12-14-2004, 12:34 AM
More on Amy Braverman article.. A post by RM on sulekha..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What Amy Braverman chose to ignore:
Before evaluating the politics behind her story, please read some of the letters from third parties who had written to Ms. Braverman when she first contacted me about her article. It is clear that she chose to mostly ignore what they and others like them had to say.
Furthermore, I sent her a list of about 30 contacts, mostly academic scholars, who had many years of involvement on this debate, but she chose to ignore them, except for one or two:
Here are 3 of the letters she got:
<b>From Dr. Krishnan Ramaswamy:</b>
Dear Ms. Braverman,
My name is Krishnan Ramaswamy, and I have several years of experience in research in the clinical and social sciences. I am particularly interested in methodological issues and how the quality of research and scholarship are harmed or helped by the methods, processes and safeguards (such as peer review) that are employed in research.
I am very glad that you are writing about an important issue which over the years has caused serious concern and discussion about the reputation of the University of Chicago among scholars and methodologists in the social sciences as well as many concerned Hindu-American taxpayers who support and care about our Public Universities. Mr. Malhotra definitely deserves credit for bringing this long simmering debate into the open. These issues - particularly to do with the 1) lack of intellectual rigor, 2) Lack of adequate scholarly preparation including language skills 2) a break down of the peer-review process, 3) a tendency to present biases and prejudices as âProvenâ research conclusions, 4) fads and personal predilections elevated to the level of systematic âmethodologyâ 5) Lack of transparency about personal affiliations or funding affiliations to groups that may have a religious /ideological agenda, among members of âHinduism Studiesâ Departments at Universities such as the University of Chicago - are very serious matters that potentially debase the very basis of liberal education in our country. In addition, Hindu-Americans, other Hindus and their children are often subject to Hate-crimes, denigration and Hindu-Phobia because of misunderstandings about their religion and culture- a situation not helped when some of the misunderstanding is the result of bad scholarship by our academics.
I believe that Alumni of the University of Chicago will be well served if you focus the attention of your article on these substantive issues, (many of which intellectuals like Rajiv Malhotra, Sankrant Sanu and even academics like Srinivas Tilak and Antonio de Nicholas have highlighted) rather than try to focus on personalities.
I note that you have asked about Mr Malhotra's background and funding, as well as his relationship with venues that have edited and published him over the years. So that you can a present fair and balanced account to University of Chicago Alumni, I am sure you will be asking similar questions regarding funding sources (particularly whether any of these funds come from
groups with a Religious or Political ideation) and about the relationship of Messers Doniger, Kripal and Courtright with the editors and referees of the Journals and publishers who publish their work. Are they related persons? Do they have financial and career ties to each other? If so how do we guarantee that they can critique and question without fear or favor? Mr Malhotra has been candid in answering your questions. I truly do wonder, if Doniger et al will provide you with succinct and honest answers to these important questions.
Another issue that distresses me as a person who values intellectual freedom and honesty is the reaction that some "Hindu studies scholars" have when their Scholarship is challenged on SUBSTANTIVE grounds: they respond with ad hominem attacks about the character and motivation of the critics, play the victim, they circle the wagons and claim they are being "attacked" by "extremists" - but NEVER get around to addressing the detailed, specific and
substantive issues, that in most other fields of academic would never be allowed to stand without a full scale review or peer investigation. Surely a big part of intellectual freedom is the freedom of all of us to scrutinize and question the works of other intellectuals without being demonized, and a
big part of academic and intellectual honesty is to be able and willing to examine and acknowledge substantive problems with one's work, methods and conclusions no matter who points these out?
I wish you all the best with your article. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications.
Best Regards,
Krishnan Ramaswamy PhD
"Civil dissent is conscience in action- the very basis of freedom" - Mahatma Gandhi
<b>From Prof. VV Raman:</b>
Dear Ms Braverman:
I understand you are planning to write an article based on your interview with Mr. Rajiv Malhotra. I am familiar with his work, and I am also aware of the jolt it has created in the world of Western scholarship on India. From what I know and what I have read in this context, the following are some of the things I would like to say. Mr. Malhotra is a serious and well-grounded scholar. He did not come to this field via the standard academic route, but his writings reflect more erudition and a greater grasp of important issues than many Ph.D.'s I know. His principal argument has been (as I see it) that Western scholarship has, in many instances, totally misunderstood, both intentionally and unwittingly, the essence of Indic culture, thought, philosophy, and religion. This has led to gross distortions and misrepresentations of India and Indic culture with serious and significant impacts on intercultural understanding. Mr. Malhotra has developed theories and models to explain and interpret this phenomenon. I am aware that he has generated much unpleasantness, even acrimony, among many scholars. Because of his firm stand and sometimes angry style, he has angered the Western academic establishment on Indology, and alienated a great many, including some Hindu scholars: the latter, because he comes out very strongly (sometimes unfairly, in my opinion) against Hindus who do not share his vision on these matters. But he has also shaken many to look deeper into the assumptions and unrecognized prejudices which shape their interpretations. And he has served as a bold and well-informed voice for many Hindus in the West as well as in India who have often felt hurt and insulted by some of the psychoanalytic interpretations of their culture and divinities. Personally, I don't agree with Mr. Malhotra's style and mode, and I don't always resonate with his demarcation lines between the East and the West, but I have great respect for his scholarship, much sympathy for the core of his theses, and I applaud his long-range goal. One more thing: To my knowledge, he is not affiliated with any Hindu âfundamentalistâ group. I trust that in your article you will present a balanced view of Mr. Malhotra and his work, and help heal the wounds that have been created on the whole issue of Western scholarship on India, whether at the University of Chicago or elsewhere. I believe that much good will come out of these wounds in the long run. When you write your article, please bear in mind that the goal is not to engage in battle, but to establish fairness, mutual understanding and respect not only among scholars, but also among the cultures and traditions of the human family. As you well know, this is urgently needed in the chaotic world in which we live today.
Best regards,
V. V. Raman, Emeritus Professor Rochester Institute of Technology
<b>From Prof. Antonio deNicolas:</b>
Dear Ms. Braverman,
I am Prof. Antonio de Nicolas writing to you in view of the Interview of Mr. Rajiv Malhotra in the above mentioned magazine, and the fact that my name is being mentioned in this connection. I have been a Professor of Philosophy at the University of New York, Stony brook, for over thirty-five years, and now Emeritus. I started the study of Indic texts as early as 1969 in the Philosophy Department of my University at a time when it was and continues to be customary to do it in Religious Studies' programs like the University of Chicago. In fact my first contact with the University of Chicago was then when one of the Professors at my University objected to the inclusion of Indic texts in a Philosophy Department for as he said: "There is no philosophy in Hindu texts." This same philosopher from Chicago abstained from voting any time the department had to make any decision on courses related to Indic texts or my own promotions up to the level of full Professor. Needless to say the rest of the Department always voted in favor of the courses, the program or my promotions favorably, for these courses I taught single-handedly had an attendance record of over one thousand students per semester for all those early uninterrupted twenty years, before I retired.
From my experience in Philosophy and teaching Indic texts I came to the conclusion, and my many books (see bn.com under my name) that the University of Chicago labored under a complete misreading of philosophical texts starting with Plato. For Plato to be considered a philosopher by that, and other Professors I know from the University of Chicago, he had to be as close as possible in methodology to Aristotle. In short: Plato was reduced to three mental acts that for these philosophers of the Chicago School consider philosophical and these are: names, definitions and theories. That is, one need only name, define and come up with a theory to be a legitimate philosopher and therefore analyzed any texts proposed for examination. But, Plato clearly said one, two, three, where is the forth?, (and the fifth). For for Plato, as in Indic (oral texts) the forth, memory/imagination and the fifth experience are essential to do philosophy. And this is the main methodological problem when dealing with Indic, Plato's, oral texts: the path includes memory, imagination and experience. And the same applies to the methodologies attributed to the scholars of the Chicago school mentioned in this debate. Otherwise the results are ridiculous and insulting.
My students used to pass around the following note to those doing religious studies at Stony Brook: "And Jesus said unto them: Who do you say I am?"
And they replied: "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of being, the kerigma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our interpersonal relationship."
And Jesus said: "What?"
Do the people we are talking about in our publications recognize themselves in our statements? Are we insulting them? And if so how does the academy consent to it?
I find it also insulting that Mr. Malhotra has been asked to disclose his financial ties, while the
individuals from the University of Chicago are not asked to do the same. Who finances them, who publishes them? What `are the ties involved? Why are these questions important with Mr. Malhotra and not with the others?
So far the debates involving the University of Chicago professors and graduates have managed to tell us what Hinduism is not, and we have wasted enormous amount on time with this negative stereotype. Can your interview help so that we go beyond this stagnant phase and proceed to mark the steps that define the memories and experiences that constitute Hinduism in the living bodies of those that practice it?
And finally, could you manage in your interview to avoid all ad hominen attacks and produce a coherent positive path of discovery based on methodologies and not on personal biases?
Please, count on my support in any way I can be helpful
Sincerely,
Antonio de Nicolas
Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
State University of New York, at` Stony Brook <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What Amy Braverman chose to ignore:
Before evaluating the politics behind her story, please read some of the letters from third parties who had written to Ms. Braverman when she first contacted me about her article. It is clear that she chose to mostly ignore what they and others like them had to say.
Furthermore, I sent her a list of about 30 contacts, mostly academic scholars, who had many years of involvement on this debate, but she chose to ignore them, except for one or two:
Here are 3 of the letters she got:
<b>From Dr. Krishnan Ramaswamy:</b>
Dear Ms. Braverman,
My name is Krishnan Ramaswamy, and I have several years of experience in research in the clinical and social sciences. I am particularly interested in methodological issues and how the quality of research and scholarship are harmed or helped by the methods, processes and safeguards (such as peer review) that are employed in research.
I am very glad that you are writing about an important issue which over the years has caused serious concern and discussion about the reputation of the University of Chicago among scholars and methodologists in the social sciences as well as many concerned Hindu-American taxpayers who support and care about our Public Universities. Mr. Malhotra definitely deserves credit for bringing this long simmering debate into the open. These issues - particularly to do with the 1) lack of intellectual rigor, 2) Lack of adequate scholarly preparation including language skills 2) a break down of the peer-review process, 3) a tendency to present biases and prejudices as âProvenâ research conclusions, 4) fads and personal predilections elevated to the level of systematic âmethodologyâ 5) Lack of transparency about personal affiliations or funding affiliations to groups that may have a religious /ideological agenda, among members of âHinduism Studiesâ Departments at Universities such as the University of Chicago - are very serious matters that potentially debase the very basis of liberal education in our country. In addition, Hindu-Americans, other Hindus and their children are often subject to Hate-crimes, denigration and Hindu-Phobia because of misunderstandings about their religion and culture- a situation not helped when some of the misunderstanding is the result of bad scholarship by our academics.
I believe that Alumni of the University of Chicago will be well served if you focus the attention of your article on these substantive issues, (many of which intellectuals like Rajiv Malhotra, Sankrant Sanu and even academics like Srinivas Tilak and Antonio de Nicholas have highlighted) rather than try to focus on personalities.
I note that you have asked about Mr Malhotra's background and funding, as well as his relationship with venues that have edited and published him over the years. So that you can a present fair and balanced account to University of Chicago Alumni, I am sure you will be asking similar questions regarding funding sources (particularly whether any of these funds come from
groups with a Religious or Political ideation) and about the relationship of Messers Doniger, Kripal and Courtright with the editors and referees of the Journals and publishers who publish their work. Are they related persons? Do they have financial and career ties to each other? If so how do we guarantee that they can critique and question without fear or favor? Mr Malhotra has been candid in answering your questions. I truly do wonder, if Doniger et al will provide you with succinct and honest answers to these important questions.
Another issue that distresses me as a person who values intellectual freedom and honesty is the reaction that some "Hindu studies scholars" have when their Scholarship is challenged on SUBSTANTIVE grounds: they respond with ad hominem attacks about the character and motivation of the critics, play the victim, they circle the wagons and claim they are being "attacked" by "extremists" - but NEVER get around to addressing the detailed, specific and
substantive issues, that in most other fields of academic would never be allowed to stand without a full scale review or peer investigation. Surely a big part of intellectual freedom is the freedom of all of us to scrutinize and question the works of other intellectuals without being demonized, and a
big part of academic and intellectual honesty is to be able and willing to examine and acknowledge substantive problems with one's work, methods and conclusions no matter who points these out?
I wish you all the best with your article. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications.
Best Regards,
Krishnan Ramaswamy PhD
"Civil dissent is conscience in action- the very basis of freedom" - Mahatma Gandhi
<b>From Prof. VV Raman:</b>
Dear Ms Braverman:
I understand you are planning to write an article based on your interview with Mr. Rajiv Malhotra. I am familiar with his work, and I am also aware of the jolt it has created in the world of Western scholarship on India. From what I know and what I have read in this context, the following are some of the things I would like to say. Mr. Malhotra is a serious and well-grounded scholar. He did not come to this field via the standard academic route, but his writings reflect more erudition and a greater grasp of important issues than many Ph.D.'s I know. His principal argument has been (as I see it) that Western scholarship has, in many instances, totally misunderstood, both intentionally and unwittingly, the essence of Indic culture, thought, philosophy, and religion. This has led to gross distortions and misrepresentations of India and Indic culture with serious and significant impacts on intercultural understanding. Mr. Malhotra has developed theories and models to explain and interpret this phenomenon. I am aware that he has generated much unpleasantness, even acrimony, among many scholars. Because of his firm stand and sometimes angry style, he has angered the Western academic establishment on Indology, and alienated a great many, including some Hindu scholars: the latter, because he comes out very strongly (sometimes unfairly, in my opinion) against Hindus who do not share his vision on these matters. But he has also shaken many to look deeper into the assumptions and unrecognized prejudices which shape their interpretations. And he has served as a bold and well-informed voice for many Hindus in the West as well as in India who have often felt hurt and insulted by some of the psychoanalytic interpretations of their culture and divinities. Personally, I don't agree with Mr. Malhotra's style and mode, and I don't always resonate with his demarcation lines between the East and the West, but I have great respect for his scholarship, much sympathy for the core of his theses, and I applaud his long-range goal. One more thing: To my knowledge, he is not affiliated with any Hindu âfundamentalistâ group. I trust that in your article you will present a balanced view of Mr. Malhotra and his work, and help heal the wounds that have been created on the whole issue of Western scholarship on India, whether at the University of Chicago or elsewhere. I believe that much good will come out of these wounds in the long run. When you write your article, please bear in mind that the goal is not to engage in battle, but to establish fairness, mutual understanding and respect not only among scholars, but also among the cultures and traditions of the human family. As you well know, this is urgently needed in the chaotic world in which we live today.
Best regards,
V. V. Raman, Emeritus Professor Rochester Institute of Technology
<b>From Prof. Antonio deNicolas:</b>
Dear Ms. Braverman,
I am Prof. Antonio de Nicolas writing to you in view of the Interview of Mr. Rajiv Malhotra in the above mentioned magazine, and the fact that my name is being mentioned in this connection. I have been a Professor of Philosophy at the University of New York, Stony brook, for over thirty-five years, and now Emeritus. I started the study of Indic texts as early as 1969 in the Philosophy Department of my University at a time when it was and continues to be customary to do it in Religious Studies' programs like the University of Chicago. In fact my first contact with the University of Chicago was then when one of the Professors at my University objected to the inclusion of Indic texts in a Philosophy Department for as he said: "There is no philosophy in Hindu texts." This same philosopher from Chicago abstained from voting any time the department had to make any decision on courses related to Indic texts or my own promotions up to the level of full Professor. Needless to say the rest of the Department always voted in favor of the courses, the program or my promotions favorably, for these courses I taught single-handedly had an attendance record of over one thousand students per semester for all those early uninterrupted twenty years, before I retired.
From my experience in Philosophy and teaching Indic texts I came to the conclusion, and my many books (see bn.com under my name) that the University of Chicago labored under a complete misreading of philosophical texts starting with Plato. For Plato to be considered a philosopher by that, and other Professors I know from the University of Chicago, he had to be as close as possible in methodology to Aristotle. In short: Plato was reduced to three mental acts that for these philosophers of the Chicago School consider philosophical and these are: names, definitions and theories. That is, one need only name, define and come up with a theory to be a legitimate philosopher and therefore analyzed any texts proposed for examination. But, Plato clearly said one, two, three, where is the forth?, (and the fifth). For for Plato, as in Indic (oral texts) the forth, memory/imagination and the fifth experience are essential to do philosophy. And this is the main methodological problem when dealing with Indic, Plato's, oral texts: the path includes memory, imagination and experience. And the same applies to the methodologies attributed to the scholars of the Chicago school mentioned in this debate. Otherwise the results are ridiculous and insulting.
My students used to pass around the following note to those doing religious studies at Stony Brook: "And Jesus said unto them: Who do you say I am?"
And they replied: "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of being, the kerigma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our interpersonal relationship."
And Jesus said: "What?"
Do the people we are talking about in our publications recognize themselves in our statements? Are we insulting them? And if so how does the academy consent to it?
I find it also insulting that Mr. Malhotra has been asked to disclose his financial ties, while the
individuals from the University of Chicago are not asked to do the same. Who finances them, who publishes them? What `are the ties involved? Why are these questions important with Mr. Malhotra and not with the others?
So far the debates involving the University of Chicago professors and graduates have managed to tell us what Hinduism is not, and we have wasted enormous amount on time with this negative stereotype. Can your interview help so that we go beyond this stagnant phase and proceed to mark the steps that define the memories and experiences that constitute Hinduism in the living bodies of those that practice it?
And finally, could you manage in your interview to avoid all ad hominen attacks and produce a coherent positive path of discovery based on methodologies and not on personal biases?
Please, count on my support in any way I can be helpful
Sincerely,
Antonio de Nicolas
Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
State University of New York, at` Stony Brook <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->