Interpreting the Gita

[Arun Gupta]

There is a second issue that I must raise with regard to
criticisms like those given by Doniger and Kosambi.

Doniger or Kosambi would be justified in saying that the
Gita is an incitement to war, if they could find many
historical cases in which the Gita was actually used to
justify or incite war.  If they had such examples, they would
have a justifiable opinion based on the historical use of the text,
even if the actual meaning of the text is something different.

But no such evidence is forthcoming, as far as I am aware.
And a double standard becomes apparent.

For instance, I am reading "The Political Language of Islam" by
the Arabicist, Bernard Lewis (Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern
Studies, Princeton).  Here is some of what he says about jihad :

"In the Quran and still more in the Traditions ...[jihad] has usually
been understood as meaning 'to wage war'.  The great collections
of hadith all contain a section devoted to jihad, in which the military
meaning predominates.  The same is true of the classical manuals of
sharia law.  There were some who argued that jihad should be understood
in a moral and spiritual, rather than a military sense.....The great
majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionists, however
understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense, and have
examined and expounded it accordingly."

"According to Muslim teaching, jihad is one of the basic commandments
of the faith, an obligation imposed on all Muslims by God, through
revelation.  In an offensive war, it is an obligation of the Muslim
community as a whole (fard kifaya); in a defensive war, it becomes a
personal obligation of every adult male Muslim (fard ayn)...

"This obligation is without limit of time or space.  It must continue
until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or
submitted to the power of the Islamic state."

etc.

If I trust the scholarship of Bernard Lewis, then here is are injunctions
that are far more direct incitements to war than Krishna's call to Arjuna.
Moreover, the historical case that these were interpreted as such is
extremely strong.

The historical case that Muslim rulers used the Quranic jihad as a
justification for the wars they waged, though not discussed here, is
extremely strong. (One merely has to read through the surviving
proclamations of the various rulers.)

That various attempts at deconstruction have been made to show that
political and economic objectives were being masked by religious ones
is besides the point.  That the religious text was used (or misused)
is a fact.

The point is that Bernard Lewis, as far as I have read, nowhere calls
the Quran an incitement to war.  The point is that anyone who said such
a thing would be branded a bigot, a purveyor of hatred, (and if a Hindu)
a Hindu reactionary/retrogressive/fanatic/fascist.

Yet with far less justification, Doniger and Kosambi are said to be
presenting scholarly views about the Gita being an incitement to war,
We may disagree with these opinions, but that we ought to respect them.
Why ?

Why not apply the same standard to everyone ?  Cite to me one scholar,
the equivalent of a Doniger or Kosambi who in a public lecture to a
general audience says about the Quran what either of these say about
the Gita, gets cited in a wide-circulation newspaper, and has the entire
academic community making excuses for them, and I will hold my peace.

-Arun Gupta