Kripal defended his creative bending of the meaning of Bengali
texts by quoting from Gadamer’s theories of interpretation. Gadamer’s ‘fusion of horizons’ is a method by which
today’s scholar can reinterpret classical texts in ways that were not part of
the original author’s intent and meanings.
Such new interpretations are deemed legitimate by this theory. They expand the
orthodox meanings with new possibilities. The theory says that the contemporary horizon (i.e. Kripal’s attitude) fuses with the past horizon (i.e. the tradition’s view) and produces a third text that
‘goes beyond its author’ and leads to new meanings. This is how Kripal
justifies his application of parochial and Eurocentric lenses, to create new
meanings.
Malhotra seizes Kripal’s method of analysis and wishes to apply it
in the pursuit of constructive and progressive Hindu theology:
Agreeing with his principle, let us ask why, then, are Hindu
scholars denigrated when they apply ‘probes or techniques of analysis’, such as
the use of astronomical data in classical Indian texts, to bring about ‘fusions
of horizons’ and ‘radically new visions’ pertaining to Indic traditions? Are these fresh conclusions ‘a bit shocking to
someone locked into only one horizon of meaning’—namely, are RISA cohorts boxed-in
mentally? Why don’t they critically examine these new claims, instead of rushing to condemn such scholarship
as neo-fascist, fundamentalist, Hindu Nationalist and other assorted abuses, without
any basis? Or is it that Gadamer’s theory
of new hermeneutics works only in the direction chosen by the dominant culture,
imposing itself to overrule the interpretation indigenous to the colonized
culture? [Emphasis added]
Taking this point further, why
are Hindus’ own new religious reinterpretations not given credence and why are such interpretations dismissed as being inauthentic—often by
this very cult of scholars? Do non-white people have the same rights of
re-reinterpretation, without supervision by the dominant
culture, and not as mere proxies? Furthermore, why am I attacked when I use a method
to deconstruct certain RISA members, when they use the very same methods
themselves? Could it be that my conclusions are a bit shocking to someone
locked into only one horizon of meaning?
Thus, these asymmetries of power can also lead to Western
cultural hegemony rather than greater diversity. Ultimately, who, and on what basis,
should determine which interpretations are valid and which are not?
It cannot simply be a matter of prior usage or acceptance by the
power structure, for that would perpetuate hegemony and go against the very
innovation that Kripal espouses. In
practice, how does one avoid adhikara (authority)
being usurped by a dominant coterie based mainly on power? RISA scholars have evaded debating these methods openly, with their
critics. […]”
Multiple Competing Worldviews
In defending himself in Evam, Kripal noted:
I do not honestly believe that the many important differences
that have become apparent through this controversy can be fully resolved here
or in any other format, as many of us are clearly operating out of radically
different worldviews, moral values, and understandings of human sexuality and
language.
Kripal here displays a culturally myopic perspective. His
principle, stated above, accepts that different views will not get fully
reconciled. The problem then is that only a very tiny percentage of the core information
and perspectives about Hinduism gets presented in classrooms. Given the limited time available in classrooms, it is impossible to explain Hinduism completely.
Hence, critical choices are made about the academic lenses through which
Hinduism is presented.
Malhotra raises a serious
question:
Which of the divergent views available in the marketplace of
ideas ends up dominating in the classrooms? This is where the power of the
dominant culture—in controlling the distribution of scholarship, media, and
classroom teaching—has resulted in Hinduism being reduced to the lower level in
the spectrum of meanings.
As an example of resolving this asymmetric power over
distribution, Kripal was given the opportunity to respond to Swami Tyagananda
in Evam, a new journal funded by Malhotra’s Infinity
Foundation. However, the
diaspora did not receive equivalent access to give their views using the
channels of knowledge that are controlled by the academy.
[Kripal] categorically refused to allow Swami Tyagananda’s rejoinder
to get published on par with his own work, which would have enabled
Tyagananda’s work to also get catalogued, indexed and distributed to the same
extent as his own. This attitude is driven by 3rd chakra
power obsession and is also found in many Christian positions that ‘tolerate’
other religions, but cannot ‘respect’ them, because the latter would be
tantamount to legitimizing them. (For more on
this, please read page 110 and 111, chapter 10)
The Khyber Pass of the distribution of Hinduism scholarship in
academics consists of journals, university presses, appointment committees, curricula
development, and conferences. This is carefully controlled by sepoys
and chowkidars who work for a small handful of well-entrenched scholar titans.
Because of this hegemonic control over distribution channels, Doniger’s
books are amongst the most widely prescribed in the college curricula on
Hinduism. She is also the editor of an influential
encyclopedia of world religions. And she authored Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia,
which after being on the market for several years, was analyzed by Sankrant
Sanu and shown to be so full of bias and stereotypes, that it was withdrawn by
Microsoft.
The Colonizer’s Mentality
RISA scholars condemn their
Indian-American interrogators using no holds-barred hyperbolic terms to label
and silence them. They are accustomed to dealing
only with certain categories of Indians, and when they meet Indians outside of
these boxes, their attempts to apply their standard tools of domination fail,
leading them to great frustration. Malhotra notes:
1. Many Western scholars of Indian religions are adept at
manipulating and dealing with poor villagers in India, whom they term ‘native informants’,
and from whom they extract research data using their own precontrived filters.
This has often been done with the collusion of Indian scholars, NGOs and
intermediaries. The native informants feel obliged
to dish out what is expected of them by the foreign scholar, who has a lot of
grant money to spread around in the data gathering process.
2. In more recent times, these scholars have also had to deal
with a second category of Indians—the semi-informed and naïve diaspora youth,
called ‘heritage students’. Some scholars have been able to adjust their
teachings to not seem blatantly anti-Hindu. Given
the power and knowledge imbalance, they often adopt deceptively friendly
demeanors and portrayals and succeed in fooling the youth into imagining that
these scholars genuinely respect their traditions. They convince them that what they teach must be
authentic. Duplicity and ambiguity are used as
strategic tools by some, because it is widely believed that Hindus are
non-confrontational by nature. (For more on how other scholars like John Keay, Antonio de
Nicolas, Gayatri Chakravorty-Spivak And Dilip Chakrabarti look at this
situation, please read page 112 and 113, chapter 10)
Under the subtitle We are Not Native Informants Any More! Malhotra explains how the power structure is
shifting:
The specific kind of Indian that certain RISA scholars are most uncomfortable with, is the Indian who is already successful in a Western
organization, and especially one who has managed over a large number of Westerners for an extensive period of time.
Such a person is not likely to idolize them, or be easily taken for a ride. Any
Indian who has succeeded in dealing with Westerners on their own turf must have
enough insight into the Western mind, its strengths and weaknesses, and must be
self-confident. Scholars can neither exploit such a person as a ‘native
informant,’ nor patronize him in the same manner as a young NRI student looking
for a good grade. For one thing, any such Indian is bound to challenge them,
rather than accept their scholarship at face value, and is likely to be skilled
at debate and negotiation.
An additional dimension stems from over-specialization, and the systematic
exclusion from the peer-review process of experts such as traditional Indian
pandits and other indigenous subject matter or language scholars. Within the Western academy, the more specialized a
scholar is the less oversight and due diligence is possible, because there are
fewer and fewer others who are able to challenge within that ultra specialized field.
This breeds the cults of micro-specialties.
When assertive and knowledgeable Indians show up, the tables are
suddenly turned. Malhotra describes three factors that work to preserve this
power structure:
1. Western scholars like to prey
upon uneducated Indians: The Western
scholar of the humanities is sometimes unable to deal with the reality that she
or he is lower on the West’s scale of rational training as compared to
successful Indians who are well-educated in science, engineering, medicine,
finance, management, entrepreneurship or other areas where analytical skills are critical. This business of depicting the Indian
traditions as somehow irrational or backward is unsustainable in front of
modern Indians . . . It is ironic that some scholars hide behind their ‘dense writings’ with great pride. Frankly, far too many writings from Religious Studies
are poorly structured, loosely argued, and sometimes outright illogical. They
have no
grounds for their arrogance about intellectual rigor.
2. The RISA Establishment has
neutralized the most threatening Indian dissenters: Eurocentric scholars are accustomed to exerting
power over Indians when they are in PhD programs, when they are seeking jobs in
the academy, seeking to be included in conferences or publishing projects, and
seeking favorable recommendations for tenure. Many Indians thus get reprogrammed
as sepoys. However, when facing a
successful Indian who neither wants nor needs their favors, many Eurocentric
scholars feel powerless and threatened.
3. Empowered
executive/entrepreneurial Indians are ignorant of this: Most Indians who have purely by chance encountered
the kind of scholarship described in this chapter, and who are successful and assertive professionals independent of the academy,
are inadequately informed and unable to deal with the scholars. This is why,
from 1995 through 2000, I had to first prepare myself by devoting almost all of
my time to reading extensively in a wide variety of humanities subjects. Most scholars are too busy with administrative and
other routines, and their own particular line of research, to do this. This
academic isolation makes any knowledgeable challenger especially threatening to
their sense of superiority.
Many of these scholars of Indian Studies would love to silence
the ‘threatening’ voices that call out their shortcomings. This reminds one of
some corporate men who find it hard to respect a female boss. Revisiting the
overblown anger of Gerald Larson and his colleagues regarding the alleged
‘hijacking’ of Hinduism Studies by Hindus, Malhotra observes:
Any attempt by Hindus to claim
agency, or to take charge of their own affairs—be it
looking after their own people without Western guidance, or be it doing
scholarship to interpret and reinterpret their dharmas as they choose—is seen
as an attack on the Eurocentric person’s domination of the world. This includes the Eurocentric person’s right to
license those neocolonized persons he chooses to appoint under terms and
conditions and under supervision ultimately controlled by Eurocentric people. One
has to psychoanalyze the strange behavior of many neo-colonialized Indian
scholars in this light.
The article ‘RISA
Lila-1: Wendy’s Child Syndrome’ generated
a tremendous response. Hundreds of comments were posted on Sulekha and the
essay was discussed on numerous scholarly forums, including RISA. The Internet
is diminishing the differential between the people on the plains (the Hindu
laity) and the elite scholars of Hinduism Studies who inhabit the heights of
the highly touted Ivory Towers. A paradigm shift is upon us.
Read entire chapter 10 from page 108 to 115
Go to chapter 11
No comments:
Post a Comment