[INDOLOGY] Nazis, India

Thu Nov 1 09:39:40 UTC 2018

Since Joydeep Bagchee mentions me as one of those who misunderstood  
his usage of the word "German", perhaps he should  have also mentioned  
what I said about this:

"Furthermore, the authors’ arbitrary definition [of German Indology]  
is not innocent or candid. Suppose someone were to define Indian  
nationalists as persons who subscribe to a Fascist ideology, write a  
(partial and distortive) history of Indian fascism and present it as A  
History of Indian Nationalism. When a reviewer would object to this  
cheap manoeuvre, he/she would then protest: “The reviewer has not read  
my book.  I have dealt with this problem and clearly admit that some  
Americans are also Indian nationalists and that there are Indian  
nationalists who are not Indian nationalists.” Precisely this is the  
tactics of the authors."

Best wishes,
Eli

Zitat von Joydeep via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>:

> Not again! We’ve gone over this ground already. Eli already raised these
> ‘misunderstandings’ of *The Nay Science *before. We comprehensively
> responded to him in “Theses on Indology.” But if Jan wishes to have it all
> explained again, here we go. Jan raises the following objections:
>
>
>
> 1. That we did not define German by race or nation or language.
>
> 2. That we overlooked the commonality of German Indology with other
> countries.
>
> 3. That we made a subset of German Indology stand in for the whole.
>
> 4. That we critique Indology because we stand for tradition.
>
> 5. That we therefore stand outside a European tradition of critical inquiry.
>
> 6. And finally, that our work lacks the proper graces.
>
>
>
> The definition of German Indology in terms of allegiance to intellectual
> concerns and a methodological and institutional paradigm is wholly
> consistent within itself, and misunderstandings such as those voiced in
> points 2 and 3 only arise because scholars insist on the categories of
> nation, language, and ethnicity. Finally, we can continue to repeat tropes
> of “European = critical,” “Indian = traditional.” By now it is amply clear
> whose work is critical and who is desperately trying to protect traditional
> authority and privilege. Who is caricaturing whom here?
>
>
>
> In order not to belabor the discussion, I have appended a list of our
> writings where further clarifications to Jan’s comments can be found. If
> there are new objections, Vishwa and I will be happy to respond to them.
> But let’s not self-defeatingly keep proposing ethnic or national
> definitions of “German” and stereotypes of “the critical European” vs. “the
> uncritical Indian.” It only confirms the point.
>
>
>
> On “German Indology and National Socialism” see “Jews and Hindus in
> Indology,” 24, n. 95, 26, n. 105, 27, n. 106, and 69, n. 199. On “Andrew
> Nicholson” see “The Real Threat to the Humanities Today,” 1–16. On “Jürgen
> Hanneder” see “5 in 10—Interview with Joydeep Bagchee” and “Against
> Occidentalism: A Conversation with Alice Crary and Vishwa Adluri in *The
> Nay Science*.” On “caricature” see “Method and Racism in German Mahābhārata
> Studies,” 1–6. On “voluminous publication” see “Theses on Indology,” 9–10
> (on Bronkhorst), 10 (on Hanneder), and 11–14 (on Witzel). On “the European
> critical method of textual study” see *Philology and Criticism*, 63–65, and
> 99–100 (on Bronkhorst), 45–157 (on Bigger), 169–314 (on Grünendahl), 269–70
> (on Slaje), 270–71 (on Hinüber), 271–72 (on Fitzgerald), 272 (on Pollock),
> 320–36 (on Witzel), and 429–78 (on Brockington). On accepting “any
> traditionally proposed interpretation […] without much reflection” see
> ibid., 111–13 and 144–45 (on Austin), 21, 28–29, and 113–14 (on
> Fitzgerald), 270 (on Bronkhorst), 434–35 and 466, n. 118 (on Brockington),
> and the aforementioned pages in the Argument from Expertise again. See also
> “Paradigm Lost,” 215–49 and 53–54 (on Jezic), 265, n. 12 (on Brockington),
> 282, n. 91 (on Witzel, Brockington, Malinar, and Szczurek), and 286, n. 104
> (on Jezic, Szczurek, and Fitzgerald). See also Adluri, comments on Philipp
> A. Maas, “Negotiating Efficiencies,” parts 1–2 and final response. On “a
> very precise methodic research strategy […] which goes back to earlier
> stages of European philosophy [philology?] and critical reflection”
> see *Philology
> and Criticism*, 319–20, 323–24, and 339–40. On “the art of ignoring” or
> “methodic ignorance” see “Jews and Hindus in Indology,” 66, n. 193 (on
> Stache-Rosen, Franco, Schechtelich, Grünendahl, and Slaje). See also *The
> Nay Science*, 426, n. 232 (on Slaje) and 444, n. 37 (on Steinkellner) and
> the OBO entry on German Indology (on Hanneder). See also *Philology and
> Criticism*, 432–33 and 435–49 (on Brockington’s ignorance of the concept of
> a Venn diagram). On “pure philological and linguistic research” see
> “Indology: The Origins of Racism in the Humanities” 7 (on F. Schlegel) and
> 8–14 and 17, n. 43 (on A. W. Schlegel). On “the research paradigm of
> philological and linguistic research” see *Philology and Criticism*, 326,
> nn. 7–8 (on Grünendahl), 326, nn. 9 (on Pollock and Jamison), and 327–28,
> nn. 17–18 (on Witzel). See also Adluri, review of Pollock, et al.,  
> eds., *World
> Philology*, 908–10 and Adluri, review of Malinar, *The Bhagavadgītā*,
> 102–105. On the “negativity” of “European critical methods” see *Philology
> and Criticism*, 93, n. 24 and 313, nn. 359–60. See also Bagchee’s
> forthcoming review of Rabault-Feuerhahn, *Archives of Origins *in the
> *International
> Journal of Hindu Studies*. On the “close relations” of German Indology with
> “European orientalism” see the OBO entry “European Constructions of
> Hinduism.”
>
>
>
> (Except for “European Constructions of Hinduism" all writings are available
> via Vishwa’s or my Academia page)
>
>
> Dr. Joydeep Bagchee
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> Academia.edu Homepage <https://fu-berlin.academia.edu/JoydeepBagchee>
>
> The Nay Science
> <http://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-nay-science-9780199931361;jsessionid=94DFF6B197750DBE7C7E64A4FB8B28D2?cc=de&lang=en&>
> Argument and Design
> <http://www.brill.com/products/book/argument-and-design-unity-mahabharata>
> Reading the Fifth Veda <http://www.brill.com/reading-fifth-veda>
> When the Goddess Was a Woman <http://www.brill.com/when-goddess-was-woman>
> Transcultural Encounters between Germany and India
> <http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415844697/>
> German Indology on OBO Hinduism
> <http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0147.xml>
> ___________________
> What, then, is Philosophy?
> Philosophy is the supremely precious.
>
> Plotinus, Enneads I.III.5
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:58 PM Jan E.M. Houben via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear Shyam Ranganathan,
>> This is a legitimate question, which merits an adequate response.
>> My "two cents":
>> You may already have looked at the bibliographical article “German
>> Indology” by Joydeep Bagchee (JB) (Oxford Bibliographies online:
>> www.oxfordbibliographies.com under “German Indology” or:
>>
>> www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0147.xml
>> )
>> Since, as I pointed out elsewhere, “Indology was more or less since its
>> beginnings, end 18th – beginning 19th century, mainly “European” in
>> character with intensive cooperations between French, British and German
>> specialists, and has thus not only been sharing Oriental dreams but also a
>> Nazi-nightmare,” the focus on “German Indology” in JB’s article is itself
>> problematic, especially because the author justifies it by invoking “a
>> distinct history and traditions” for German Indology, and “unique concerns
>> that set it apart from other forms of research into India” (“German
>> Indology”, section “Introduction”). Given this and other peculiar premises,
>> the article contains nevertheless useful bibliographic references and brief
>> evaluations (from the author’s point of view) of relevant publications,
>> especially – for your subject – in two sections of the article: “National
>> Socialism” (topic: German Indology and National Socialism) and “German
>> Responses to National Socialist Indology.” Another relevant section is
>> “Orientalism Debate” which, in the view of the author (JB), as he expresses
>> it in his evaluation of Halbfass’s India and Europe (1988), really starts
>> with the publication of “Pollock 1993” (see above). It is hence regrettable
>> but not entirely surprising that the collective volume Beyond Orientalism
>> (1997) is regarded by JB as a work which “does not directly address the
>> orientalist debate; it is really an overview of Halbfass’s work as a
>> post-orientalist scholar.” In this section a reference is lacking to my
>> review of this work which discusses and demonstrates how the work and in
>> particular Halbfass’s dialogical contributions to it are indeed directly
>> relevant to the “Orientalism Debate” (“Orientalism, its critique, and
>> beyond: review article of Beyond Orientalism, ed. by K. Preisendanz and E.
>> Franco, Amsterdam 1997” (15 [1998]: 16) IIAS-Newsletter : Newsletter of the
>> International Institute for Asian Studies (Leiden), no. 15. 1998 :
>> https://www.academia.edu/6169112). With regard to Halbfass’s unsurpassed
>> India and Europe (1988), the author (JB) thinks that it “needs revision in
>> light of newer discoveries” but fails to point out that several currently
>> self-styled “new discoveries” need, in fact, also revision in the light of
>> Halbfass’s monumental achievement in comparative philosophy which is
>> exceptionally well-founded both in “Western” and in Indian philosophy.
>> I have in the meantime also updated my almost antique "conference report"
>> (of the 29th DOT of the DMG in Leipzig, 1995)
>> www.academia.edu/7378413
>> with two "Further Postscripts", the second of which containing a  
>> brief *compte
>> rendu* of VA&JB's *The Nay Science* in which I address two "key-problems"
>> that remain in this work, a heavy “stone in the pond” of Indology and Asian
>> Studies, in spite of the large number of reviews and rejoinders that have
>> already appeared, and propose two "keys" to solve them.
>> With best regards,
>> Jan Houben
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 18:26, Shyam Ranganathan via INDOLOGY <
>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer that I don't know.
>>>
>>> I recall that in *India and Europe,* Halbfass discusses the development
>>> of ideas associated with National Socialism by those who took an interest
>>> in India. I'm wondering if there is anything classic on this topic. I'm
>>> trying to reference, in passing, the racist reception of India in Europe
>>> (the friendliness to "Arya" or "Swastika" for instance) where India was
>>> treated as a kind of European prehistory, and I'm not sure what to point
>>> to. I'm happy to point to Halbfass, though I was wondering if there was
>>> something specifically on this topic (a paper or book).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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)
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Jan E.M. Houben*
>>
>> Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology
>>
>> *Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite*
>>
>> École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, PSL - Université Paris)
>>
>> *Sciences historiques et philologiques *
>>
>> 54, rue Saint-Jacques, CS 20525 – 75005 Paris
>>
>> *johannes.houben at ephe.sorbonne.fr <johannes.houben at ephe.sorbonne.fr>*
>>
>> *johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu <johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu>*
>>
>> *https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
>> <https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben>*
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>>

-- 
Prof. Dr. Eli Franco
Institut für Indologie und Zentralasienwissenschaften
Schillerstr. 6
04109 Leipzig

Ph. +49 341 9737 121, 9737 120 (dept. office)
Fax +49 341 9737 148