|
Issue
Summary
INTRODUCTION
A
recent online petition generated by a group of Hindu students
at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette (U.S.A.), set in
motion a succession of events that continue to galvanize the
Hindu-American community to an unprecedented extent. The successful
petition objected to a series of profane and slanderous interpretations
of Lord Ganesha, a beloved Hindu manifestation of the Divine,
which were published by Dr. Paul Courtright, Professor and
Interim Chairman of the Department of Religion, Emory University
(Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.), in his book, Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles,
Lord of Beginnings (reissued 2001, Motilal Banarasidas).
FROM
THE BOOK ITSELF
Renowned
scholars have rejected Freudian psychoanalytic paradigms for
their inadequacy to interpret faith and mysticism. Yet Prof.
Courtright used those very techniques in his obscene misinterpretation
of Lord Ganesha. Some of his now infamous quotations follow:
• "Its (Ganesa's) trunk is the displaced phallus,
a caricature of Siva's linga. It poses no threat because it
is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful
for sexual purposes." (Page 121)
•
"He [Ganesa] remains celibate so as not to compete erotically
with his father, a notorious womanizer, either incestuously
for his mother or for any other woman for that matter."
(Page
110)
•
"So Ganesa takes on the attributes of his father but
in an inverted form, with an exaggerated limp phallus-ascetic
and benign- whereas Siva’s is "hard" (ur-dhvalinga),
erotic and destructive."
(Page 121)
• "Both in his behavior and iconographic form Ganesa
resembles in some aspects, the figure of the eunuch...Ganesha
is like eunuch guarding the women of the harem." (Page
111)
•
"Although there seems to be no myths or folktales in
which Ganesa explicitly performs oral sex; his insatiable
appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy
a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic
disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones."
(Page
111)
•
"Ganesa's broken tusk, his guardian's staff, and displaced
head can be interpreted as symbols of castration." (Page
111)
•
"Feeding Ganesa copious quantities of modakas, satisfying
his oral/erotic desires, also keeps him from becoming genitally
erotic like his father." (Page
113)
•
"The perpetual son desiring to remain close to his mother
and having an insatiable appetite for sweets evokes associations
of oral eroticism. Denied the possibility of reaching the
stage of full genital masculine power by the omnipotent force
of the father, the son seeks gratification in some acceptable
way." (Page
113)
The
chapter abounded with many more perverse metaphors; among
others, the domestic life of Lords Shiva and Parvathi was
analogized to a marriage replete with the most sorry of dysfunctionalities.
Nowhere in Hindu scripture, nor in Hindu belief or practice,
will a researcher find any of these bizarre ideas. Courtright
simply made them up.
PATTERN
OF PROFANITIES
This
desecration—that compelled the students to action—
was first exposed to a larger audience by the epochal work
of Rajiv Malhotra. In an essay entitled, RISA
Lila-1: Wendy’s Child Syndrome, and published
on the Indian webzine Sulekha, Mr. Malhotra published his
exposé of the misrepresentations and misinterpretations
of Indic religious traditions that have acquired legitimacy
in Western academia for a variety of reasons. It was in that
essay that Mr. Malhotra adopted the role of a whistleblower
of sorts, called the bluff of these sloppy academics, and
surveyed the asymmetries in power, knowledge manufacturing,
and distribution that have allowed a small group of self-declared
Hinduism “experts” to serve as gatekeepers for
interpretation of Hinduism in the West. They diminish various
manifestations of God, as worshiped by Hindus, into laughable
mythical caricatures; they assail the sanctity of the Bhagavad
Gita as nothing more than a violent call to arms; they assault
the morality of Shri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, two
of the most prominent Hindu saints of the 19th century as
pedophilic homosexuals.
Such
profanities are apparently part of their hidden agenda to
systematically debase the very foundations of Sanatana Dharma.
Their goal appears to be for academia—and,
eventually, the mainstream—to project Hindus as a people
worshiping cartoonish Gods, adhering to an irrational scripture,
and paying homage to despicable saints. Academic
chicanery stood exposed to a large audience following RISA
Lila-1.
While
a section of the Hindu spiritual leadership was aware of such
attacks, most Hindus were oblivious. Swami Tyagananda of the
Ramakrishna Mission previously published a
103-page rebuttal to the offensive depictions by Professor
Jeffrey Kripal (Rice University, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.) of
Shri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda.
It
was the petition on Prof. Courtright’s book on Ganesha
that awakened a slumbering Hindu consciousness in the United
States. The spectacular momentum generated by the petition
garnered nearly 5,000 signatures within the few days before
it was closed. It inspired Motilal Banarasidas (MLBD) to issue
a public apology in major Indian newspapers and cease distribution
of the book.
The
publisher acted not because of a constitutionally dubious
governmental ban (as in the recent West Bengal ban on Taslima
Nasreen’s book or on the Satanic Verses) but because
of the realities of public outrage and their own legitimacy
as a publisher of Hindu topics.
RISA
REACTS
The
rapidly changing events inaugurated a flurry of activity on
a web-based discussion group of the Religions of South Asia
(RISA) section of the American Academy of Religions (AAR).
The fascinating window this listserv allows into the mindset—often
tortured rationalizations—of a multitude of mutually
proclaimed “Hindu scholars” in American academe,
as well as a variety of revealing emails to Mr. Malhotra,
led to his serialization of his previous essay on Sulekha
and was entitled, RISA
Lila-2-Limp Scholarship and Demonology.
The
Cloak of Academic Freedom
While
the initial ire of the RISA discussants focused upon Mr. Malhotra
and a minority of scholars that dared to post dissenting views
to Dr. Courtright’s book, MLBD became the focus of fury
(and a coordinated boycott effort) with their decision to
halt publication. The professors calling for a boycott explicitly
mentioned the dollars they had spent on MLBD publications
and some wrote to MLBD asking for books they had authored
to not be published—clear financial extortion.
Mr.
Malhotra documents these abuses in RISA Lila-2 and offers
a marketing paradigm: With MLBD being the largest Indian-owned
Indology publishing house, the attempt by Western academics
to force MLBD to its knees parallels the methodology of the
East India Company’s progressive monopolization in pre-colonial
India—i.e., establishing control of distribution channels
of knowledge. And while these abusive professors cry for academic
freedom, they conveniently ignore their own responsibilities
enshrined in the guidelines of the American Association of
University Professors that professors should, “at all
times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint,
should show respect for the opinions of others.”
A
small minority, however, rose to MLBD’s defense, decried
the boycott threat, and shedding vestiges of a neo-colonial
mentality suggested that a dawning realization of the pervasive
anti-Hindu bias among the Christian and Marxist scholars who
study Hinduism inspired MLBD to take this very drastic measure.
Sympathetic
Scholars
In
the early moments of the RISA debate, an earnest minority
of scholars courageously posted opinions that compelled their
fellow intellectuals to understand the dimensions of the debate
beyond the clear damage to the Hindu psyche—they realized
the need to begin a meta analysis of what Dr. Courtright had
elicited.
Behold
the audacity of Antonio de Nicolas, Professor Emeritus of
Philosophy at SUNY-Stony Brook (Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A),
who resolutely declared, “A scholar who
does not know how to present other cultures by their own criteria
should not be allowed to teach those cultures.
His freedom of speech is not guaranteed by his ignorance.”
Ramdas
Lamb, Professor of Religion at the University of Hawaii (Honolulu,
Hawaii, U.S.A), also broke ranks with the majority of academics
and assailed the Freudian psychoanalysis. Use of the technique,
he argued, “seems to say far more about
the writer and his focus than about the way Ganesha has been
historically understood by Hindus.” Demonstrating
an intricate understanding of Hindu sentiments he echoed the
indignation of nearly a billion Hindus when he asked,
“Just because we are scholars, does that mean we can
say and write whatever we wish, irrespective of its accuracy
or impact?”
Another
voice of anguished reason was that of Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad,
Senior Lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at
Lancaster University (Lancaster, United Kingdom). In a wide-ranging
post, Dr. Ram-Prasad called the numerous Hindu scholars that
participate on the listserv to task for not weighing in with
opinions on the issue. He went on to forewarn his colleagues
that “confrontational explorations” with conservative
Hindus is inevitable if the current inclination towards intellectual
snobbery is not altered. Inequities are assured, Dr. Ram-Prasad
argues, by “the vast asymmetries of access,
exposure and privilege that still mark non-western efforts
to have a voice in the west.”
Muzzling
Dissent and Demonology
Many
more listserv members, however, used the discussion as a pretext
for a witch-hunt and attempted character assassinations against
Mr. Malhotra and the scholars that dared show sympathy to
the sentiments of practicing Hindus by linking them to the
Sangh Parivar—the “devil” for these academicians.
In RISA Lila-2, Mr. Malhotra discusses the attempted
imposition of a perverse casteism in the dialogue with the
Hindu Diaspora. There have been documented attempts from within
academia to cast off Mr. Malhotra and the aforementioned scholars
as the new “untouchables.” The sad reality that
these marked scholars had to go to great lengths to categorically
reject any association with perceived “demons”
and disprove allegations illustrates rather well the politicization
of the academy and the McCarthyesque ostracism of sympathizers
of opposing ideologies. Perhaps, most disturbing was the failure
of the moderator of the RISA listserv, Deepak Sarma (Lecturer
of Religious Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,
U.S.A.), to prevent such outrages while censuring Dr. de Nicolas
for voicing his support for Hindu sensibilities.
THE
CULTURAL CONTEXT: CALL FOR VIGILANCE
Appropriation
of Symbolic Capital
In
addition to following the RISA debate to gain insights into
the prevalent perspectives among academicians, the societal
constructs that make this attack on Lord Ganesha possible
must be examined. Symbols are a form of cultural capital.
Competing civilizations hijack valuable symbols of their opponents
to boost their own capital, and simultaneously denigrate other
symbols to lower their brand value. Mr. Malhotra cautions
that the appropriation of symbolic cultural capital is a precursor
to cultural and physical genocide. We give the benefit of
the doubt and presume there is no conscious or intentional
master strategy or conspiracy, but the effect of the semi-conscious
Christian myth playing out is still the same as if it were
intentionally designed. Many pagan symbols such as the “Christmas”
tree and “Easter” eggs were hijacked even as the
pagans were physically and culturally annihilated. Native
Americans have successfully sued in U.S. courts to put a stop
to the appropriations and distortions of their symbols for
all sorts of frivolous uses – for example, sports team
names – by a culture that the Native Americans regard
as their executioner.
At
the AAR 2002 meeting, a major presentation consisted of a
Christianized Bharat Natyam dance (featuring the story of
Jesus and Mary). In parallel, other sacred symbols –
such as Ganesha – that cannot be Christianized are being
denigrated into oblivion.
This dynamic must be examined in the context of symbols as
a form of capital. What can be appropriated as positive serves
to boost the portfolio of the conqueror, and what remains
unavailable is trashed to turn it into a liability of the
other side.
Asymmetry
of Power and Relationship to Knowledge
While
knowledge creates power, the converse is also true—power
is used to shape what people are told to believe. By understanding
this basic principle we can decode how the game is played,
what the rules are, what strategies are deployed, and what
roles various persons perform—even if these roles are
played unconsciously as cogs in a machine.
The
dominant culture (defined as the one with asymmetric power
in its favor) controls the shaping of knowledge to its own
benefit. The dominant culture is depicted as good, beautiful,
and true in order to legitimize its power and perpetuate it.
Those being dominated are depicted as inherently inferior.
Then
a slice of the dominated people sells out into this mechanism
for personal gain - the sepoys, brown sahibs, collaborators,
and uncle toms - and these become the
intermediaries between the dominant and dominated.
These
intermediaries include Indian academicians, journalists and
self-promoting NGO leaders. To the West they are useful as
they (1) supply knowledge about India that the dominant culture
can consider the official truth about India, even though these
intermediaries are not genuine voices of native culture, and
(2) protect the dominant culture by bearing the onus of the
dirty work—much like Indian sepoys that fired the bullets
against fellow Indians on behalf of the British Empire.
To
the natives, these pawns are built up as larger-than-life
icons to celebrate as role models. Hence, the importance given
to selecting them for awards, granting them travel funds to
the West and promoting their works in the media and academy.
The brown sahib and sepoy prototype is a convenient cultural
icon—an invaluable asset to assure continuity of the
asymmetry into the future.
EPILOGUE
The
Hindu American Foundation has chosen to summarize this recent
controversy and highlight the elegantly presented analyses
of Mr. Malhotra and the Infinity Foundation for very specific
reasons: (1) this objectionable effort by Dr. Courtright typifies
the work of many other academics that continually deconstruct—and
ultimately debase—Hindu tenets, symbols and sacraments;
(2) the perverse conclusions that such academics put forth
gain legitimacy in Western society, are referenced and are
widely taught due to the asymmetries in control over academia,
and power over communication and distribution; (3) all Hindus
must become aware of this intolerance of dissent, and appropriation
of symbols that ultimately affect the narrative of Hinduism
in schools, media and policy throughout the world.
The Infinity
Foundation is a non-profit charitable foundation dedicated
to encouraging efforts in furthering wisdom and compassion.
The foundation is based in Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
The
Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a non-profit 501(c)3 organization,
seeks to establish an unaffiliated, cross-sampradaya (Hindu
religious traditions) public voice for Hindu Americans. Currently
a nascent entity, HAF will be formally launched in 2004. For
inquiries, please contact HAF.
|
