The readership of the essays written by Rajiv Malhotra and many of the IF advisors on Sulekha ranges into five figures. It is interesting to note how awareness about these issues has steadily increased with the Sulekha audience as evidenced by their comments; it is a sign of the growing intellectual impact of IF on the Indian diaspora. It is important to note that most of those readers are not related to IF except through reading on the Internet, and yet their views seem to resonate very well with the essays. One is left amazed to see a telecom entrepreneur constructing an influential Indic think-tank.
[1] One of the biggest book grants by IF was given to a Christian theologian Judson B. Trapnell for work on Hindu Christian dialog. http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_trapn_census_frameset.htm Other Christian scholars working with IF include Ruth Vanita (an Indian feminist), Alex Alexander, and Ashis Nandy. Another IF advisor Sankrant Sanu is working with Indian Muslim scholars to do more research on Islam in India.
[2] Rajiv Malhotra pointed me to Indictraditions e-group discussion where Vishal Agarwal and others were expelled after RM's severe criticism of the Hindutva campaign of VHP.
[3] After studying in Delhi's St. Columbia's High School and then St. Stephen's College, Rajiv Malhotra arrived in the USA in 1971 to study Physics and Computer Science. His corporate careers and business entrepreneurship included the computer, software and telecom industries. He now spends full time with IF.
[4] These informal advisors are not paid by IF and they don't necessarily share a common set if ideas on every issue. They are independent thinkers in the same manner as academic scholars serving on any committee.
[5] Sanjay Garg is a B.Eng., MBA from University of Toronto and became an advisor to Infinity Foundation in 2002. Even before becoming an advisor to Infinity Foundation, he was "perplexed with the negative portrayals, misrepresentations, misappropriations and stereo-typing of Indic culture and religion that was pervasive throughout the academic world, authors, writers, think tanks, religious or political organizations, public policy makers, press/ media and commercial enterprises. How much of this negative milieu impacts the self identity of Indian Americans has been increasingly hitting home." He sees his role with Infinity as creating awareness within the Indo-American community, and across the sources identified above, "of negative portrayals based on cultural chauvinism, religious prejudices, and/ or the profit motive."
[6] Sankrant Sanu is a software entrepreneur who lives in Redmond, WA. After working for Microsoft for several years, Sankrant left Microsoft in 1999 to co-found Paramark, a software company. Sankrant counts the University of Texas at Austin and IIT Kanpur as his alumni schools. He is a columnist at Sulekha e-zine.
[7] A product of the Lawrence School, Sanawar, near Simla and I.I.T. Delhi, Arjun Bhagat founded a non-profit student organization called AIESEC in India while at IIT (http://www.in.aiesec.org/). AIESEC stands for "Association Internationale des Etudiants en Sciences Economiques et Commerciales". As a part of the largest, non-profit student organization in the world, he moved on to establish AIESEC in Thailand and became a part of its international management team based in Brussels in 1983. He has lived and worked in a total of seven different countries before finally settling down in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1988. He has been a founding team member of two software companies. He was the CEO of RMSI before retiring in 1999, after having organized the sale of the company to a British publishing house. Currently his focus is on spiritual growth, "figuring out how to help those that are less fortunate (children and animals) and how to make Indic values and culture a resurgent force in the world arena once more." He is a columnist at Sulekha e-zine.
[8] Krishnan Ramaswamy is a scientist living in New York. His areas of research are clinical trials in major mental & neurological illnesses (schizophernia, anxiety disorders, dementia etc). He has a background in psychometric research. He calls himself a student of the Vedas, Vedanta, Sanskrit and Pannini.
[9] Susheila Bhagat was born and raised in Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. After attending parochial schools, and obtaining her Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Sciences from Nagpur University, Maharashtra she went on to study under M.N. Srinivas at the Dept. of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics. She then came to the United States to pursue her graduate studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA where she obtained her Master's degree in Cultural Anthropology. As part of the requirements for the degree she also undertook fieldwork in the British Virgin Islands B.W.I., studying the impact of migration on the social structure of the island. Susheila was involved in research on the role of anthropology and public policy and subsequently was associated with community action agencies and consulting firms dealing with urban and social policy issues. She also taught introductory courses in anthropology on a part-time basis. Susheila was closely involved in the consciousness raising of women's issues of the early 1970's and published an initial bibliography on "Women's role and Development Policies" in dealing with international development issues. She had a brief stint with the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service where she edited the DevCom Bulletin and other reports dealing with NGOs worldwide as well as organizing workshops for the international NGOs on thematic problems, including women's perspectives on development issues. Currently, Susheila serves as an advisor to the Infinity Foundation, with which she has been associated for several years.
[10] Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), p. 168, cited by Malhotra
[11] Rajiv Malhotra, "Eurocentrism of Hegel, Marx, Mueller, Monier Williams, Husserl", posted at
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_malho_euro_frameset.htm, viewed on March 20th, 2003
[12] Rajiv Malhotra, "The Axis of Neocolonialism", posted at http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=218625, viewed on March 5th, 2003
[13] Rajiv Malhotra, "Critiques of Eurocentrism Bibliography" http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_rs/h_rs_malho_euro.htm, viewed on March 7th, 2003
[14] Rajiv Malhotra, "RISA Lila – 1: Wendy's Child Syndrome", posted at http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=239156 , viewed on March 20th, 2003
[15] Ronald Inden, Imagining India (Indiana University Press, 1990)
[16] Rajiv Malhotra, "The Case for Indic traditions in the Academy", posted at
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/papers/paper_malhotra2.pdf
viewed on March 15th, 200
[17] In Rajiv Malhotra's words: "Wendy Doniger, regarded as the ÔGoddess of Indic traditions Studies' in Western academic circles, has bypassed stage 3, and moved directly to stage 4. However, it is plausible that later in her life, she might Ôrediscover' all the positive qualities of Indic traditions as being in her native Judaism. Meanwhile, she specializes in the depiction of Indic traditions from the two lowest chakras – the anal and genital chakras, respectively. Qualities of Indic traditions linked with higher chakras seem uninteresting to her."
[18] Thomas McEvilley, the Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Allworth Press. New York. 2002. p. 550, cited by Malhotra
[19] http://www.natural-law.org/ President of this party Dr. John Hagelin is also the director of Institute of science, technology and public policy at Maharishi institute of management, viewed on April 18, 2003
[20] Cleo McNelly Kearns, T. S. Eliot and Indic Traditions: A Study in Poetry and Belief (Cambridge University Press, 1987) , cited by Malhotra
[21] Ann Hunt Overzee, The Body Divine: The Symbol of the Body in the Works of Teilhard de Chardin and Ramanuja, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). In an endnote of this book, she refers to book by Ursula King, and in that book King describes how Teilhard went to India and read Vedanta, and how he commented on Ramanuja's interpretation, and remarked that his own ideas were similar. Then he came up with the idea that the cosmos was the body of Christ, which is comparable to saguna Brahman notion. But in her later works, Ursula King has ignored the eastern influences upon Teilhard. Cited by Malhotra
[22] http://www.Aveda.com Horst M. Rechelbacher, founder of Aveda, has a doctorate in Ayurveda from India. Viewed on April 18, 2003
[23] Steven Rosen , Gita on the Green (New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 2000) , cited by Malhotra
[24] Harrison was cremated in accordance with Hindu practices, and his ashes were immersed in the river Ganga http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/03/harrison.india
[25] Harold Coward, Jung and Eastern Thought (SUNY Press, 1985) and Yoga and Psychology (SUNY Press, 2002) , cited by Malhotra
[26] For instance, Jung went to stage 2 and 3. But he was open about his debt to India. After his, his successors, i.e. present Jungians, erased these Indic sources and have sometimes denigrated the Indic sources as inferior in various ways. See Harold Coward, Yoga and Psychology (SUNY Press, 2002). T. S. Eliot was quite influenced by Indic traditions for a period when he composed his most famous poems, including The Wasteland. But today, this Indic influence is never mentioned in literature courses on Eliot. "T. S. Eliot and Indic traditions: A Study in Poetry and Belief," by Cleo McNelly Kearns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Cited by Malhotra
[27] http://home.earthlink.net/~kriyayogi/ The First International Church of Christian Yoga, viewed on March 10th, 2003
[28] Rajiv Malhotra, "The Case for Indic traditions in the Academy", posted at
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/papers/paper_malhotra2.pdf
Section V, viewed on March 25th, 2003
[29] Rajiv Malhotra, "The Case for Indic traditions in the Academy", posted at
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/papers/paper_malhotra2.pdf
Section IX, viewed on March 25th, 2003
[30] "Given our training in contemporary hermeneutical theory, why do we have difficulty in accepting that we, and those institutions that fund us, bring assumptions to our work-assumptions that may seem suspect to others? I am puzzled both by the claims to higher objectivity in Western academic research and by the criticisms of others for not meeting up to our standards, i.e., in bringing political agendas to bear upon such research. Who among us does not bring them? To be human is to have such agendas, to operate under certain beliefs."- Judson Trapnell, a Christian theologian, responding to the allegations of Infinity Foundation's "hidden agenda" on RISA-L discussion
[31] Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (Routledge; September 1996) , cited by Malhotra
[32] Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America (Rutgers University Press; February 1999) , cited by Malhotra
[33] Japan Foundation http://www.jpf.go.jp/
[34] China Foundation http://www .uscpf.org/
[35] KoreAm Foundation http://www.koream.com/
[36] Council on Islamic Education http://www.cie.org/
[37] Pew Trusts http://www.pewtrusts.com/
|
||||||
