Indology's Future?

[David Salmon]

Dear Dr. Raman,

This is an astonishing idea, and I offer my comments below.


----- Original Message -----
From: "V.V. Raman" <VVRSPS at RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU>
To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:56 AM
Subject: Indology's Future?


> 3. Maybe it is time ask Western scholars to curtail, indeed extinguish,
their
> interest in non-Western cultures and histories, and let each group write
its
> own history the way it thinks is appropriate or truthful. Maybe Western
> scholars should be asked to get out of our arena and be concerned with
only
> their own histories. Indeed this is already happening.
>
First, why should "Western scholars" accede to such a request?   You fail to
say.  As a free man, I have the same  right as any person to study what I
please and to write what I please.  What makes Indian history your arena any
more than it is mine, if I should choose to make it so?  Knowledge knows no
national boundaries.   The study and interpretation of Indian history is a
subject freely available to all, as you cannot deny without denying human
rights.  Since you use the word "ask," I take it you would agree with this.
You therefore must offer reasons.

Second, who are "Western" scholars and who are not?  Where would you draw a
line?  Would you require birth in India?  citizenship?  graduation from an
Indian university?  untainted by study abroad?  This seems an impractical
and unproductive idea.

Third, you note there have been benefits from "Western" study of cultures
other than their own.  Indeed, it is inevitable that there will be benefit
from studies of one culture by members of another, for each brings to the
task their own perspectives, which is a strength, not a weakness.  Each of
us, individually and as members of cultural groups, have our points of view,
our blind spots.  It is through the interaction of different points of view,
the bringing to bear of several perspectives, that a more objective "truth"
or vision of reality can be found.  Otherwise, one runs the danger of
interpreting things personally or culturally, rather than objectively.  I
would note, for example, that the best single study of the American people
to this day remains the work of a foreigner, Alexis de Toqueville's
"Democracy in America."  Sometimes outsiders have their uses.  One can never
predict just how useful those uses might be because one is generally blind
to one's blind spots.

>
>
> 4. My own feeling is that when the present generation of Western scholars
of
> Indology and of other non-Westernology pass away, there may not be too
many of
> this species left. Unless (as it is sometimes alleged) their ultimate goal
is
> to trivialize non-Western cultures and turn them all  Christian (an
explicit
> 19th century goal, in many instances), one sees no reason why universities
in
> the West should be expending vast amounts of money to <train> scholars in
> non-Western studies.
>
It is increasingly one world.  And until it is, as long as India remains a
country so easy to fall in love with, there will be those from abroad who
study her.

As for reasons why universities "in the West" should spend money to train
scholars in "non-Western" studies, let me suggest some:  (a)  it furthers
the development of knowledge; (b) there are those who wish to study those
subjects; (c) universities also charge for their services.
>
> 5. I suspect that students in the West will begin to wonder why they
should be
> devoting their time and intellectual energies in the exploration of the
> histories and cultures of other peoples, given that the subject matter is
laden
> with legitimate cultural sensitivity and  suspicions towards them:
legitimate
> because these have resulted from the economic exploitation, political
> oppression, and cultural denigration that Western imperialism and
colonialism
> has inflicted upon non-Western peoples during the past few centuries. On
the
> other hand, given the intrinsically aggressive and inquisitive nature of
> Western culture, this may not happen either.
>
I take it these are some of your reasons, or at least facts that are
pertinent:
    --  the subject matter is laden with cultural sensitivity
    --  there is suspicion of outsiders in view of India's treatment at the
hands of Westerners during the imperialistic period

I agree with both observations, but suggest to you that a pause in "Western"
research while India and the West recover from their previous encounters
with each other is unwarranted, as well as unlikely.  Yes, Western scholars
do sometimes blunder about in matters of Indian history with insensitivity
to, and ignorance of, Indian sensibilities.  Yes, that, combined with their
own cultural imperatives -- aggressiveness and inquisitiveness, if you wish,
can make them seem like bulls in a china shop, smashing a good deal of
crockery as they go.

But this is but to say that Western scholars who essay to study India owe
her the courtesy of careful attention to her sensibilities, and must be
sensitive to the suspicion with which they are regarded by many, and should
carefully and actively become aware of, and avoid being chargeable with,
those faults.  Otherwise, they run the risk that their efforts, sincere and
correct though they may be, will alienate many who might otherwise be open
to persuasion, and retard, rather than advance, the search for truth.

These are reasons why Westerners should act with care and courtesy, but I
respectfully suggest they are not good reasons why the West should abandon
the study of other cultures, as I hope you will agree.

David Salmon