A transgression?

[Yaroslav V. Vassilkov]

>From yavass Wed Jan 28 01:44:50 MSK 1998

>From yavass Wed Jan 28 00:05:58 MSK 1998

On Jan 25 1998 J.R.Gardner wrote:

>   As I have been reviewing the history of Vedic schoalrship and, especially,
>   benefitting from T. Elizarenkova's recent 'Language and Style of the Vedic
>   RSis', it is hard not to marvel and envy the wealth of scholarship from
>   the former Soviet Union which, to my youthful experience, has only
>   recently become readily accessible.
>
>   I ask this with some trepidation in light of the possible politics I could
>   be raising--and so apologize in advance as that is not my intent--but
>   nonetheless I am quite curious what discourse--if any--and on what topics
>   with the scholars of the former "eastern block" existed during the cold
>   war.  Further, did detente bring about a change, and if so where (topic
>   and author-wise) in Indology?  Perhaps the veterans in the field might
>   indulge this inquiry about the recent history -- prior, say, to 1975 -- of
>   our collective paramparaa?

If you are interested in the review material written in English on the
history and main trends of Russian Indology in the XX century, you will
probably find it useful to acquaint yourself 1) with the article:

G.N.Roerich. Indology in Russia. - "The Journal of the Greater India Society",
vol. 12, pt.2, Calcutta, 1945 -

for the "pre-war", as we still call it in Russia, period. This period ended,
in fact, as early as 1937, when all
Scherbatsky's pupils were executed or imprisoned as "imperialist agents"
and "propagandists of Buddhist religion". Before that, in the 1920-ies and
the beginning of the 30-ies there was really some cooperation, exchange of
ideas and polemics between Russia and the West - e.g., between Scherbatsky
and L.de la Vallee Poussin.
        Then the Classical Indology was revived in the late 50-ies -
by George N. Roerich, who had returned from India to Moscow. Some of his
pupils later joined the so called Moscow-Tartu school of Semiotics and
published their articles, in particular, in the famous series "Trudy po
znakovym systemam" ("Works on Semiotics", a special series of "Acta et
Commentationes" of The Tartu University, Estonia). Their work got some
response in the West and was reviewed, in particular, by

2) Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty - in an article published in some journal in
the U.S. and titled "The Disregarded Scholars" or something like that.
Unfortunally, I am unable to give the exact evidence.

        But, contrary to people's expectations, the detente only worsened
the situation in Soviet humanitarian sciences. Brezhnev decided to compensate
the concessions he made to the West in politics by strengthening his control
over "ideology". Some of Indologists lost their jobs after they signed the
letters of protest against the persecution of dissidents, some had a lot
of troubles after the fabricated trial in Buryatia of the Buddhist scholar
and religious leader B.Dandaron (1972-73). For about 10 years any studies
of Buddhism remained practically under ban in the USSR (at least they could
not appear in print), and classical Indology in general was looked at by the
authorities with suspicion. Many eminent specialists in Classical Indian
culture were forced to emigrate - among them A.Pyatigorsky, A.Syrkin,
B.Oguibenin and others. But other people stayed, and now the true leaders
of Classical Indian studies in Russia - such as T.Ya.Yelizarenkova and
V.N.Toporov - still belong to the same generatiom and the same scholarly
circle.

        I think you may find some useful information on the general history
of Indian studies in XX century Russia in the book:

3) G.M.Bongard-Levin, A.A.Vigasin. The Image of India. Moscow, 1984.

        Of course, the sad part of the tale could not be told in it in 1984
due to political censorship. The complete history of modern Russian Indology
is yet to be written.
        Best regards,
                                Yaroslav Vassilkov.