[INDOLOGY] Thanks and next steps / Caste and Gender

Mon Aug 20 18:47:41 UTC 2018

Dear Colleagues,

I followed from a certain distance the discussion about the events at the WSC in Vancouver, mostly because I have not attended the conference, but also for other reasons that I believe will become clear in the course of this e-mail. I decided to put my two cents in after reading Dr Steiner's e-mail. I agree with him that the Indology list has entered into a civilized form of debate on the topic and I am very grateful to him for having introduced the topic of Swadeshi Indology. However, there is, in my modest opinion, an aspect that has only been scratched, but never fully dealt with in the whole discussion. I'd like to use the words of an American white male historian, Howard Zinn, to introduce what I mean:

"Some people claim to be objective. The worst thing is to claim to be objective. Of course you can't be. Historians should say what their values are, what they care about, what their background is, and let you know what is important to them so that young people and everybody who reads history are warned in advance that they should never count on any one source, but should go to many sources. [...] There's an interesting way in which you can frame a sentence which will show what you emphasize and which will have two very different results. Here's what I mean. Take Columbus as an example. You can frame it, and it this was the way the Harvard historian Samuel Eliot Morison in effect framed it in his biography of Columbus: Columbus committed genocide, but he was a wonderful sailor. He did a remarkable and extraordinary thing in finding these islands in the Western Hemisphere. He committed genocide, but... he's a good sailor. I say, He was a good sailor, but he treated people with the most horrible cruelty and committed genocide. Those are two different ways of saying the same facts. Depending on which side of the "but" you're on, you show your bias. I believe that's good for us to put our biases in the direction of a humane view of history."
[Howard Zinn, Failure to Quit. Reflections of an Optimistic Historian, 1993 (2013), p. 11–12]

This is to say that I strongly believe there is no such thing as neutral, objective Indological academic scholarship, pretty much as Swadeshi Indology is not neutral at all, but has instead a clear political agenda which does not represent Indian culture in toto, but only the culture of a powerful, influential and wealthy minority, which is managing to control the present in India by means of controlling the past. We ought to acknowledge and admit it, it is always about politics, even—or even more— in our own academic ivory towers. For instance, precisely thanks to the author I have quoted it is clear to all of you what my background is and this fact sheds a different light on my scholarly approach and research. The problem with Swadeshi Indology and with some of the responses in this discussion is that they are disguised as legitimate calls for doubt and plurality of opinions, while in reality they are simply a clearly one-sided defence of the position of the Indian nationalists and elitists who were in the audience at the WSC and harassed Professors Kaushal Panwar, Ananya Vajpeyi, and Mandakranta Bose. In the spirit of plurality of opinions, I carefully read the e-mails by Prof. Shrinivasa Varakhedi to which Dr Sathaye pointed. I had to smile when I read this passage:

"We as scholars do not have any problem with any sort of academic deliberation. We would be happy to discuss the issues such as gender and casteism if an academic paper is presented. But, this is a public forum. It would be good if the Platform is equally shared by two different groups who take divergent positions. In contrast, only one sided party is given an opportunity to share their views. We are afraid that a wrong message will be communicated to the world about Sanskrit. Is this the objective of the WSC ? [...]
The scholars are upset about this and we oppose this kind of non-academic engagement in the WSC. We express our serious  concerns about this program. The reiteration of old discarded stories are projected as the true face of Sanskrit. The ideological differences are respected, but the projection of one ideology as the fact is unreasonable and unjustifiable."

Funnily enough, Prof. Varakhedi complains about the lack of space for divergent positions at the WSC, while all Swadeshi Indology conferences are closed to scholars who do not agree with the organisers' interpretation of the Indian cultural heritage (whatever this might mean). I wanted to propose a paper at the first edition of the Swadeshi Indology conference, but alas, after some weeks the website had magically disappeared. In subsequent editions, it was clear that only selected Western scholars were invited. Could it be that the organisers of the Swadeshi Indology conference think that most Western scholars would communicate "the wrong message to the world about Sanskrit"? If this is so and I understand the consequences correctly, this means that we cannot challenge the Swadeshi Indological view of Sanskrit at the Swadeshi Indology conference and we should not be allowed to do it at the WSC either, because this would send the wrong message about Sanskrit to the world. Very interesting as a position that calls for plurality of opinions. To me it rather sounds as a cleverly disguised way of silencing dissent, but maybe I am too into conspiracies. On the other hand, I fully agree with Prof. Varakhedi when he states that " the projection of one ideology as the fact is unreasonable and unjustifiable." It is precisely for this reason that I think Swadeshi Indology is unreasonable and unjustifiable, because it claims to be a fact and the only correct ideology to interpret correctly Indian history.

As suggested by H. Zinn's quote above, I urge you take into account my background when I make this claim. I am Italian and I am very, very, very happy that there isn't yet  a "La Nostra Storia Italiana" movement, claiming that only Italian scholars should be allowed to read, research, and write about Latin literature and the Roman Empire, and that the latter only achieved great results in the architecture, arts, literature and other fields of human knowledge. Truly, it achieved all this,  but it was also a big exercise in slavery and exploitation of lower social classes and women. I have written that there isn't "yet" such movement simply because this is where Italy is heading towards and I am scared, very scared that we are not far away from this type of movement.

Best wishes,

Camillo Formigatti

On 20/08/2018, 16:49, "Roland Steiner" <steiner at staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

    Dear Colleagues,

    It is a good thing that the Indology list has entered into a civilized  
    debate about the reported incidents during the last WSC, or in the  
    words of Dr. Vajpeyi: “These statements [by Adheesh Sathaye and  
    Jayandra Soni] come as an excellent first step towards addressing a  
    whole range of simmering issues in Indology, Sanskrit and, I would  
    argue, South Asian History as well.”  As far as the role of the local  
    hosting team from Vancouver is concerned, Dr. Sathaye’s remarks leave  
    nothing to be desired. Everyone with pertinent experience will be able  
    to relate to the enormous challenge of organizing such a large  
    international conference.

    However, I do not intend to comment about single points raised in  
    these statements, since I did not attend this WSC. Moreover, the  
    situation here in Europe seems to differ from that in India and North  
    America in various aspects. Instead, I would like to point towards a  
    more fundamental problem which is possibly underlying here. I am  
    referring to the anti-academic ideology called “Swadeshi Indology”.

    In his email to this list (dated 16 August 2018), Dr. Hanneder  
    mentioned “that the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (DMG) has  
    recently withdrawn its institutional membership in the IASS in  
    protest.” For some of you, it might be interesting to hear about the  
    background of this decision.

    In 2016 the Section “Indology and South Asian Studies” of the Deutsche  
    Morgenländische Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society, DMG) discussed  
    the consequences of the IASS President’s public support for the  
    positions raised in the Petition against Sheldon Pollock as Chief  
    Editor of the Murty Classical Library of India. As a result the  
    Section’s spokesman wrote a letter (dated 16 October 2016) to the  
    Board of the IASS in which he expressed the disconcertment of the  
    Section by noting that ideological and national principles as  
    represented by the so-called Swadeshi Indology are obviously supported  
    by the President of the IASS, whereas a critical  
    historical-philological approach as followed by many renowned  
    Indologists in India and other countries is apparently discouraged.  
    Therefore, he called on the Board of the IASS to clearly express their  
    position with regard to these points and ended his letter with the  
    remark that a reply to this request “is highly appreciated”.

    In his reply (dated 21 November 2016) the Secretary General of the  
    IASS only referred to an email already written by himself on 5th March  
    2016, sent among others to this Indology discussion forum (see  
    http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-March/137434.html ). He ends his letter with the remark that “the IASS Board feels no need to respond specifically to your [= the Section’s] apparent demand about the ‘Position of the [IASS] Board with regard to the Petition against Sheldon  
    Pollock.’”

    The DMG Section discussed this issue on its subsequent meeting in  
    September 2017 in Jena (Germany) at the “Deutsche Orientalistentag”  
    (DOT). As a result of this meeting, the Section’s spokesman wrote a  
    further letter (dated 10 January 2018) in which he informed the  
    Secretary General of the IASS, that in the concluding vote “the  
    Section has made the decision that the German national membership in  
    the IASS executed by the Section ‘Indology and South Indian Studies’  
    of the DMG has to be cancelled as from now. [...] We have to assert  
    that a clear statement on the position of the IASS Board with regard  
    to the points mentioned above is not only still missing, but also  
    considered unnecessary by the Board.” In the Section’s judgement,  
    however, “a clarification of this question is essential and still due.  
    [...] We must note that, according to your letter, the IASS Board  
    apparently seems to be untroubled by their President keeping on  
    personally supporting the ideological and national principles as  
    represented by the so-called Swadeshi Indology while rejecting the  
    critical historical-philological approach of indological studies.”

    A clarification of the Board’s position with regard to the IASS  
    President’s public support of ideological and nationalist principles  
    as represented by the so-called Swadeshi Indology is still due.

    Best,
    Roland Steiner (Spokesman of the section “Indology and South Asian  
    Studies” of the DMG)

    --
    Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
    Seminar für Indologie
    Emil-Abderhalden-Str. 9
    D-06099 Halle (Saale)
    Germany

    Tel.: +49-345-55-23656
    Fax: +49-345-55-27211
    URL: http://www.indologie.uni-halle.de
    E-Mail: roland.steiner at indologie.uni-halle.de