Washington Post - WHOSE HISTORY IS IT ANYWAY? by Aseem Shukla
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
By Aseem Shukla, co-founder, Hindu American Foundation
Associate Professor in urologic surgery at the University of
Minnesota medical school. Co-founder and board member of Hindu
American Foundation.
The Washington Post
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
History empowers and history emasculates. History, like art, is
beautiful or odious to the beholder. There are winners and losers
when history is assessed, and there are protagonists and antagonists.
Historians recognize the onerous burden of their profession in these
times when a spare use of the word "genocide" in the House of
Representatives to describe events in Armenia decades ago led Turkey
to recall its ambassador. And politics infuses the narratives of
history. Anti-Semitism, Marxism, white supremacy, all are known to
prejudice renditions of peoples, cultures and religions.
Historian Wendy Doniger, professor of the History of Religion at the
University of Chicago Divinity School, finds herself in the midst of
a history book kerfufflle of her own. Doniger, long enjoying exalted
status as the doyen of Hindu studies in the American academy, faces
scrutiny now in an unfolding drama involving her latest book, "The
Hindus: An Alternative History". An online petition [1] asking
Penguin Press, the publishers of the book, to hold publication and
demand revisions is approaching 10,000 signatures. And when the book
was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award, Hindu
activists staged a rare protest outside the award ceremony last week
(the book did not win).
Hindus know that Doniger was derailed before. In 2003, Microsoft
retracted [2] a chapter on Hinduism written by Doniger for its online
encyclopedia after a heavily publicized internet campaign protested
factual and interpretive errors in her essay. In the end, a Hindu
writer, providing the emic, or insider's perspective, wrote an entry
that depicted Hinduism in the light that practitioners would actually
recognize.
This latest "alternative" history book was released a year ago, but
opposition has escalated after a newer edition was released in India
a few weeks ago and the book was nominated for the National Book
Critics Circle award [3] (she didn't win).
That there would be trouble was apparent right from the preface of
her book. There, Doniger asserts that hers is not a history of how
Hinduism is lived today, but rather offers a "narrative alternative"
to the one found in Hinduism's holiest scriptures. This 780-page tome
is set as Doniger's rendering of Hinduism's history based -- we are
to assume -- on her own interpretations of scripture, her own biases
and inclinations. Infamous for her penchant to sexualize, eroticize
and exoticise passages from some of the holiest Hindu epics and
scriptures -- often invoking a Freudian psychoanalytic lens --
Doniger has been accused of knowingly polarizing and inflaming. She
does not disappoint.
I revisit her work now not just because Doniger provokes so many of
us in the Hindu American community. Doniger represents what many
believe to be a fundamental flaw in the academic study of Hinduism:
that Hindu studies is too often the last refuge of idiosyncratic and
irreligious academics presenting themselves as "experts" on a faith
that they study without the insight, recognition or reverence of, in
this case, a practicing Hindu or even non-Hindu -- striving to study
Hinduism from the insider's perspective -- would offer.
As a surgeon working in the medical school of a large university, I
hold my academic freedom as sacrosanct. My own writings, even here on
On Faith, are a reflection of the liberty I presume and cannot
compromise. But this freedom comes with a sober responsibility. When
I publish manuscripts and books, I am personally responsible for the
veracity of the contents, statistical calculations, and scientific
conclusions. These are not always empirical, and much editorializing
is demanded. But my freedom is predicated on the accuracy of my work
and the fairness of my conclusions. And errors, or playing fast and
loose with editorial privilege in fact, if purposeful, can lead to
harsh legal and ethical repercussions.
An "alternative" rendering is, of course, Doniger's right. But when
venturing into the alternate, if the factual is deprecated and
editorializing privileged, if the treatment of a religion adhered to
by over a billion is rendered unrecognizable in its iteration, a door
is opened to bias, spin and errors. Over the last year, these are
what many believe to have uncovered, and the ramifications are real.
"Tell me where I have interpreted something wrong," Doniger
challenged her critics and the gauntlet was picked up. Factual
inaccuracies in her latest book were detailed in a prominent Indian
media outlet, [4] and a lay historian, Vishal Agarwal, posted a
detailed, chapter by chapter riposte [5] to Doniger's history that
has been widely circulated. Not phrased in the niceties of academic
parlance, perhaps, but Agarwal's methodical work opens the door to
questions about Doniger's research, attention to detail, methodology,
and more disturbingly, intentions behind her latest venture. Another
detailed rebuttal [6] to a single chapter spanning over twenty-two
pages was posted by another writer this week.
Parallelisms in her book conjure up obsolete anecdotes comparing the
sacred stone linga representing Lord Shiva to a leather strap-on sex
toy, and Lord Rama, one of the most widely worshiped deities, is
psychoanalyzed to have acted out of fear that he was becoming a sex-
addict like his father. As Agarwal shows, Doniger's prose is replete
with cutesy, perhaps, but offensive and jejune turns of phrases such
as, "If the motto of Watergate was 'Follow the money', the motto of
the history of Hinduism could well be 'Follow the monkey' or, more
often 'Follow the horse'." And in another section, her
interpretations of the Rig Veda, the most ancient of the Vedas that
Hindus consider sacred, Doniger sees incest and adultery with a
pregnant woman in a verse praying to God for protection and safe
delivery.
A Danish cartoonist would be hard pressed to match the disturbing
parodies of a believer's faith that Doniger offers throughout the
book. The great Hindu yogi, Patanjali, cautioned in the 2nd century
BCE against falling into the trap of false "meaning making" when
reading scriptures that contain subtle, esoteric meanings as well as
moral edicts. Doniger's book, then, could be read as an idiosyncratic
exposition that is "meaning making" out of profound revelations
perhaps not meant for the spiritually untrained, untempered, and non-
seeking mind.
It is not just that there are documented errors in fact predicated on
errors in interpretation and context, but Hindus argue that Doniger
seems to delight in celebrating the most obscure and arcane of
anecdotes or stories from the hoary expanse of Hindu epics and
scriptures. Privileging the absurd -- dissembling it as an
alternative -- comes across as a specious exercise of a motivated
author seeking spice to sell books.
It would seem a given that a book on religious history -- intertwined
with all of the inherent faith, emotion, and sensibilities that
religion evokes in believers -- would be approached with a modicum of
restraint and sensitivity, if not deference. But instead, Doniger
delights in inverting the filial into the incestuous, devotion into
eroticism, and pride into chauvinism.
Whether such a licentious foray into Hinduism studies is protected by
free speech is not the question. Doniger can write and believe what
she wishes. But Hindus are asking if publishers should bear
responsiblity for copious factual and interpretive errors.
This demand from Hindus to combat Doniger's view of their religion
cannot be reduced to an unhinged ban-the-book crusade. Asking a
publisher to hold publishing of a book until errors are corrected
carries strong recent precedent. Recall that publication of the Jewel
of Medina [7] was abruptly dropped by Random House last year when
fear grew that a story about one of the wives of the prophet Muhammad
would spark violence from the Muslim community, and just last week,
publisher Holt and Company halted publication of Last Train from
Hiroshima [8] when factual errors were uncovered in critical parts of
the book.
Doniger's alternate version of Hindu history, now playing in over 700
libraries in North America and Europe, raises a real fear that her
"alternative" will become the mainstream. This issue is important to
a minority striving to take control of its own narrative -- a
struggle repeated by generations of Americans as their voice grows
and progeny prospers.
It remains to be seen if Hindus will prove their latest case against
Doniger in the court of public opinion, but analagous allegations of
academic bias are well known. The Southern Poverty Law Center
continues to wage a public campaign [9] against an anti-Semitic
professor at Cal State Long Beach, and open protests [10] continue
against a faculty member holding white supremacy views at the
University of Vermont. Each professor has academic freedom, but an
agitating laity is wondering if institutions must support the
mendacity of bigoted players devaluing that freedom.
Doniger has tended to dismiss criticisms from Hindus as politically
motivated, chauvinistic, sexist, casteist -- the list is long. It is
as Vamsee Julluri, Professor of Media Studies at the University of
San Francisco, wrote: [11]
"The academy has gone almost directly from the Orientalist myth of
Hindu superstition to the postmodern concern about Hindu
fundamentalism, without even a notice of the great Hindu religion in
between, and what it means to its followers and admirers. The academy
must engage with Hinduism more positively."
Academic freedom is sacrosanct. But academic legitimacy in the eyes
of the public sets a much higher bar.
Views expressed here are the personal views of Dr. Aseem Shukla, and
do not necessarily represent those of the University of Minnesota or
Hindu American Foundation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Editor's Note: This essay was shared with Prof. Wendy Doniger prior
to its publication. Her response to some lines from Dr. Shukla's post
are as follows:
Doniger: The Indian Edition was published originally in October,
2009. Just for the record, it was #1 on the best-selling list in
India for non-fiction for a while and has received numerous positive
reviews in Indian journals and newspapers; I'm told it has sold
over10,000 copies in India, but I haven't verified this.
Of course I did not say that my narrative was alternative "to the one
found in Hinduism's holiest scriptures." No one would say that even
if it were true, which of course it is not. What I said was this:
First, it highlights a narrative alternative to the one
constituted by the most famous texts in Sanskrit (the literary
language of ancient India) and represented in most surveys in
English. It tells a story that incorporates the narratives of and
about alternative people -- people who, from the standpoint of most
high-caste Hindu males, are alternative in the sense of otherness,
people of other religions, or cultures, or castes, or species
(animals), or gender (women).
That is, my criterion was not holiness but the representation of
texts in English-language surveys.
My response: The English language surveys Doniger refers to are, in
fact, commentaries on Hindu scripture that are holy to nearly a
billion. Holiness cannot be divorced from scripture, and to presume
to present an alternative perspective -- that of women, other
religions or animals (?) would requires a balanced presentation of
varied aspects of Hindu tradition not presented in this book. Doniger
chose lines from scripture, often out of context, and then took
unlimited literary license to deconstruct verses, anecdotes and
stories to suit her biases and predilections.
Doniger: [Regarding this line in the essay]:
...Lord Rama, one of the most widely worshipped deities, is
psychoanalyzed to have acted out of fear that he was becoming a sex-
addict like his father.
Correction: There is no psychoanalysis in the discussion, just
ordinary literary interpretation, nor did I say that Rama was afraid
he was become a sex-addict; on the contrary, I said he was acting
because he feared that people would think, wrongly, that this was the
case. What I said, on p. 225, was:
Rama said, "Sita had to enter the purifying fire in front of
everyone, because she had lived so long in Ravana's bedrooms. Had I
not purified her, good people would have said of me, 'That Rama,
Dasharatha's son, is certainly lustful and childish.' But I knew that
she was always true to me." Then Rama was united with his beloved and
experienced the happiness that he deserved. [6.103-6]
"Dasharatha's son is certainly lustful" is a key phrase. Rama
knows all too well what people said about Dasharatha; when Lakshmana
learns that Rama has been exiled, he says, "The king is perverse,
old, and addicted to sex, driven by lust."[2.18.3] Rama says as much
himself: "He's an old man, and with me away he is so besotted by
Kaikeyi that he is completely in her power, and capable of doing
anything. The king has lost his mind. I think sex (kama) is much more
potent than either artha or dharma. For what man, even an idiot like
father, would give up a good son like me for the sake of a pretty
woman?" [2.47.8-10] Thus Rama invokes the traditional ranking of
dharma over sex and politics (kama and artha) and accuses his father
of valuing them in the wrong way, of being addicted to sex. He then
takes pains to show that, where Dasharatha made a political and
religious mistake because he desired his wife too much (kama over
artha and dharma), he, Rama, cares for Sita only as a political pawn
and an unassailably chaste wife (artha and dharma over kama).
My response: A response to this very contention was published here.
[12] This response highlights one of the interpretive errors that I
argue are widespread throughout the text. And these clear errors are
serious for together they constitute a sad mockery of a faith. Take
the example of her interpretation of the Sanskrit word kama to mean
"sex." This sheer blunder in interpretation is repeated throughout
her translations of scripture. In fact, kama is understood by every
Hindu to mean "wish, love or desire." Love or desire for a woman or
man is just one type of kama. A man may have kama for his wife, and
one must ask if Doniger considers that love a sex addiction. Defining
kama to mean sex is an offensive simplification that debases the
subtle passions implied in the term . Applied to a depiction of Lord
Rama, an incarnation of God to Hindus, the outrage over this passage
is obvious.
Doniger: I do not "see" incest and adultery in the hymn referred to
above; I quote the hymn, on p. 124, which refers not only to
protection and safe delivery but to incest and adultery:
Some spells, like this spell to protect the embryo, are directed
against evil powers but addressed to human beings, in this case the
pregnant woman: The one whose name is evil, who lies with disease
upon your embryo, your womb, the flesh-eater; the one who kills the
embryo as it settles, as it rests, as it stirs, who wishes to kill it
when it is born -- we will drive him away from here. The one who
spreads apart your two thighs, who lies between the married pair, who
licks the inside of your womb -- we will drive him away from here.
The one who by changing into a brother, or husband, or lover lies
with you, who wishes to kill your offspring -- we will drive him away
from here. The one who bewitches you with sleep or darkness and lies
with you -- we will drive him away from here. [10.162]
There is precise human observation here of what we would call the
three trimesters of pregnancy (when the embryo settles, rests, and
stirs). Though the danger ultimately comes from supernatural
creatures, ogres, such creatures act through humans, by impersonating
the husband (or lover! or brother!) of the pregnant woman.
My response: Doniger's own response omits the next few sentences in
this very paragraph on page 124 in her book. Referring to 'this poem'
(Rigveda 10.162), she says:
More substantial is the early evidence in this poem of a form of
rape that came to be regarded as a bad, but legitimate, form of
marriage: having sex with a sleeping or drugged woman. It appears
that a woman's brother too is someone she might expect to find in her
bed, though the Rig Veda severely condemns sibling incest.
So, Doniger does see 'evidence of rape and incest' mentioned in this
verse. Actually, though, translating directly from Sanskrit, the
verse does not state that the brother or anyone lies with the
pregnant woman in her bed. Scholars studying this Mandala section of
the Rig Vedas know that many items are addressed as human beings --
herbs, amulets, gems, animals, malevolent spirits, germs, etc. So I
believe strongly that Doniger misrepresents this particular verse and
arrives on a conclusion not intended in its writing. It speaks to a
disturbing pattern of surmising the most provocative, outrageous and
sexual out of verses, texts and scriptures holy to a billion people
globally. That would be objectionable enough, but being wrong in
these interpretations makes it that much worse.
By Aseem Shukla - March 17, 2010; 8:17 PM ET
[1] http://www.petitiononline.com/dharma10/petition.html
[2] http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml
[3] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2010/03/donigerprotest.html
[4] http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262511
[5] http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/thaah/index.htm
[6] http://chitraraman.voiceofdharma.org/book-reviews/wendy-doniger/review-of-the-hindus-an-alternative-history-chapter-10.html
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewel_of_Medina
[8] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124199042
[9] http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/09/12/academic-rebuts-cal-state-professor%E2%80%99s-anti-semitic-scholarship/
[10] http://www.wptz.com/news/19749463/detail.html
[11] http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1548&keywords=ahimsa
[12] http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?262511
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
Dušan Vukotić
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Whose history is it anyway?
>
Hinduism sounds just like J-Doc's treatment of Christianity!
harmony
get under her skin.
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100325BtIPNT8hoG242Y1T5A5u708@SROt3...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
at the end of the article; Aseem is the clear winner.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4bace7d4$0$12465$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> aseem shukla, the hindus love you.
> get under her skin.
>
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Dušan Vukotić
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Du=B9an_Vukoti=E6?= <dusan....@gmail.com> posted:
>
> . . .
Franz Gnaedinger
with a false title, pretends to engage himself for the Hindu
community while all he cares for is the money he makes
via his astrological enterprise, fishing for Hindu clients,
because the Hindi are numerous, and especially prone
to superstition, he believes. A sociopath fools people
about his intentions while pursuing his own interests.
Jay Stevens alias Dr. Jai Maharaj is a classical sociopath.
He believes that he found the almost perfect scheme of
turning even child abuse into money. And he most freely
abuses our scientific forum of sci.lang. He is now leading
his second long-time attack on our scientific forum, more
aggressively than ever. Must have to do with the approaching
year 2012 that makes astrologers crazy and creep out of
their holes: another magic year to freighten people and thus
make money!