02-06-2004, 05:13 AM
More Hindu baiting by western "theorists"
HINDUISM IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE � Reform, Hindutva, Gender, and
Sampraday: Antony Copley � Editor; Oxford University Press, 2/11,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110001. Rs. 595.
It's been reviewed in 'The HINDU'.
http://www.hindu.com/br/2004/02/03/stories...20300311400.htm
THE BOOK under review, which is a volume of essays, is an examination
of the contemporary status of Hinduism under the shadow of Hindutva.
The essays featured are a valiant attempt to disengage Hinduism from
Hindutva as well as distance Indian identity from a distorted pursuit
of an exclusivist idea of "Hinduness".
This rich and varied collection is circumscribed by two major themes.
The first is to examine the possibility of ever approximating to an
ideal of secular nationalism within the Indian context. This seems to
most authors as a contentious issue, given their idea of Indian
society as predominantly religious. The other theme deals with the
distinction between the public and the private realms and the
question of the rightful place of religion in these spaces.
Several other inferences follow from these two overarching paradigms.
It is assumed that any semblance of collusion between religious
reform movements in India and Hindutva is to be viewed as a
distortion. This, in turn, flows from the belief that the essential
core, if any, of Hinduism was largely tolerant. The editor expresses
horror at the cruel appropriation of "tolerant" and
essentially "spiritually enriching" Hinduism for political purposes
by the votaries of Hindutva: "But one can see how disturbing it must
be for India's secular historians to discover that the history of its
modern religious institutions has to take on a new resonance and that
the ways in which the sadhus were/are organised and mobilised both in
the past and the present are no longer part of the history of some
exotic religious culture but directly relevant to the cut and thrust
of political events." To put it mildly, this is na�ve and self-
indulgent.
Hinduism can hardly ever be seen as non-political or apolitical. This
tendency to reduce Hinduism into an inward-looking, non-worldly and
essentially tolerant faith helps in underwriting the dogmatism of the
Hindutva brigade.
The tolerance of the "mild" Hindu is the very politics of Hindutva;
it helps to portray Muslims, Christians and dissenting Hindus as the
provocateurs. To argue that Hindutva is a modern aberration and has
nothing to do with a pristine, original form of Hinduism is to
support the very idea of a Golden Age that Hindutva so vociferously
promotes.
It is instructive that the editor takes note of Wilhem Halbfass's
formidable thesis about the repressive tolerance of the Hindus: the
inability of the Hindus to confront other faiths in order to learn
from them. Halbfass argued that this resulted in actual practice of
intolerance. The unfortunate bit is that neither Copley nor any of
the other contributors engage with this very important formulation.
Of course, Halbfass's thesis is only partially true. Hinduism
did "learn" from other faiths by caricaturing them in the first
instance and then remodelling itself on them. These caricatures were
not always negative; they could just be gross simplifications.
Vivekananda's oft quoted � Copley's introduction also includes it �
statement about future India being a synthesis of a Vedantic mind and
an Islamic body belongs squarely to this genre.
Look at the trajectory of this argument. Firstly, the mind has
inevitably been privileged with the body subservient to it. Secondly,
Vedanta would consider the body to be an entity engulfed in "Maya",
prone to decay and, hence, transitory. To build a theory of tolerance
on the basis of this quote is to practise self-delusion.
Neither does the distinction between the private and the public helps
very much. The legacy of Hannah Arendt looms large over this
distinction. Arendt romanticised the public sphere, reducing it to no
more than a college debating society. (This is not to suggest that
there is no distinction between the public and private. In fact it is
just that, a distinction, and not a set of mutually exclusive spheres
or realms.) There is far too much premium put on secular nationalism
as a consequence. The modern state in Europe and its theory is little
more than secularised theological concepts, where the Omnipotent God
has cosmetically given way to an omnipotent law-giver, either in the
guise of a person or in the abstraction called sovereignty.
The question confronting India today is one of an alternative to
Hindutva, not merely in political terms, but in the sense of
constructing an alternate theory of reality that goes beyond the
mindless parroting of homilies about Atman and Brahman. The way out
lies in a clear understanding of Indian theories of materialism on
the one hand and in looking afresh at Buddha's stupendous
philosophical and ethical revolution.
In more recent times, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Tagore and Gandhiji
confronted these very issues of Hindu identity and emerged with
dazzling insights. But as long as the Indian mind continues to
partake of the serpent and rope logic, there is little hope. It is
time now to ask why the sanctum sanctorum was dark in the first
place.
HINDUISM IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE � Reform, Hindutva, Gender, and
Sampraday: Antony Copley � Editor; Oxford University Press, 2/11,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110001. Rs. 595.
It's been reviewed in 'The HINDU'.
http://www.hindu.com/br/2004/02/03/stories...20300311400.htm
THE BOOK under review, which is a volume of essays, is an examination
of the contemporary status of Hinduism under the shadow of Hindutva.
The essays featured are a valiant attempt to disengage Hinduism from
Hindutva as well as distance Indian identity from a distorted pursuit
of an exclusivist idea of "Hinduness".
This rich and varied collection is circumscribed by two major themes.
The first is to examine the possibility of ever approximating to an
ideal of secular nationalism within the Indian context. This seems to
most authors as a contentious issue, given their idea of Indian
society as predominantly religious. The other theme deals with the
distinction between the public and the private realms and the
question of the rightful place of religion in these spaces.
Several other inferences follow from these two overarching paradigms.
It is assumed that any semblance of collusion between religious
reform movements in India and Hindutva is to be viewed as a
distortion. This, in turn, flows from the belief that the essential
core, if any, of Hinduism was largely tolerant. The editor expresses
horror at the cruel appropriation of "tolerant" and
essentially "spiritually enriching" Hinduism for political purposes
by the votaries of Hindutva: "But one can see how disturbing it must
be for India's secular historians to discover that the history of its
modern religious institutions has to take on a new resonance and that
the ways in which the sadhus were/are organised and mobilised both in
the past and the present are no longer part of the history of some
exotic religious culture but directly relevant to the cut and thrust
of political events." To put it mildly, this is na�ve and self-
indulgent.
Hinduism can hardly ever be seen as non-political or apolitical. This
tendency to reduce Hinduism into an inward-looking, non-worldly and
essentially tolerant faith helps in underwriting the dogmatism of the
Hindutva brigade.
The tolerance of the "mild" Hindu is the very politics of Hindutva;
it helps to portray Muslims, Christians and dissenting Hindus as the
provocateurs. To argue that Hindutva is a modern aberration and has
nothing to do with a pristine, original form of Hinduism is to
support the very idea of a Golden Age that Hindutva so vociferously
promotes.
It is instructive that the editor takes note of Wilhem Halbfass's
formidable thesis about the repressive tolerance of the Hindus: the
inability of the Hindus to confront other faiths in order to learn
from them. Halbfass argued that this resulted in actual practice of
intolerance. The unfortunate bit is that neither Copley nor any of
the other contributors engage with this very important formulation.
Of course, Halbfass's thesis is only partially true. Hinduism
did "learn" from other faiths by caricaturing them in the first
instance and then remodelling itself on them. These caricatures were
not always negative; they could just be gross simplifications.
Vivekananda's oft quoted � Copley's introduction also includes it �
statement about future India being a synthesis of a Vedantic mind and
an Islamic body belongs squarely to this genre.
Look at the trajectory of this argument. Firstly, the mind has
inevitably been privileged with the body subservient to it. Secondly,
Vedanta would consider the body to be an entity engulfed in "Maya",
prone to decay and, hence, transitory. To build a theory of tolerance
on the basis of this quote is to practise self-delusion.
Neither does the distinction between the private and the public helps
very much. The legacy of Hannah Arendt looms large over this
distinction. Arendt romanticised the public sphere, reducing it to no
more than a college debating society. (This is not to suggest that
there is no distinction between the public and private. In fact it is
just that, a distinction, and not a set of mutually exclusive spheres
or realms.) There is far too much premium put on secular nationalism
as a consequence. The modern state in Europe and its theory is little
more than secularised theological concepts, where the Omnipotent God
has cosmetically given way to an omnipotent law-giver, either in the
guise of a person or in the abstraction called sovereignty.
The question confronting India today is one of an alternative to
Hindutva, not merely in political terms, but in the sense of
constructing an alternate theory of reality that goes beyond the
mindless parroting of homilies about Atman and Brahman. The way out
lies in a clear understanding of Indian theories of materialism on
the one hand and in looking afresh at Buddha's stupendous
philosophical and ethical revolution.
In more recent times, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Tagore and Gandhiji
confronted these very issues of Hindu identity and emerged with
dazzling insights. But as long as the Indian mind continues to
partake of the serpent and rope logic, there is little hope. It is
time now to ask why the sanctum sanctorum was dark in the first
place.