1 synopsis
1.1 section [chapters 1-10]
1.2 section ii [chapters 11-17]
1.3 section iii [chapters 18-24]
1.4 section iv [chapters 25-29]
synopsis
section [chapters 1-10]
chapter 1 elaborates on why authors of book think important. chapter starts debate challenges western portrayals of india, religions , problems . authors express concern distorted information on hinduism scholars of religions in south asia (risa) have adverse impact on understanding of indians, particularly hindus . according them percolation of negative perception of hinduism impact social behaviour of westerners towards hindus, consequently affecting individual hindu s growth negatively. conclude that, since image of country s culture plays vital role in international engagements, such perceptions detrimental economic growth of india .
in chapter 2, indrani rampersad says american authors associated risa, research wing of american academy of religion (aar) present distorted, mistranslated , misinterpreted discourse on hinduism , affiliated practitioners. according aar seen have exerted greater influence other organization on generation of information on hinduism , subsequent dissemination of information. on other hand, hinduism practitioners , other supporting academic scholars, rampersad thinks, not given equal in interpretation of culture , religious practices labelled fundamentalists , attackers on intellectual institutions. mentions many inauthentic translations , interpretations pre-eminent western indologists have been popularized standard meanings today . further states such scholars dismiss translations , interpretations of contemporary tantric practitioners inauthentic , contemptuous of practising hindus participating in discourse own traditions . highlights in fact practising hindus excluded discourse traditions . expresses disapproval of methodology of risa scholars , says - validity of applying freudian psychoanalysis , other fashionable eurocentric theories non-western religions questionable . elaborated in chapters 3-5 in presents views on how freudian psychoanalysis used distorted presentation of 3 specific hindu personalities. rampersad writes in chapter 3 on jeffrey kripal s kali s child. position kripal mistranslated bengali texts on shri ramakrishna suit thesis portrays subject of study homosexual. writes besides being ignorant of bengali language, kripal presents distorted portrayal of bengali culture, example, grossly misinterpreting affection of elders towards children. questions qualification in applying freudian psychoanalysis. has objections kripal psychoanalyzing dead subject through native informants in spite of being untrained in freudian psychoanalysis. rampersad uses similar line of argument in book criticize sarah caldwell in chapter 4. according caldwell wrongly paints hindu goddesses own imagination blood-thirsty, violent , sexual transgressors noted swami achuthananda , others. in chapter 5 rampersad writes paul courtright stating in book, wrongly portrays ganesha through combination of distortions , misinterpretations again inappropriately using freudian psychoanalysis.
in chapter 6 rampersad analyzes stanley kurtz s proposition of demeaning indian motherhood using psychoanalysis. in chapter 7, giving numerous examples rampersad attempts establish wendy doniger s sanskrit translations in works incorrect , interpretations flawed. michael witzel s writing on doniger has been extensively quoted in appears challenge doniger shoddy scholarship , lack of knowledge of sanskrit . in chapter 8 rampersad writes finding intentional biases of david gordon white in book , mentions uses solely eurocentric freudian lens study tantra. in later part of section (chapter 9) rampersad describes model uses chakra system theoretical framework using deconstructs psychological orientations of scholars of hindu traditions in attempt explain contemporary scholarly descriptions of hinduism. chapter 10 elaborates on views held rajiv malhotra , rampersad on hegemonic control risa scholars have on discourse on hindu traditions due power asymmetry leading dismissal of hindus own views inauthentic .
section ii [chapters 11-17]
chapter 11 contains introduction sections ii , iii. chapter 12 excerpted presentation of extensive comments made prof. s. n. balagangadhara of university of ghent, belgium on sulekha website in response risa lila-1. argues christianity spread in 2 ways: through conversion , through secularization . further, points out biblical underpinnings in modern social sciences , secular ethics, leading conclusion when wendy doniger , associates draw upon resources of existing social sciences, drawing upon christian theology . , in turn, christian theology treats others worshippers of devil , , gods perverts: sexually, morally , intellectually .
in chapter 13, titled, children of colonial psychoanalysis , yvette rosser throws light how freudian theory, designed psychiatric disorders, had been applied western scholars analyze hindu culture since colonial era starting works of owen berkely-hill , c.d daly. argues similar approach continues day in works of caldwell, doniger, courtright, kripal etc. chapter 14 response y. krishnan application of freudian theory paul courtright depicts fight between shiva , ganesha oedipus , castration complex. y. krishnan proclaims, referring original hindu scriptural sources (various puranas), core freudian assumptions not apply ganesha , shiva , western scholars have stretched facts fit thesis .yvette rosser analyzes somnath bhattacharya s essay titled kali s child : psychological , hermeneutical problems ; scrutinizes kripal s work. rosser writes bhattacharya, being professional psychotherapist, fluent in bengali, practitioner of indian religion , philosophy, , familiar primary texts quoted in kripal s work, uniquely qualified assess kripal s work . further says during analysis, prof. bhattacharya struck countless mistranslations, factual errors , denigrating attitude towards subject . in essay, bhattacharya cites several examples thinks de-contextualization of ramakrishna s life events prove imagined homosexuality. further argues of events described kripal in book prove homosexual inclination of ramakrishna naive ordinary indian can infer not remotely connected sexual orientation in indian context . concludes kripal shows evident cultural bias in work , problems therein can resolved honest self-analysis , objective study of personality-aspects of sri ramakrishna.
in chapter 16, sankrant sanu presents comparative analysis of depiction of hinduism, islam , christianity in encarta in 2002. sanu gives number of instances in encarta article support viewpoint while articles on islam , christianity seemed have balanced view, articles on hinduism had numerous biases. goes on articles on islam , christianity written emic respective faiths whereas articles on hinduism written authors etic hinduism. claimed result of academic analysis, microsoft corporation decided change encarta article on hinduism. chapter 17 consists of rebuttal courtright s writing on ganesha vishal agrawal , kalavai venkat.
section iii [chapters 18-24]
this section written aditi banerjee based on discussion rajiv malhotra. aditi mentions while previous sections (i , ii) highlighted serious , troubling issues regarding american scholarship on hinduism , remaining 2 sections (iii , iv) highlight how risa establishment , mainstream media tried portray challenge on american scholarship attack on scholars , threat academic freedom . section mentions role of risa scholars , american media in matter in regard has deep roots in american mythology , history . behaviour concluded inspired frontier myth , internalized mythology . per myth, conflict between native americans , colonizers portrayed savages vs civilized , responsibility of civilized whites civilize natives. section further cites sources mention myth generated varying degree of otherness towards native americans (and later blacks , mexicans) , whites had right reshape wilderness saw fit . aditi says similar approach used in academic studies of hinduism – american scholars recasting hindu religious thought see fit .
the section enumerates instances of protests indian diaspora , academicians , how response prompted american scholars academic studies of hinduism being hijacked outside .
the section continues later, prominently due risa-lila articles rajiv malhotra, american hindu community started taking note of situation , started registering protest. these articles transformed hindu perception of western academic community 1 of adulation 1 of suspicion, hostility . sections mentions following these articles, several student groups, community organizations , hindu diaspora community members filed online petitions, sent letters editors , reached out universities. till then, american hindu community had not put organized intellectual , public pressure against misrepresentation of hinduism in american academic circles. stated approach in stark contrast response registered christian, buddhist, jewish , islamic communities living in america. section considers important observation portrayal of indians in humanities , social sciences diametrically opposite in business schools indians , indian business models appreciated , respected . section mentions dichotomy in american education system looks bewildering , needs attention.
the section indicates (on issue of misrepresentation of hinduism) several peaceful petitions followed, amongst 1 worth mentioning. petition hindu students council (hsc) in october 2003 addressed president wagner of emory university, cited hate-crimes against innocent hindu minority in america , solicited apology 1 of authors, paul courtright professor in department of religion @ emory university. petition poorly enacted , around 20 or signatories out of 7000 had put threatening comments against courtright, , on account of these comments, whole petition derailed. although petition not successful, jump-started many (hindu) diaspora efforts further pursue issue academic community .
sometime later, independent of hsc, petition filed president of vedic center in greenville south carolina president of emory university, expressing concern on prevailing hinduphobia in academia . response emory university defensive , community further followed on issue. upon request community meeting emory s dean took place after 6 months of dialogue request made hindu community. in meeting emory representatives given briefing book , cited numerous comments senior academic scholars questioning courtright s approach work on ganesha . in same meeting presentation given community representatives, included positions of competent academicians on problem of using psychoanalysis dissect hindu traditions . however, emory s response dismissive , 1 showing disinterest.
chapter 20 of section highlights opinion of several scholars broadly agreed points related hindu academic studies. several scholars, including stuart sovatsky, antonio de nicolas, etc., supported hindu position. father francis clooney, jesuit priest, on faculty of harvard divinity school, writes among western academicians, careful examination of each other s claim not taking place sufficiently . dr. susantha goonatilake, noted sri lankan buddhist scholar mentions in buddhist studies, instead of careful scholarship 1 has gross inventions , partial truths not meet basic criteria of scholarship or test . david freedholm, teaches comparative religion , philosophy in prestigious american school system , asked risa scholars introspect doing reduce prejudices against hinduism. finally, aditi banerjee expresses views indian-american had been disappointed in , frustrated quality of teaching pertaining south asia. mentions relate argument made in risa lila-2 need of indian/hindu scholarship remains authentic traditions of people while retaining rigor , objectivity required of academic work. aditi mentions many indian-americans relieved spotlight shining upon long ignored issues.
chapter 21 highlights risa did not involved until 1 of own (prof. antonio de nicolas) posted stinging critique of courtright s book . de nicolas said american academia need reminded of obligation conduct rigorous peer-review of such works , take corrective action whenever questionable work slips through cracks. in post on risa-list prof nicolas says: dr. courtright open door enemies, or outsiders, of christianity same bible, example? or others find offensive if hindu scholar full credentials , knowledge described creation myth of bible absurd , gross sexual representation? prof. antonio de nicolas initiative brought forefront clear divide in risa. on 1 side few scholars concerned hegemonic nature of colleagues , on other side establishment voices wanted preserve status quo quashing dissent. section further states responses de nicolas observations knee-jerk , defensive , few scholars began ad hominem attack on de nicolas , indian scholars in general. 1 of professors. prof. john oliver perry, made blatantly racist statement scholars india dim understand advanced , sophisticated western techniques. author aditi banerjee observes in america s pluralistic , multicultural environment, when indian scholars belittled on forum specializes in study of indian culture, academic peers remained silent. aditi further opines steady diet of eurocentric scholarship, appears have convinced risa s predominantly western membership indian scholarship inferior. section cites western scholar, joanna kirkpatrick, said de nicolas s complaint trumped fact carstairs s famous work on rajputs , doniger s work in general based on freudianizing . section mentions eurocentric circular reasoning, because assumes mere adoption of theory western scholars proves legitimacy .
chapter 21 of section cites important development. while these disputes occupying considerable internet bandwidth in u.s., courtright s publisher in india, motilal banarsidass, announced in large newspaper advertisements across india withdrawing courtright s controversial book. issue received broad, rather shallow, coverage in press. press reports did not refer scholarly issues book, singled out offending picture of ganesha on book cover sole cause apology . section details response withdrawal motilal banarsidass. on risa online forums, there voices boycott motilal banarsidass. open letter written well-placed , senior sanskrit scholar in america, prof. patrick olivelle. prof. olivelle mentioned - find difficult recommend colleagues venue may publish works . section cites scholar kathleen erndl gave boycotting colleagues encouraging shabash further mentioned happy see risa members rallying support our colleague, whether agree every word or not. comment of author cynthia humes have been cites - suggest scholars should either lobby motilal banarsidass reverse decision (to withdraw book) or begin boycotting motilal banarsidass or both . scholar john stratton hawley, professor of hinduism @ columbia university, mentioned in letter motilal banarsidas withdraw (my) books care, if possible .
the section cites rajiv malhotra s analysis of issue. rajiv says academic scholars know strategic implications of keeping motilal banarsidass on leash controlled western interests. motilal banarsidass major indology publisher global reach , reputation controlled indians.
the chapter highlights subsequent development risa scholars publicly engaged in series of witch hunts , how attempts made muzzle views of prof. de nicolas, prof. s. n. balagangadhara , prof. jacob de roover. chapter 21 concludes on note courtright controversy highlights unwillingness on part of prominent academic scholars investigate cases of apparent scholarly malfeasance, honesty. chapter includes analysis of madhu kishwar says (conflict) generated not out of ignorance because of approach of western academia assumes tools of analysis , value systems enable them understand , pass judgements on experiences , heritage of human beings including operate different world views.
section iv [chapters 25-29]
the chapters in section titled media images give account of interaction between risa scholars , hindu diaspora. book states risa scholars first response critiques hindu american diaspora not scholarly rebuttals ad hominem attacks branding them militant right wing hindus . krishnan ramaswamy states in response, issues of shoddy scholarship , bias of risa scholars raised diaspora not addressed. support claim has given excerpts of emails diaspora , articles written risa scholars. 1 such example writing of lucinda hopkins, risa member in claims analyse of doniger s shortcomings:
... to blessed understanding tradition 1 must have patience , humility learn tradition know it. doniger s greatest mistake. why makes such appalling statement holding malhotra indirectly responsible stirring passionate emotions. stirring emotions not learning, not understanding. rather listening disturbed outcries has unleashed, retreats cover of claiming being discriminated against because not india. discrimination fault: both portraying criticism against nationalistic , lacking true discrimination take being said , gain it.
ramaswamy further goes on risa scholars second response claims of diaspora through mass media. according him, although projected media houses portraying issue objective , neutral, deployed risa scholars suppress opposing voices. 3 examples analysis have been given in concluding section support stand. first example article written shankar vendantam in washington post in april 2004 titled wrath on hindu god: u.s. scholars writings draw threats faithful . ramaswamy narrates:
prior publication, shankar vedantam, staff journalist @ post, had contacted diaspora intellectuals controversy. rajiv malhotra had written shankar, explaining position on de-monopolizing religious studies adding practitioner-scholars. however, post evaded range of issues explained vedantam , instead, framed story in mythic trope of savage hindus victimizing civilized white scholars . in fact, vedantam reduced response atlanta concerned community paul courtright s writings swift , angry response thousands of hindus .
ramaswamy s contention vedantam, being alumnus of university of chicago, wendy doniger influential faculty, owes allegiance ideological position. second example given ramaswamy of article in new york times which, says, again focuses on claiming false victimhood risa scholars , painting hindus right wing savages giving academic , social concerns dark political colour.
finally article in university of chicago magazine based on interview given wendy doniger cited third example , in particular chapter, yvette rosser opines article biased obscures real issues regarding dubious scholarship of risa scholars , applies double standards in analysing 2 opposing positions. focuses on sensational rather scholarly aspects of issue, claims. krishnan ramaswamy s analysis regarding whole issue of media images is:
these 3 articles have common thread running through them following characteristics:
in concluding chapter ramaswamy expresses opinion on differences in ways in mainstream american press portrays risa scholars - diaspora debate compared diaspora press. example given of article written in indian-american newspaper india abroad in prof. ramesh rao published detailed interview of paul courtright, risa scholar, along own view thus, according ramaswamy, giving adequate space both points of view. on other hand, states ramaswamy, american mainstream press biased , balance of power highly skewed towards risa scholars.
in end, book concludes opinion of hindu diaspora that:
although debate regarding correctly portraying hinduism in west has started , gained momentum there strong resistance scholars examine eurocentrism , hinduphobia. has been great tragedy in path of creating space greater diversity of voices , questioning entrenched paradigms , power relations.
Comments
Post a Comment