Hinduism and representation in academia

[Surya Deva]

I was recently reading the articles of the scholar Raji Malholtra, who was one of the key thinkers behind the recent California textbook controversy and a major international scholar who looks in particular at how Hinduism is represented in the West. I agree with him when he says Hinduism is represented very poorly, as I have myself faced a lot of misconceptions and prejudice when doing my BA in Philosophy at university. I found my sentiments were shared by a wide range of academics specialising in Indian philosophy and Hindus.

Secondly, I found it shocking to find out that Hindu studies, Indian Philosophy, Sanskrit and indology was absolutely dominated by non-Hindus, many of whom are from a Christian background and there is little to no representation of Hindu gurus. There is very little representation of Hindu academics in these departments. This is in sharp contrast to Islamic studies which is dominated by Muslim scholars and has Muslim priests etc on the academic boards, and Christian/biblical studies and theology in general which is dominated by Christians and has Christian priests on the academic board.

I do think that this leaves Hindus in a very vulnerable position where how they are represented is completely in control of non-Hindus coming from different religious backgrounds. It is appaling for example that academics like Wendy Doniger is one of the foremost scholars on Hindu studies in the world, and Wendy doniger has written some highly offensive and inflammatory material against Hinduism. Such as, "The Gita is not a good book, Krishna is a cunning and deceitful man that leads people to murderous acts" or "The Vedas are not spiritual books and have nothing of spiritual value in them" She and her peers have depicted the Hindu goddess as a sex obsessed, murderous force, and the saints of our tradition like Ramakrishna as a homosexual pedophile who use to molest Swami Vivekananda. Rather than getting a public flogging, such people are getting accloades, research grants and are chairing the highest academic departments in America, including in Harvard.

Of course this has been going on since the beginning of Indology in the 19th century. All sorts of offensive and inflammatory material has been published against Hinduism, from depicting its founding risis as barbaric foreign invaders, to essentializing socio-historical events like casteism and sati to Hinduism, to depicting Indian people as ahisorical people who are anti-progress, anti rationality, anti-democracy and who have always been invaded. Recently, I even read of movements by Western think-tanks to prove that Dravidianism is a sub-religion that evolved out of Christianity when the mythical Thomas bought it there, and this is being used for separatist politics.

Such scholarship sounds very much like an attempt to subvert and negate an entire culture and incite separatism.

I think enough is enough. Something needs to be done about this situation. I propose the following

1) We need more and more Hindus to get involved in high positions in Indology, Hindu studies, Sanskrit, Indian history etc.
2) We need Hindus to start an active campaigns against misrepresentations, similar to the California book campaign. They must use their economic, political and cultural clout to make sure all misrepresentations are rectified.
3) We need to form a panel of Hindu gurus who peer-review academic material written on Hinduism and chair important positions in academia.

 

[Andal]

Namaste,

You raise some really great points and something that I have struggled with for a long time. For a long time I was teaching religion at the university level- primarily Hinduism and Buddhism and this problem was something I saw my own department struggle with. We had grad students teaching courses for religions in which they had no experiential or scholarly background. I cannot tell you the number of times I had students come up to me and tell me things their other instructors taught them about Hinduism that were completely wrong at best and offensive at worst.

I think part of this has to do with the marginalization of Hinduism in the West. Universities feel it's very important to give an insider voice to Islamic Studies because if students see someone living the religion then they can realize that their previously held conceptions may not be true. In terms of Christianity and Judaism it becomes a numbers game since these religions turn out a lot of academics. In my department ever Islam course is taught by a Muslim. Every Christianity course is taught by a Christian. Ever Buddhism and Hinduism course (outside of the ones I taught) were taught by non Hindus and Buddhists.

It seems ok to spread lies about and misrepresent Hindus because we won't go blow you up if you disrespect our understanding of God.

I have to say as well that this problem is not only coming from outside, we have to keep house as well. How many people out there are Hindu by name only and don't understand the meaning of the prayers and rituals? They don't understand the importance of our traditions and Vedic culture. They don't teach their children. This is a problem. If we do not protect and pass along our faith, who will? Certainly not the academics. It is only when we have a strong foundation of Hindu identity and welcoming spirit in the West will we no longer be misrepresented on such a large scale.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[DogmaToxin]

Surya Deva said: Western think-tanks to prove that Dravidianism is a sub-religion that evolved out of Christianity when the mythical Thomas bought it there, and this is being used for separatist politics.

Surya, what you have said here is thoroughly analyzed and explained in Rajiv Malhotra's latest book "Breaking India", which he has co-authored with a Tamil scholar Aravindan Neelakantan.

You can find links to buy it on the book's website breakingindia(dot)com. This book is a wake up call for ALL Indians (not just Hindus) and every honest academic scholar in the West. This is a must read, to understand how inimical scholars have for centuries fabricated false history, created false divisions (faultlines) among Indians to alienate certain population groups from the common "Indian" identity, now are reaping the benefits of these divisions and eventually trigger a civil war in India.

Also join and follow the discussions on the book's discussion egroup on Yahoo! Groups.

 

[Andal]

Surya, what you have said here is thoroughly analyzed and explained in Rajiv Malhotra's latest book "Breaking India", which he has co-authored with a Tamil scholar Aravindan Neelakantan.

You can find links to buy it on the book's website breakingindia(dot)com. This book is a wake up call for ALL Indians (not just Hindus) and every honest academic scholar in the West. This is a must read, to understand how inimical scholars have for centuries fabricated false history, created false divisions (faultlines) among Indians to alienate certain population groups from the common "Indian" identity, now are reaping the benefits of these divisions and eventually trigger a civil war in India.

Also join and follow the discussions on the book's discussion egroup on Yahoo! Groups.

I would add also, All Hindus, not just Indians.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Mysterystorm]

I was recently reading the articles of the scholar Raji Malholtra, who was one of the key thinkers behind the recent California textbook controversy and a major international scholar who looks in particular at how Hinduism is represented in the West. I agree with him when he says Hinduism is represented very poorly, as I have myself faced a lot of misconceptions and prejudice when doing my BA in Philosophy at university. I found my sentiments were shared by a wide range of academics specialising in Indian philosophy and Hindus.

Secondly, I found it shocking to find out that Hindu studies, Indian Philosophy, Sanskrit and indology was absolutely dominated by non-Hindus, many of whom are from a Christian background and there is little to no representation of Hindu gurus. There is very little representation of Hindu academics in these departments. This is in sharp contrast to Islamic studies which is dominated by Muslim scholars and has Muslim priests etc on the academic boards, and Christian/biblical studies and theology in general which is dominated by Christians and has Christian priests on the academic board.

I do think that this leaves Hindus in a very vulnerable position where how they are represented is completely in control of non-Hindus coming from different religious backgrounds. It is appaling for example that academics like Wendy Doniger is one of the foremost scholars on Hindu studies in the world, and Wendy doniger has written some highly offensive and inflammatory material against Hinduism. Such as, "The Gita is not a good book, Krishna is a cunning and deceitful man that leads people to murderous acts" or "The Vedas are not spiritual books and have nothing of spiritual value in them" She and her peers have depicted the Hindu goddess as a sex obsessed, murderous force, and the saints of our tradition like Ramakrishna as a homosexual pedophile who use to molest Swami Vivekananda. Rather than getting a public flogging, such people are getting accloades, research grants and are chairing the highest academic departments in America, including in Harvard.

Of course this has been going on since the beginning of Indology in the 19th century. All sorts of offensive and inflammatory material has been published against Hinduism, from depicting its founding risis as barbaric foreign invaders, to essentializing socio-historical events like casteism and sati to Hinduism, to depicting Indian people as ahisorical people who are anti-progress, anti rationality, anti-democracy and who have always been invaded. Recently, I even read of movements by Western think-tanks to prove that Dravidianism is a sub-religion that evolved out of Christianity when the mythical Thomas bought it there, and this is being used for separatist politics.

Such scholarship sounds very much like an attempt to subvert and negate an entire culture and incite separatism.

I think enough is enough. Something needs to be done about this situation. I propose the following

1) We need more and more Hindus to get involved in high positions in Indology, Hindu studies, Sanskrit, Indian history etc.
2) We need Hindus to start an active campaigns against misrepresentations, similar to the California book campaign. They must use their economic, political and cultural clout to make sure all misrepresentations are rectified.
3) We need to form a panel of Hindu gurus who peer-review academic material written on Hinduism and chair important positions in academia.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Satsangi]

I agree 100% with Surya Deva. At the same time, I see the likes of Ms Donigers as the fools trying to throw dust at the sun which eventually will come in their own eyes. They just don't get it that Sanatana means eternal; Wendys will come and go, Harvards/Yales will come and go, empires will come and go into the history, many such earths and universes will come and go; but Sanatana Dharma will always be there.

Regards,

 

[Chisti]

If I may say so, this has nothing to do with Hinduism per se. It's all about a powerful class (read the west) trying to put down enemies, real or imagined. Previously, it was the communists - they were the ubiquitous bad guys, and the west made sure there was a lot of anti-communist propaganda against them.

Today, it's the Muslim, and tomorrow it could be the Hindus. It's that simple. Powerful groups cannot function without an 'enemy' somewhere - and all this propaganda through media and academia should be understood in this connection.

 

[Andal]

Christi,

With much respect, Muslims are given far more consideration than Hindusi in Western Academia (as per the topic). Muslims have fair representation within Religious Studies and Philosophy departments in most public universities and even when there is not, there is a hyper sensitivity to Islamic concerns. If Islam is misrepresented it's a big deal. Could you imagine what would happen if I stood in front of my class and said, Islam promotes terrorism, women are treated poorly, and Mohammad was a bad guy. Can you imagine the outcry? I'd lose my job. Now on the other hand, I know of a situation in a prominent Canadian university where students are being taught that Sati is standard practice, Hindus worship petty goddesses, Gandhi was a pedophile, India has poverty because of Hinduism, and Hindus keep people they hate down through caste inequalities. Now the person teaching these things, not only hasn't lost their job but when students raised complaints, the administration said to get over it.

The misrepresentation of Hinduism is a big concern and those working in academia need to seriously evaluate how they teach Hinduism to students.

 

[Chisti]

Christi,

With much respect, Muslims are given far more consideration than Hindusi in Western Academia (as per the topic). Muslims have fair representation within Religious Studies and Philosophy departments in most public universities and even when there is not, there is a hyper sensitivity to Islamic concerns. If Islam is misrepresented it's a big deal. Could you imagine what would happen if I stood in front of my class and said, Islam promotes terrorism, women are treated poorly, and Mohammad was a bad guy. Can you imagine the outcry? I'd lose my job. Now on the other hand, I know of a situation in a prominent Canadian university where students are being taught that Sati is standard practice, Hindus worship petty goddesses, Gandhi was a pedophile, India has poverty because of Hinduism, and Hindus keep people they hate down through caste inequalities. Now the person teaching these things, not only hasn't lost their job but when students raised complaints, the administration said to get over it.

The misrepresentation of Hinduism is a big concern and those working in academia need to seriously evaluate how they teach Hinduism to students.

If Hinduism is misrepresented, it's wrong and something must be done. No disagreement there. But please, for heaven's sake, let's not compare religions and say, "One religion gets it worse than the rest." All religions get it bad, since they aren't mainstream. Muslims don't have it easy, either. The very word has become synonymous with terrorist, and lots of negative stereotypes have even become acceptable.

 

[Madhuri]

If Hinduism is misrepresented, it's wrong and something must be done. No disagreement there. But please, for heaven's sake, let's not compare religions and say, "One religion gets it worse than the rest." All religions get it bad, since they aren't mainstream. Muslims don't have it easy, either. The very word has become synonymous with terrorist, and lots of negative stereotypes have even become acceptable.

That is true.
Each religion has some unfair representation. I do not envy Muslims at all for the publicity they receive.

A reason that Hindus become very upset by the misrepresentation reaches back to when the English occupied India. Since that time, the Christians have made it their mission to spread lies and criticism of Hinduism across the world in the hopes of destroying it and replacing the beliefs of the people with Christianity. These lies are the reason that I have constantly had to deal with people making very wrong assumptions about my self and my beliefs.

 

[Chisti]

That is true.
Each religion has some unfair representation. I do not envy Muslims at all for the publicity they receive.

A reason that Hindus become very upset by the misrepresentation reaches back to when the English occupied India. Since that time, the Christians have made it their mission to spread lies and criticism of Hinduism across the world in the hopes of destroying it and replacing the beliefs of the people with Christianity. These lies are the reason that I have constantly had to deal with people making very wrong assumptions about my self and my beliefs.

I definitely sympathize with Hindus. My only point is that we must do two things in such situations: first, understand why this is happening (which I explained before as to how powerful, dominant groups constantly try to demonize others), second, not compare and instead be united under such circumstances. Why? Because these Christian groups pour scorn on everyone, and in their eyes there's no difference between Hindu, Muslim, or any non-Christian, for that matter. For them, Hindus have caste, Muslims have sharia, they're all the same bad people. Hope you see what I mean.

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank for your endorsement everybody

I want to answer Christi's question as to why this is happening. This is going to be an unsually long post, because a lot of issues have to be covered.

I offer the following perspective: clash of civilisations. Western-Christian civilisation and Indian-Hindu civilisation both claim to be the cradle of civilisation and the cradle of philosophy and science. They both have had huge influence historically. While Western ethos of Christianity and empiricism spread in the Western hemisphere, Indian ethos of Hinduism and Buddhism and yoga/meditation spread in the Eastern hemisphere. Thus we have case of one great civilisational ethos against the other. And they are mutually opposed: one is strongly empiricist, while the other is strongly metaphysical and spiritual. One is based on very strong dichotomies like ruler/ruled, good/evil, have/have nots and the other is based on fluididity, mutual interdependence(even the varna system is not rigid) One is reductionist and the other is holistic. One emphasises material progress and the other emphasises spiritual progress.

Thus we have a situation where both civilisations are based on mutually opposing categorical frameworks. This will help you understand why the West would want to put down dharmic culture, because the West's categorical framework is the current dominant paradigm in the world and associated with this is capitalism, materialism, secularism and individualism. If dharmic culture were to to become stronger, then they would to become weaker. Therefore dharma is perceived as a threat by Western civilisation.

Notice that although Muslims and the Chinese pose a physical threat to the West today, the West does not denigrate their civilisation in the same way it does to India(the mother of dharmic civilisation) on the contrary it praises Muslim and Chinese scientific contributions and is represents them sympathetically in academia. The Chinese, despite China today positioning itself as the arch rival of the West command respect from the West. This is because their categorical framework is compatible with the Western categorical frameworks - but dharma is the exact opposite.

The second reason is historical. As both civilisations claim to be the cradle of science, philosophy etc, there is symbolic power in ascertaining who did it first, which would then imply the other was an inheritor of it and this hurts the pride of the other civilisation. You will note if you study the scholarship on Indian history, that there is a tendency to give the latest dates possible for events and personalities. In fact even the generally agreed 500BC date for Buddha is being bought down to more later dates to bring within the remit of possibility that Buddha was influenced by the Greeks. I was reading a book, "Chemistry in ancient India" and the author duly noted that there is an obsession in Western academia to prove that the Indians borrowed everything from the Greeks, and they would not even concede the possibility that the Greeks might have borrowed from the Indians. The general rule of thumb was this if you find similar ideas in Greek and Indian culture and you can show the Greek ideas are older, then it means Indians borrowed from the Greeks. If you can show the Indian ideas are older than the Greek ideas, then it means parallel development

Honest Western scholars have duly noted that presocratic and platonic philosophy has very strong parallels to Indian philosophy which cannot be coincidental and that they appear all of a sudden in Greece, whereas in India they can be traced to the Vedic tradition. They also note that even the Greeks admitted their philosophers went to the East to study(though they prefer to say this was Babylon and Egypt, rathern than India) It is also known that India had institutes of higher education(Taxshashilla etc) It is also admitted in later Greek texts that philosophy was learned from the Indians and attempts were made to translate many Indian texts into Greek, including the Gita. The Greeks themselves saw Indians as being a great tradition of philosophy. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, Western academia does not concede the Greeks inherited the tradition of philosophy from the Indians because it hurts their pride. It also hurts their pride that Indian philosophy was a more developed tradition, thus they do not teach Indian philosophy.

There is another highly controversial issue that hurts the Western pride. That is the issue of where the Aryans originally came from. It is clear linguistic fact that Indo-European culture and language has a common origin, and this was first bought to the attention of the West when they became acquainted with Sanskrit in the 19th century. The conclusion they derived that there must be a proto-Indo-European people(PIE) and language - but where were they originally based? Some scholars said it was undoubtably India. But this hurt Western pride for its obvious implication was that Indo-European civilisation was mothered by Indians i.e., India was the mother of science, philosophy etc(Volataire believed this too). This idea was then discarded by the dominant(Christian majority) academic community favouring a European origin(they decided the Caucasian mountains) The implication of this was that the Indo-European people arrived into India during the migrations and overthrew the original dark-skinned natives.

The dating for when the Indo-European arrived into India was then guessed by Max Muller to be in 1500BCE and thus Indian history was arbitarily decided to have started in 1500BCE, and India's own recorded 10,000 year history was then compressed and fit into the 1500BCE date. This is why some scholars remark why did India develop at such a rapid speed. In 1500BCE is a non-urban, pastoral, rigid, oppressive and nature worshipping society and all of a sudden in 1000BCE it has republics(janapradas) highly developed philosophical schools, monistic theology, scientific medicine and by 500BCE it already has two major new religions completely opposed to Vedism. But despite these doubts, nobody challenged Mullers date and it is still accepted today.

Accoding to Indian history, India's history can be traced to 10,000 years ago(The ancient Greek historians ratify this) Some very specific dates are given such as the beginning of India's historical calender on 18th Feburary 3102 BCE 00:00 hours. But all of this was rejected by Western scholars who said this was nothing but mythology and accused the Brahmins of a conspiracy to control the Dravidians by making up really long dates etc

Then later archeaologists did in fact discover urban settlements dating back the 4th millenium BCE. It fit the descriptions found in Indian texts of cities that existed in India at the time. They found all the elements of Hinduism there. They found swastika symbol, seals, sacred trees, shiva lingams, Vedic altars, yoga and even the measurements used in the society were the same as prescribed in Vedic texts. This was therefore overwhelming evidence that they were wrong about 1500BCE date and Indian history was indeed real. The implications of this were clear: India was the home of the PIE people. But as was said earlier, this hurt Western pride. They refused to admit this, so they made up a new theory: The Indus valley civilisation is not a Vedic civilisation, but a Dravidian civilisation that belonged to the original dark skinned inhabitants. Yet to maintain this conclusion would you have to deny the obvious Vedic features found in the IVC - and that is exactly what they did.

Today, the archeaological evidence which has been piling up for decades now, including new studies in genetics is overwhelmingly supporting the conclusion the IVC is a Vedic civilisation. Archeaologists have not found the Saraswati river mentioned in the Rig Veda, which was flowing in 4000BCE. It dried up in 1900BCE(its drying up is first described in the Mahabharata) Marine archeaologits have found the submerged city of Dwaraka, Krishna's city, and the ruins do indeed match the descriptions in the Mahabharata(which also describes it had got submerged) Genetic studies have found no significant Caucasian dna in Indian people, and have found so-called Aryan Indians and Dravidian Indians to be genetically identical. The IVC civilisation has now been traced to the early agrian towns in Mehgarh 7000BCE, which fit descriptions in the Rig Veda.

This means Indian history is correct and Western representation of our history incorrect. Yet, despite this overwhelming and hard empirical evidence, Western academia still maintains the 1500 timeframe. Again, I submit to you - because it hurts their Western pride that only was the oldest and most advanced civilisation on Earth non-Western, but that it mothered their own civilisation. Hence the clash of civilisations.

 

[nameless]

Because these Christian groups pour scorn on everyone, and in their eyes there's no difference between Hindu, Muslim, or any non-Christian, for that matter. For them, Hindus have caste, Muslims have sharia, they're all the same bad people. Hope you see what I mean.

good point, hope the islamic groups in pakistan and middle-east are very peaceful towards hindus and christians.

 

[Surya Deva]

An addendum to my post:

* As archeaological evidence is now strongly supporting the Indian history recorded by Indians themselves, the only conclusion one can derive from this is that the original PIE people were Indian. This is known as Out of India theory(OIT). This does NOT mean Indian people went around invading people in Indo-Europe, but that there was a culutral and linguistic exchange between the Indo-Europeans and the IVC.
* As the 1500BCE for the start of Indian civilisation is clearly wrong we will have to move dates on all ancient Indian events and personalities to far more earlier dates. With a start date of 7000BCE for Indian civilisation this means we have 5500 years before 1500BCE which to redistribute ancient Indian dates. Hindu scholars have started doing this using the puranic genelogies and have concluded the following dates:

7000BCE for the Rig veda
3000BCE for the Mahabharata
2000BCE for the beginning of formal education and formal philosophy
1800BCE for the Buddha
1500BCE for the start of the Mauraya empire
400BCE for the start of the Gupta empire

This brings into question whether it was Chandragupta Mauraya or Chandgragupta Gupta that met with Alexandra. The Hindu scholars point out that based on the accounts of Greek historians it was Chandragupta Gupta that was the contemporary of Alexandra. These accounts are for example silent on Buddhism, but the state religion of the Maurayas under Asoka was Buddhism and India was full of Buddhist bhikkus. Yet early Greek accounts are completely silent on them. The capital of India was never Patilaputra and the puranas do not mention it ever being a capital - except under the Guptas. The Puranas and other historical texts describing Chandragupt Mauraya and Asoka do not say anything about Alexander. Thus it would become apparent from this, that it was not Chandragupta Mauraya that was the contemporary of Alexandra, but Chandragupta Gupta. Hence we have to move all Gupta era events and personalities back by at least a millenia. Thus Adisankara's, Aryabhatta date would be have to moved back to before the common era.

 

[Satsangi]

I have to say as well that this problem is not only coming from outside, we have to keep house as well. How many people out there are Hindu by name only and don't understand the meaning of the prayers and rituals? They don't understand the importance of our traditions and Vedic culture. They don't teach their children. This is a problem. If we do not protect and pass along our faith, who will? Certainly not the academics. It is only when we have a strong foundation of Hindu identity and welcoming spirit in the West will we no longer be misrepresented on such a large scale.

Aum Hari Aum!

This is an excellent statement and an "actionable plan" that we can implement in our own home. I agree with Surya Deva that the Hindus must counter the negative propaganda in the academia and encourage the Hindus to join the academia so that the Sanatana Dharma can be represented well. But, at the end of the day, Dharma is not represented by the academicians; it is carried through by "living the Dharma." Each and every Hindu should "live the Dharma" proudly yet humbly in their day to day life- unless you live the Dharma in your own home, you cannot impress on the child to do it.

I will do some plain talking here. I am amazed at how the majority of the Hindus are suffering from a sort of "inferiority complex" when it actually comes to their Dharmas. I have seen people giving 100s of reasons ("palatable excuses") for being vegeterian rather than simply saying that it is because of his/her religious belief. How many of us would be willing to say that we have to do "Sandhya" three times a day; I see muslims do Namaaz 5 times even in the western countries. Many are even shy to wear the Tilak (or dot), most Hindus are not comfortable telling people that they do Pooja, and most are not comfortable in confidently conveying their faith to any other person. Hindus would even bend over backwards in trying to fit in any other value system at the expense of their Dharma. This has resulted into the Hindus coming with endless rationalizations rather then following the guidelines of the God, the Guru and the Rishis, and the Vedas. How can you expect such a parent who is not comfortable in his/her own skin, to pass the faith to the children in a foreign country?

Fortunately, even today there are Saints and Rishis who actually live the Dharma, live as per the Veda Vakya, the Geeta Vakya and the Guru Vakya- they are the real pillars of Sanatana Dharma. In my opinion, the four pillars of the Sanatana Dharma are the God Himself, the enlightened Saints who live it, the Scriptures (not only the written books) and the Temples.

It is said that "Dharmo rakshati rak****aha". Meaning, if you protect the Dharma, then the Dharma will protect you. I urge all the fellow Hindus to live the Sanatana Dharma in their lives and in their homes first. We are really blessed to have such an ancient Dharma which leads you to the Truth in this very life- proudly own it, humbly live it, cherish it with your mind, heartily enjoy it and dutifully pass it on to the next generation.

Regards,