[INDOLOGY] Regarding Further Clarifications on the WSC Forum

[Shyam Ranganathan]

Dear all,

Like many of us, I share a sense of outrage and frustration over the 
obnoxious treatment of scholars in our field who represent and relate 
information about traditions and histories that are inconvenient to some 
group’s dominant narrative. And while clearly how audience members treat 
panelists, and how we treat each other is a moral and political issue, 
after working on the systematic disappearance of Indian moral philosophy 
in the literature for twenty years now, I think that the problem that 
gives rise to problems in scholarship (in print and at conferences) 
isn’t at base a moral or political problem: it’s a function of a bad 
account of thought and understanding that is ubiquitous.

This is the linguistic account of thought: accordingly thought is the 
meaning of what you say.It leads to a host of problems, some logical, 
others political. The main problem with this approach to thought is that 
it conflates how you see the world (encoded in your idiolect) with the 
thinkable rendering disagreement unintelligible. Those who do not share 
your vantage are thereby treated either as people to be converted, 
silenced or wiped out---not to be understood. It creates a fragile ego 
that can’t tolerate or contemplate disagreement.

I wasn't at this specific session of the WSC, but what Dr. Vajpeyi 
describes in her article fits the linguistic account of thought. In this 
case, the audience will conflate the thinkable with their outlook 
encoded in their idiolect. Not only will they not be able to countenance 
a divergence in perspectives, they will insist on their own idiolect 
(insisting for instance on "harijan" instead of "dalit"; insisting on 
their perspective instead of accepting a divergence and disagreement in 
perspectives between themselves and the panelists). Dr. Vajpeyi in her 
article also reports that “Sanskrit professors at leading universities 
[were] making absurd claims, for example that caste is unrelated to 
birth; that Hindu society is inherently gender-blind; or that if the 
term “varna” does not occur, there is no discrimination.” This too only 
makes sense if the outlooks of these individuals (the way they would 
rather view the world) is conflated with the thinkable, and this is a 
curse of the linguistic account of thought---that one's idiolectical 
world view is conflated with thought.

The reason this account of thought is ubiquitous is that it is imperious 
and is there by transmitted via imperialism and colonialism. It is also 
ancient, traceable to the Greek idea of /logos/, which marries the idea 
of thought, language and reason. It is the kernel of the /W/est. It 
sometimes seems like lupus: the disease with a thousand faces for two 
reasons. First it has a historical root in European thought and we can 
trace its transmission from Europe towards the east, but what it does is 
it empowers a colonized perspective as the content of thought, and then 
it seems to be quite separate from its European origins: it self-effaces 
behind the local, non-European perspective creating a novel, constructed 
identity that would have been unthinkable in the absence of this history 
of imperialism. How it expresses itself depends on the world view of the 
adherent. I argue in my work that it is ubiquitous in the literature, 
forming the basis of what I call “Orthodox Indology”: this leads to the 
scrubbing of Indian moral theorizing that disagrees with dominant 
Eurocentric values and perspectives. When we look at specific cases 
where people are having trouble communicating, understanding or there is 
hostility, it seems that the problem is the particular world view of the 
participants. Hence, much energy is given to berating those who don’t 
share one’s world view in this orientation (secular scholars point a 
finger at the Hindu right for intolerance, the Hindu right points a 
finger at secular scholars for being anti-Hindu…). But the deeper 
problem is the conflation of one’s world view with thought. Failing an 
explicit criticism of this paradigm, interlocutors---and audience 
members of scholarly panels---will show up expecting to hear their world 
view articulated and will react with disappointment and the negative 
emotions that come in tow with a fragile ego when they are confronted 
with an alternate perspective. As I note in my work, this conflation of 
thought with belief is not only politically problematic, it goes against 
basic expectations of formal logic, where the validity of an inference 
comes apart from the truth of what is claimed. If we buy the linguistic 
account of thought, and we thereby conflate thought and belief (how we 
see things, what we take to be true), we are committed to irrationality 
for we can only ever evaluate something as reasonable if we think it's 
true.

I roll out this argument in greater detail in my recent /Hinduism/. The 
specific chapter relevant to the challenge of communication in a diverse 
world is:

Ranganathan, Shyam. 2018. 'Subcontinent Dharma, the Global Alt-Right, 
and the Philosophy of Thought.' In /Hinduism a Contemporary 
Philosophical Investigation/, 112-137. London: Routledge.

The alternate model that helps us respect the dictates of formal logic 
while allowing us to communicate in a diverse world constituted by a 
diversity of perspectives takes a page out of Patañjali’s yoga. This 
unlocks the philosophical diversity of various traditions, especially 
those studied under the shadow of colonialism, and undermines hegemonic 
narratives of diversity.  Whereas the linguistic model of thought 
expects agreement as the condition of thinking, the alternative yoga 
inspired model expects a diversity of perspectives and disagreement as 
the condition of thinking and understanding. But thought on this account 
is not linguistic-relative: its relative to disciplines. And hence an 
Indology that proceeded along these lines couldn't treat the study of 
Sanskrit or Indian languages as central to the study of India's 
intellectual history.  The idea that philology and the study of Indian 
languages is central to the study of India is the /W/est. On the yoga 
inspired model, we would have to treat our historical subjects as peers: 
philologists would hence study philologists, philosophers would study 
philosophers, historians would study historians.  Disciplinary parity 
between reader and author, audience and speaker, on this account,  is 
essential to participate in joint activities of disagreement and 
research.  Failing such parity, there is no way to coordinate the 
disagreement as triangulating on objects of research from differing 
perspectives.

This chapter also makes special reference to the controversy surrounding 
Prof. Doniger, which bears similarities with this case.

Best wishes,
Shyam

-- 

Shyam Ranganathan

Department of Philosophy
York Center for Asian Research
York University, Toronto

shyam-ranganathan.info <http://shyam-ranganathan.info/>

/Hinduism: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation 
<https://www.routledge.com/Hinduism-A-Contemporary-Philosophical-Investigation/Ranganathan/p/book/9781138909106>/

/The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics 
<http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-bloomsbury-research-handbook-of-indian-ethics-9781472587770/>/

/Patañjali`s Yoga Sūtras 
<http://penguin.co.in/book/classics/patanjalis-yoga-sutra/>/ (Translation, 
Edition and Commentary)

/Translating Evaluative Discourse: The Semantics of Thick and Thin 
Concepts <https://philpapers.org/rec/SHYTED>/

Full List, Publications <https://philpapers.org/profile/22035>


On 26/08/2018 12:34 PM, koenraad.elst--- via INDOLOGY wrote:
> Dear listfolk,
>
>
> As an outsider to this WSC controversy, I was a bit surprised that 
> after Prof. Sathaye's apologies, the battering against him continues, 
> repeatedly. I had thought the moderator would intervene at this point 
> to keep the animus on this forum within reasonable limits. Now, even 
> the Pollock controversy is being reopened. Suit yourselves, but in 
> that case, it is about time to get properly informed about the real 
> reason why Hindus (most of them not "Hindutva") felt the need to stand 
> up. For a forum of India-watchers, it is strange that so many people 
> seem satisfied with a less than accurate account.
>
> The immediate reason for many Hindus to feel slighted at the selection 
> of Sheldon Pollock for getting the Hindu heritage in his care, was his 
> "deep antipathy" against not just "Hindutva", but against Hinduism as 
> such and esp. against Sanskrit. This is not something they make up: 
> Pollock's own words are quoted to this effect. In particular, he calls 
> Sanskrit the source and cause of Nazism and the Holocaust,-- the most 
> hostile position against Sanskrit anyone can possibly take. In 
> contemporary Western culture, it is the single worst allegation you 
> can make. In fact, it makes me wonder why you people are still on this 
> forum focused on an apparently distasteful and evil subject like Sanskrit.
>
> Here is the whole story:
>
> https://www.academia.edu/33837547/PurvaPaksha1607NaziIndology.docx
>
> Hindus make serious mistakes in the way they stand up for themselves. 
> But they are entirely justified in not taking it lying down. Friends 
> would help them do it better.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Dr. Koenraad Elst, Orientalist
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Van: *"Indology" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Aan: *vajpeyi at csds.in
> *Cc: *"Indology" <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Verzonden: *Zondag 26 augustus 2018 12:41:01
> *Onderwerp: *Re: [INDOLOGY] Regarding Further Clarifications on the 
> WSC Forum
>
>
> „The mountain is certainly hard to move ...“, but sometimes solving a 
> seemingly difficult problem can be easier achieved than the crushing 
> of a flower, to apply a maxim from the /Mokṣopāya/ by analogy.
>
> Getting down to the root of the trouble leads one directly to the 
> overt Hindu-nationalist turn of the IASS, mirrored, e.g., in the 
> witch-hunt with Pollock as a victim in 2016. What followed was 
> predictable. On 1 March 2016, I had posted the below message to this list:
>
> „it might be of some relevance to the community of Indologists that 
> among the prominent signatories of the Pollock removal petition Prof. 
> V. Kutumba Sastry ranks fifth on top of the list:
>
> https://www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library
>
> That Prof. Kutumba Sastry signed this petition in his capacity of the 
> „President, International Association of Sanskrit Studies” (IASS), has 
> meanwhile attracted the attention of also the media, who specifically 
> single out his name and function:
>
> http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/murty-library-editor-petition-wants-us-scholar-removed-cites-jnu-remarks/
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/01/sheldon-pollock-murty-lib_n_9345928.html
>
> In terms of Indological research, it is perhaps of no little 
> significance that the President of the IASS - a leading organization 
> carrying “International” as part of their name and arranging the 
> "World Sanskrit Conference" on a regular basis - publicly supports the 
> text of the debated petition in full and demands, among others, “Make 
> in India” ethics and “Swadeshi Indology” in contexts of research and 
> academic publications guidelines. Trying to be “international” and 
> “swadeshi” at the same time clearly equals a contradiction in terms.
>
> The IASS ought to state their position in this matter by clarifying 
> if, in promoting nationalist ideas of Indological research, their 
> president is acting on their behalf:
>
> http://www.sanskritassociation.org/board-members.php.”
>
> In the absence of an acceptable reply, the Indological Branch in the 
> German Oriental Society (DMG) decided to quit the IASS, as explained 
> in minute detail by their present spokesman Dr Steiner in one of his 
> previous posts.
>
> A feasible way to safeguarding future WSC’s from the negative impact 
> of an ever increasing Hindu nationalist influx would be to unbundle 
> the WSC from the IASS. An independently organised WSC will regain and 
> control their autonomy. On the other hand, bereft of the WSC the IASS 
> lose their "International" aspect and with it the justification of 
> bearing an “I” in their name. The logically following gradual 
> transformation into a “National Association of Sanskrit Studies” 
> (NASS) would in every respect be no less deserved then befitting.
>
>
> The little effort required on the part of serious scholars interested 
> in Sanskrit research free of Hindu nationalist ideology consists in 
> cancelling their membership in the IASS with immediate effect. This 
> and only this will make them think.
>
> An unfailing measure of this kind has been proposed by Dr Steiner in 
> the form of a private communication, from which to quote I have been 
> authorised:
>
> “The WSC is perceived as the biggest international conference on 
> Sanskrit Studies ("The World Sanskrit Conference is the premier 
> international forum for professional researchers and educators of the 
> Sanskrit language and its literatures, and of the history, religion, 
> and cultures of premodern South Asia." Source: "Main Conference 
> Website" of the 17^th WSC, Vancouver). In a way, it is probably the 
> most visible symbol of these studies at present. The bond between 
> these conferences is the "IASS, as the notional sponsor of the 
> different WSC meetings" (Dominik Wujastyk). There may be further links 
> between these meetings. Rajiv
>
> Malhotra was the keynote speaker of the WSC in Bangkok in 2015, 
> personally invited by the president of the IASS. In the run-up to the 
> following WSC in Vancouver, it was heard that the local organizers 
> wanted to make it better, and I am sure that they succeeded in doing so.
>
> My point is that the individual WSCes are not insulated entities that 
> have nothing to do with each other. It is decisive, that they are not 
> perceived that way, regardless of their actual "ontological" status.
>
> Moreover, the WSC is the (only) flagship of the IASS. The relationship 
> of the IASS to the anti-academic ideology of a "Swadeshi Indology" is 
> still to be clarified, despite our demand (already in 2016) for taking 
> up position here. Any potential organizing committee of a WSC is 
> expected to account to oneself for the question whether they think it 
> acceptable under these circumstances to organize a conference under 
> the auspices of the IASS. One way to react [...] is to clearly 
> disassociate oneself from this present-day IASS and to name our 
> reasons for this decision. We do not need the IASS to organize an 
> international Sanskrit conference.”
>
> Warm wishes, and kind regards,
>
> Walter Slaje
>
>
> -----------------------------
> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Slaje
> Hermann-Löns-Str. 1
> D-99425 Weimar
> Deutschland
>
> Ego ex animi mei sententia spondeo ac polliceor
> studia humanitatis impigro labore culturum et provecturum
> non sordidi lucri causa nec ad vanam captandam gloriam,
> sed quo magis veritas propagetur et lux eius, qua salus
> humani generis continetur, clarius effulgeat.
> Vindobonae, die XXI. mensis Novembris MCMLXXXIII.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing 
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options 
> or unsubscribe)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info  (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info  (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20180827/8646b549/attachment.htm>