The rape debate: How Western Universalism influences India's intellectual elite

This update is a summary of a thread on the forum which started with a storify posted by Shalini of a debate on rape that happened on twitter between a few prominent intellectuals in India. Here is the original storify which set the tone for this thread.

Sankrant Sanu and S. Gurumurthy were debating the delicate subject of rape based on their Dharmic worldview which is the one espoused by Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different.

The overwhelming consensus of the thread seemed to be that so called "Right Wing" sympathizers in English media in India today were "educated" anglicized Indians (as one commenter put it) whose worldview was shaped by ideas permeating Western Universalism.

Ravi responds:

[Kanchan Gupta's] positions are indistinguishable from typical 'educated' anglicized Indians...  Sankrant's rebuttals are to the point, but yes, twitter is not really the medium to go into depth. But he did refer to his deeper articles, so the viewer can go read.

Kanchan's only plus point is that he is a 'brand name', hence has more recognition... But the youth will be looking for more than repetitions of old worn shibboleths of his, will turn to deeper analyses. Rajiv's work is getting deeper penetration precisely for this reason.

Manish wrote in with this:

// Accoriding to Wikipedia, Kanchan Gupta is guided by the Brahmo Samaj.  The Brahmo Samaj has been criticized for reforming Hinduism in such a way that Hinduism began to look like a Protestant denomination! //

--- To think that Brahmo-Samaji Kanchan Gupta is seen as a staunchly Nationalist Hindu writer by many in the socal media space!! This exhibits the depth to which confusion has sunk inside Hindu society. A Grand Narrative based on Dharmic ''Religions'' is direly needed, if we are to ever remove that confusion. 

Rajiv's response to this was that his forthcoming book would be about the narrative that Manish was referring to. Rajiv adds that his two trips to India in 2014 made him keenly aware of the urgency for this narrative and he assured that his next book which would be full of new ideas and approaches would trigger huge debates.

The following observation from Kush was forwarded to Kanchan Gupta by another forum member and his reply to the forward was posted to the forum.

Kush's observation:

Kanchan's ideas are not beneficial to us as I have noted following him on Twitter. Vis-a-vis Dina Nath Batra issue one can have objections to banning of views but he seemed totally oblivious to the Rajiv Malhotra debate on Wendy, which frankly is a litmus test for "secular" Hindus' attitudes.

Quite frankly Kanchan appears totally absorbed in a Eurocentric worldview. This is down only to lack of reading and inquiry.

Kush's further went on to discuss the merits and demerits of Sankrant's engagement with Kanchan Gupta, on the subject but they do not have a direct bearing on this conversation.

Kanchan Gupta's response to Kush's forwarded mail [posted here as is]:

On the debate you refer to, I think I am a lot deal, and more, younger than Rajiv Malhotra (for whom I have the highest regard but would not accept as the final word as that would mean closing my mind which I am loath to do and I am sure he would not want me to do) and I definitely do not believe that I know everything or all that I know is correct. For me every day is a learning experience. I closely followed Rajiv Malhotra's online debate with his critics on the Wendy Doniger book and subsequently wrote about the issue. My views are reflected there if anybody cares to read.

At a personal and professional level, only the social and political aspects of religion interest me. I am not particularly keen on theology. Nor do I correlate theology with reality. The lower traditions of faith is what we get to see and live, not the higher traditions. As a writer who makes his living from his writing, I cannot afford to disengage from the lower traditions. Most if not all who debate religion and take theological positions have their livelihood elsewhere and hence can afford to indulge in idle debate. Unfortunately I do not have that pleasure or, if you wish, leisure. I have bills to pay at the end of the month. I would think I have not compromised on ethics as a writer; that by itself is satisfaction enough.

A last word. Kush is right, as a Brahmo Samaji (of whom only a handful remain), I am Eurocentric in my worldview. But for 1757 (for Bengalis) and later 1857 (for all of us), we would not be writing left to right but right to left. I wish the Rajiv Malhotra Group would revisit the Bengal Renaissance. Perhaps that would explain to them why some of  us are 'different'.

I am neither hurt nor flattered by misplaced criticism or praise. What I have done for Hindus and Hinduism over the past three decades as a journalist, writer, speaker and activist, my critics won't be able to match in a lifetime and more.

You are free to post this mail (without changes) on Rajiv Malhotra's Group (to which the unwashed have no access).

Rajiv's rejoinder to Kanchan Gupta's mail [posted on the forum]:

Kanchan cannot truthfully say the "unwashed have no access" to this egroup. Admitting that he is unwashed is of course his own self-assessment and prerogative. But he must know that membership of this egroup has been open and he never subscribed. Thats up to him to do. On his more substantial issues, i dont have time for response as I have responded to the same issues many times before - he should read up past writings and responses. My priority is on my new original research and not on regurgitating the same old arguments for every new person who comes along.

Rajiv went on to further clarify on the way he approaches debaters:

Lets not give too much importance to this one man. In my prioritization, I ask the following questions on a person before deciding to take them on:

• Is s/he an ideological/scholarly pioneer - i.e. has his/her own school of thought with a sort of parampara? These are my prime targets. Hence you will find my books naming such persons only and not minor ones. Their influence comes from their leverage as original thinkers with followers/students in serious numbers. ITS, BI and IN each have such targets. They are not small fry.
• Even if s/he is not originating new ideas that get market share, s/he could be a distributor of others' ideas through mainstream media - such persons are often intellectually shallow, as in the case of most Indian TV hosts, and their importance is due to their official position, not because they have knowledge of their own. Hence taking them on would be a way to influence the public. I have been less successful in getting them to discuss with me (except Mark Tully and a few others), but would like to do so. They avoid me as if I dont exist and cite excuses not to include me in their discussions. Also, their formats lack in depth discussions and tend to be short sound bites, with many voices shouting over each other simultaneously - not good for serious debates.
• Is this person with knowledge that can significantly benefit my work in tangible ways? I want to always learn to improve my game from every source.
• Am I under attack by him - in which case I might want to respond if he is causing harm by spreading misinformation. For that he has to be important enough.

At this point the reader may also read the engagement that Rajiv has had with another apparent 'right wing' luminary Swapan Dasgupta and others like him viz Sadanand Dhume and Rupa Subrahmanya. You can read it here and here.

Propounders of the eurocentric worldview and their adverse impact on the fortunes of the BJP, India's Dharmic nationalist party have also attracted attention from Arun Shourie, part of BJP's think tank and a Dharmic himself who referred to a group of six journalists who according to him run the BJP show. This was at the chintan baithak of the BJP after their electoral defeat in 2009. A DNA report alludes to this. Another report in The Tribune which has since been taken off but of which there is a screenshot also has a discussion. 

Rajiv Malhotra's path-breaking book 'Being Different' offers a fascinating and important contrast between the eurocentric/western universalist view versus the dharmic thought system. Many of India's anglicized elite, whether they are on the right or left of the aisle, appear to have failed in studying these differences rigorously. Consequently, it has resulted in erroneous assumptions that produce faulty, unsustainable solutions to India's problems.

An overview of the voices which rose in criticism of such writings on Hinduism - chapter 11

Go to Chapter 10

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.

Every inbred organization defends its integrity by citing its so-called ‘independent’ reviews. But the standard definition of ‘independent’, as used in business and law, would fail to qualify RISA scholars as being truly independent. Criticism that is controlled and licensed by those who are to be criticized is not entirely legitimate. The denial of agency to Indians who are outside the academy’s controls and supervision continues to provide cover to hide questionable practices. Truly independent critics such as those featured in this section become targets of the establishment’s wrath. When all other arguments fail to silence these critics, they are attacked personally as being ‘anti-social’ elements—as we shall see later. This is an entirely arbitrary judgment, without any independent critical analysis or direct representation by those being so condemned.

Scholars should criticize but not define another’s religion.

The article, RISA Lila-1, generated an avalanche of critiques of RISA by non-mainstream scholars. This in turn triggered a backlash from several RISA-associated academicians. Many of these scholars refused to allow agency to the living, breathing other, who is today also their American neighbor. Perhaps the fight for ‘agency’ is on behalf of those who are absent, belonging to bygone eras or living in rural India, and unable to talk back. The participation of the living diaspora, whose culture is being represented, has often been seen as an annoyance.

When asked whether his somewhat negative tone could turn off scholars who might otherwise be receptive, Malhotra replied, “The British didn’t like Gandhi’s aesthetics, either.” He felt his style had to be commensurate with what it took to get the desired impact, and that it should be compared with the scholars’ own styles which are amply on display—against the critics in the Indian diaspora, against the Hindu deities, against the gurus, and so forth. Later, you will see graphic examples of the RISA scholars’ verbal abuses of one another and of Indian ‘others’.) Many felt that the scholars do not come with ‘clean hands’ as their own discourse is full of ad hominem attacks.

One of the scholars moved to respond after reading Risa Lila-1 was Prof. S.N. Balagangadhara of University of Ghent, Belgium. Balu (as he is popularly called) is the author of The Heathen in His Blindness, an acclaimed book on the flaws in looking at Indian traditions through the prisms defined by Western scholars based on Abrahamic religions. Balu became actively engaged in arguing against the Doniger School on Sulekha, and has since then deepened his involvement through other forums.

He first posted extensive comments in three parts to the Sulekha discussion thread, and these parts are excerpted and presented as chapter 12. (Later, he wrote a further article on Sulekha in which he used Kripal as interlocutor but the points he makes are of general importance to understand how the West studies India. This appears as Appendix-2.)

Chapter 13, titled, ‘The Children of Colonial Psychoanalysis’ is a summary [drawn up by Yvette Rosser], of an important paper by Christiane Hartnack. It shows how the colonizers used psychoanalysis as a tool to profile Indians, especially Hindus, in a manner that fit the colonial agendas. The similarities between the colonial writings and Doniger’s School today are striking.

The article in chapter 14, ‘Is the Fight Between Siva and Ganesha an Episode of Oedipal Conflict?’ by Yuvraj Krishan, a prolific Indologist from within the tradition, is focused on showing that core Freudian assumptions simply do not apply to Ganesha and Shiva and that Western scholars have stretched the facts to fit their thesis. He references original texts of the tradition to argue his case.

Chapter 15, ‘Kripal on the Couch in Calcutta’ is a summary of an article by Prof. Somnath Bhattacharyya (‘Kali’s Child: Psychological And Hermeneutical Problems’). It exposes the flawed application of Freudian analyses by Doniger’s School. Bhattacharyya is a professor of psychology in Calcutta (emeritus) as well as a practising psychologist and well read in the original Bengali texts central to the Kripal scandal.

Sankrant Sanu, an independent scholar who was a Microsoft Manager analyzed the material on Hinduism written by Wendy Doniger for Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia and wrote a critique of the numerous biases it contained. This became yet another popular Sulekha article and is reprinted as chapter 16. Doniger has said publicly several times that the Encarta article was removed because her name was not ‘Sharma’ [since the section was re-written by Prof. Arvind Sharma from McGill University]—implying a racial bias, rather than her work being unable to withstand Sanu’s criticism or her inability to respond to its substance.

Chapter 17 is a reprint of a very detailed point-by-point evaluation of Paul Courtright’s book on Ganesha by two dedicated scholars from outside the academia, Vishal Agarwal and Kalavai Venkat. It raises serious questions about the rigorousness of peer-review that occurs within the academia. It also raises very troubling questions about the quality and integrity of Courtright’s scholarship, not just about Hinduphobic cultural bias—questions that have so far been ignored both by Courtright and his peers, primarily by claiming victim status for the scholar. Doniger has also condemned criticisms of Courtright, claiming these are attempts by ‘extremists’ to control the study of Hinduism.

A few others have been selected for inclusion in the Appendices. Dr. Alan Roland is a well-known psychologist who has specialized in clinical work with Indians living in the United States for a few decades and has authored scholarly books based on this work. He criticizes the use of Freudian psychoanalysis in interpreting Indians and Indian cultural symbols, because he is convinced that Freud’s models are not valid for Indians. Appendix-1 is a reprint of Roland’s article, titled, ‘The Uses (and Misuses) Of Psychoanalysis in South Asian Studies: Mysticism and Child Development’.

Appendix-2 ‘India and Her Traditions: A Reply to Jeffrey Kripal’ is an essay by S.N. Balagangadhara. This is based on Balagangadhara’s cogent and direct rejoinder to Jeffrey Kripal.

The final article, titled, ‘The Butterflies Baulked’, is a compilation of reader responses to RISA Lila-1 by Yvette C. Rosser. It gives a sampling of the over one thousand comments and private emails from supportive voices across cyberspace. These are a good barometer of the quality and quantity of the spontaneous mobilization and intellectual ferment caused by the essay.

Read entire chapter 11 from page 119 to 122

Pdf of the book is available for free download here.

Go to chapter 12

RMF Summary: Week of May 16 - 22, 2011

May 16

Premendra - Comparing caste in India and Europe
Rajiv Malhotra provides a link: CASTE SYSTEM IN EUROPE (by Priyadarshi)

May 16

Numerous criticisms posted against Outlook review - at their web site Rajiv Malhotra responds to skewed Outlook review of BI: I went through the comments posted at the review site and the majority are direct in criticizing the review and reviewer. Below are a few samples of this:

...

My Comment on the Outlook book review I am sharing a long response I just posted to Gita Ramaswamy's review on Outlook India. If the moderators don't delete it, you will see it as Comment # 47... May 17 Shame on you Gita Ramaswamy and Shame on Outlook! Dear Editor, As an Indian settled in the USA for a few decades I used to look up to the articles from Outlook as a way of keeping up with India. I had also... May 17 Fw: [RISA-L LIST] Fw: Dalit Koenraad Elst posts:   Dear listfolk, Since the Religion In South Asia list is secret, I have deleted the names of the people whom I quote and reply to in the post reproduced below: .. ... From (a famous religious studies profesor): > Not to take sides in this discussion about the acceptability of the term "Dalit," but it should be noted that scholars in India have begun to use "Dalit" as a shorthand for Untouchables/Scheduled Castes of all sorts.< From (another famous religious studies profesor): >The reason I generally opt for "Dalit" rather than "Harijan," is precisely because I feel it has shed a lot of the political connotations it once had.  This is because the "Dalit" has come to be widely used by those who have no affiliation with Ambedkarite politics---for example, it seems to be the preferred term in India's English language media, as well as among scholars.  Like a lot of terms that were originally coined with some political intent (e.g. "gender," "African American") it has gradually shed these connotations as its usage has been mainstreamed.< ... Do read Rajiv Malhotra & Aravindan Neelakandan’s book *Breaking India*, about the machinations behind the Dalitist and Dravidianist discourse. Many of you have applauded Edward’s Said’s thesis on “Orientalism”, promoting distrust of the ulterior motives of Orientalist scholarship. This new book does the same job, only better and more pertinent to our own work. Whereas Said’s work focused on Islamic Studies, dealt with the past and was riddled with factual errors, Malhotra and Neelakandan’s work is thoroughly documented, fully up-to-date and focuses on Indian Studies. It traces the political entanglements of the trend-setting scholarship on India’s ethnic, religious and caste divisions.... May 17 Breaking India started with Gandhi Koenraad Elst, a member of this group, reviewed this book - it says here that Gandhi could have very well been the root cause of Christian incursion into modern day India. That he was partial to its theology is well known,... May 18 Gautam Sen's letter to Outlook Dear Editor, Book reviewers are free to express their opinions and prejudices though a modicum of acknowledgement when they are doing so would be appropriate.... May 18 'Breaking India' - Continuity N. S. Rajaram posts: The notorious USCIRF is being systematically and strategically encouraged by the 'Indian' American Christians... May 19 "Breaking India" book review by Rina Mukerji in d-sector.org The unholy mission is on By Rina Mukherji 18 May 2011 India has been under attack for more than a millennium. The wicked attempts to destroy its civilization and denigrate the beliefs of the natives continue unabated despite the nation achieving political independence from the Europeans after the painful partition. More and more researchers have begun to expose the evil intentions of the west For decades, texts and tomes published in the West have been bombarding us with theories that India is primarily made up of distinct `Aryan' and `Dravidian' racial strains, with the `tribals' and `dalits' comprising the other distinct groups. A lie, oft repeated, often comes to be accepted as the truth. strategy. And there is no dearth of educated Indians who are willing to advance this anti-India agenda in return for little material comforts and recognition.... May 19 Why India is a Nation The author of this article [Sankrant Sanu] also points out lot of points which Rajiv has pointed out in his book. ... May 19 Breaking India has a whole chapter on USCIRF Many folks have been recently circulating emails complaining about USCIRF. These are sporadic, short-lived flareups once in a while on this. Like all emotional... May 19 This thread elicited a lot of responses and has been covered in the previous week's summary. To make a long story short, Outlooks appears to have published a poor quality polemic by Gita Ramaswamy as a "book review", while also rejecting the submission by Vijaya Rajiva, upsetting a lot of BI readers. Outlook rejects Dr. Vijay Rajiva's book review and publishes a nasty http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?271815 This is not surprising but unprofessional - what else is new? May 19 In which the question: Who is Gita Ramaswamy appears to be answered, thereby perhaps revealing why her book "review" turned out the way it did. Gita Ramaswamy-Ashoka Fellow - What is ASHOKA-Take a look Ram Sidhaye investigates:  Gita Ramaswamy is Fellow at Ashoka. What is ASHOKA organization? The name Ashoka is deceptive. It is not an Indian organization. Take a look at Leadership Team, Senior Leadership, Board of Directors and Partners. Leadership Team Bill Drayton, C.E.O. and Founder ... May 20 Shri Ram Sidaye Ram Sidaye's research into Gita Ramaswamy's background and association with Ashoka is important. It reinforces chapter 15 in the book Breaking India. ...   May 20 Dr. Shrinivas Tilak's rejoinder to Outlook This has been posted by Shrinivas Tilak on Sulekha. Review of Breaking India by Gita Ramaswamy: a response by Dr Shrinivas Tilak* When I first heard of... May 21

Yankee Hindus Dear friends, I am yet to read ‘Breaking India.”. But I have read ‘Castes of the Mind’ by Prof.Nicholas Dirks of Columbia University, and know about...