Contrary to what we are sometimes made to believe, publishing houses, like any other business, do not steer the course of history, and neither do governments. Both choose to respond to historical forces already in motion, and the consequence of their choice enters a continuous feedback loop. History continues to unfold, and once the bigger picture emerges, in the courte or longue durée, we get to see who stood on which side of the line dividing reason and blindness. In the current discussion and debates surrounding Wendy Doniger’s book on Hinduism, neither Penguin India nor the Indian government is as relevant as the forces which continue to shape global Hinduism, as we speak.
I read the book in 2009 shortly after it was published, in between other books. I have frequently used Wendy Doniger’s translation of the Rigveda and the Laws of Manu in class. Being familiar with her scholarship in general, I was both impressed and mildly disappointed by The Hindus: An Alternative History. The scope of the tome is simply breathtaking, in its thoroughness, its flawless scholarship, and the ease with the multitudes of texts that make prolonged or cameo appearances in the book. My mild disappointment came from the combative slant and the hyped pitch. The book contains little new data or theory to offer to scholars, researchers, and students who are familiar with the thousand contradictions Hinduism is made of. There is no rule or wisdom in Hinduism, either in ritual or theory, without exceptions, or, to use Doniger’s title, alternatives. Not only is unconventional not unusual in the historical development of Hinduism; the unconventional is more of a norm. If Hindus try to substantiate their claims to convention of any kind, they will not succeed, by a long shot. The range of contradictions which have been accepted and nurtured in that tradition, and have never actually been redacted from the texts is simply staggering. Doniger simply picked the only honestly possible history of the Hindus. Why did she claim it as an alternative history? Was it to put a critical distance between the observer and the subject of study? There was no need to do that for the sake of the critical readers; that would be preaching to the choir. Did she do it then to pick a fight with hoi polloi? You don’t always get what you wished for, but if Doniger wanted a fight with 300 million Hindus with access to the internet, she definitely got it.
While we— who know that the image of neither the practicing Hindu nor Hinduism was tarnished by the book— want the book to reach the readers worldwide, most of us are concerned about something much bigger than the book or even the battle over books in India. The unnecessary noise— no matter how long it lingers on the social media—will in no way define Doniger’s scholarly career. Her work as a Sanskritist will survive well beyond her Alternative History’s sensationalisation, and her legacy will be secure. And if we want to situate this issue in the context of the deterioration of rights of expression in India, it will have to stand in a long line, behind more immediate contenders. The question at hand is the public discourse on Hinduism. Who controls it, and how? What is going to become of Hinduism vis-à-vis the global network of knowledge, privilege, and political power?
There is no way to measure and predict the sensitivity of a people, especially in matters of faith. In the case of Hinduism, faith comes intertwined with another sensitive allegiance, nationalism. The history of Hinduism is now inextricably linked to the history of India’s rise as a global economic power. The political reality of India being infinitely more complicated than that reflected in the official adjectives such as ‘incredible’ or ‘shining’, Hinduism has arisen as the signifier par excellence for national pride among the global Hindu bourgeoisie. The closer the relationship progresses between this vocal Hindu bourgeoisie and Hindutva forces in India, the sheer magnitude of any discourse produced in the interface between these two defeats successfully every other voice of reason, sensibility, and correctness. This is unconventional, not Doniger’s History: the way the Hindu bourgeoisie today is redacting its own thousands of years of cultural history. Interestingly, the only hope lies in the unconventional lack of editing of Hindu texts. It is only a matter of time that they or their children will pick the better alternative, and will actually try reading the texts, perhaps starting with Wendy Doniger’s translation of the verses from the Rig Veda, and discover the thousand contradictions, alternatives, and unconventionalities that make up the Hindu religion.
Rini Bhattacharya Mehta is Assistant Professor, Program in Comparative and World Literature, Department of Religion, Affiliate in South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Illinois, USA
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
>> you would think a "liberal" muslim ... would take a little more interest in what Ali Sina had to say wouldn't you?
Rubbish! How come you are so stupid?
>> The hate-crazed moron of course would not know that a BBC report would not repeat any hate speech.
Ergo, this proves that Taslima did indulge in hate speech.
Brilliant Madrassa logic.
The hate-crazed moron of course would not know that a BBC report would not repeat any hate speech.
How come you are so ignorant? Read this:
How come you are so ignorant? Read this:
It's the fake Nalanda link story all over again. This time, using a bbc link instead of an ehow link to give a veneer of legitimacy to jehadi lies. Goes to show that the jehadi pigs shall remain absolutely shameless and brazen in their lies, no matter how many times they are exposed.
The provided link gives absolutely no details, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO details on what was supposedly offensive. All it says is that under threats from bigots, and pressure from the "seculars", including our current president incidentally, she decided to "withdraw" controversial contents.
That this didn't elicit a similar outrage from the sicko crowd is another story.
Your hate has driven you crazy. Your mad rants do not deserve a response.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT