Issues Concerning the Study of
Hinduism in America :
A Conversion Guideline
by Rajiv Malhotra

© The Infinity Foundation, 2000 All Rights Reserved

A. Methodology:

  1. Why are Western categories and perspectives used to portray Hinduism but the converse is seldom done? Do one's assumptions born of American experience cloud one's understanding of religious issues as understood by Hindus? Much effort has been spent, for example, studying religious conflict in India, but have we fully grasped the causes of this violence? For example, shouldn't there be a study of the ethics of proselytizing? Might not our study of India's problems be enriched by a more comparative approach, such as by encouraging students to look at America's demographic categories (caste) in terms of the varnas and jatis? Might adopting a more equitable and truly comparative mode of discourse facilitate Hindu-Christian dialogue? Wouldn't it be interesting to inquire, for example, as to whether a given Gospel is dharmic or adharmic?
  2. Given that unlike Semitic religions, Hinduism has a large body of non-revelatory beliefs (which are claimed to be the discoveries of the rishis), and that Hinduism has always put great emphasis on the experience of yoga, meditation and ritual, is textual analysis alone without experiential support (which many academic scholars lack) a valid method of interpretation? Is it not often producing biased or unbalanced portrayals of Hindu traditions? Do scholars ever examine such questions of methodology seriously?
  3. Given that many Hindu texts explicitly stipulate the pre-requisites for studying them, in terms of yoga/meditation/dharmic achievement, and that few academic scholars qualify under these pre-requisites to even be reading the texts, would that put their interpretations into questionable status, especially given the fact that many schools of Hinduism reserve many of their teachings for those who have received initiation (diksha)? On what basis can the non-practicing academic scholar claim greater authority in the interpretation of Hinduism than a practicing Hindu pandit or acharya, especially where the text's author has explicitly laid out the pre-requisites?
  4. How do academicians feel about the use of Freudian psychoanalysis as the primary tool to interpret texts - be it Vedas or Ramayana or Ramakrishna? Do scholars of Freudian psychology accept this methodology? Is there a consensus that Freudian psychoanalysis is actually applicable to India, given the significant cultural difference between India and the West? Because the Freudian method, when crudely applied, often focuses on sexual issues that are repugnant to a large proportion of the Hindu community, shouldn't such studies be evaluated with particular high standards with regard to their accuracy and the soundness of their methodology? What standards and norms does academia have to protect against sloppy scholarship disguised behind sensationalism that 'sells,' but at the expense of the feelings of the Hindu community? Don't scholarly studies sometimes have important social consequences that must be addressed, despite the "Ivory Tower" mentality of some scholars, who typically claim that they are disinterested and objective, and thus evade ethical problems? Is there a need for a religious studies norm equivalent of bioethics (that addresses ethical issues in bio-medical research), a field that the researchers themselves initially claimed was unnecessary?
  5. What are the quality control methods to ensure against wrong translations, especially concerning radical change of meaning of texts to give them a totally different meaning? This problem is particularly acute with regard to the numerous esoteric texts of Tantric and Shakti schools of Hinduism, the interpretation of which require a very sophisticated hermeneutic. (The allegation that Kirpal's "interpretation" of Ramakrishna is based upon rampant misinterpretation of the Bengali texts and SERIOUS errors in Bengali translation, is a case in point.)
  6. Comparative statistics are often not given when social problems of India are presented in scholarly material. To be meaningful, statistics about social ills must be stated per million population, and should compare India, other poor but non-Hindu countries, and preferably the US. How can peer reviews approve breaches of such basic norms for using quantitative data in reaching sensible conclusions?
  7. Given the incredible diversity of Indian communities and Hindu traditions, why are smritis such as Manusmriti, that were developed within the context of a given time and place and which never received universal acceptance by all Hindus, often presented as defining the ideology of Hinduism?

B. History:

  1. Has there been adequate analysis of the historical events over the past 1,000 years that shaped (a) Hinduism, (b) the non-Hindu perspectives through which Hinduism has been portrayed (by Islamic powers, colonialists, Marxists, and now Western scholars), and (c) the effect of this portrayal in molding Indians' self-image? In other words, the History of India's History needs to be understood before anyone could interpret today's Hinduism or Indian society. (Gyan Prakash is coming out with a major book in 2001 that will alter the way the period 1300 to 1900 is seen by college students.) Are students encouraged and given the opportunity to develop a thorough understanding of the complexity of Indian history before drawing conclusions about India?
  2. Does the teaching of India without a sound historical perspective reflect a bias toward the present situation, and an unstated implication that things have always been thus? Shouldn't we teach that India had literacy rates at least at par with Europe's until some 200 years ago; that its economy was stronger than Europe's, with a greater share of global trade and a larger GNP; that many of today's social ills are economically based and not chronic parts of its heritage; and than numerous 'Western' things are in fact of Indian origin? Does a failure to properly contextualize India render students susceptible to naïve belief in the cultural superiority of the West?
  3. Why are so many Indic contributions to world civilization, despite being well recorded in history, not included in the standard curricula, at least not emphasized enough to make an impact? (The best proof of our hypothesis is to take exit polls among students, to measure how many of the major Indic contributions they can correctly identify.) Why are the many positive contributions, including many in postmodern times, often excluded from the scope of coverage of Hinduism?

C. Hindu Women's Issues:

  1. Are issues related to Hindu women adequately represented in current academic curricula? This appears to be a trenchant issue, given the recent criticisms leveled at attempts to apply Western feminist ideology to Hindu women's issues (See for example Usha Menon's essay in Daedalus 129.4, Fall 2000). Are feminist assumptions universal, or are the ideals on which they are based specific to Western culture only? To what extent are current depictions of Hindu women and issues related to women represented in terms alien to their own self-understanding?
  2. If the issues relevant to Hindu women themselves are not adequately covered in current academic discourse, in what ways can this problem be redressed? Might it be desirable to cultivate and encourage the work of Hindu women scholars, who are particularly well placed to view these issues from both emic and emit perspectives?

D. Constructive Hinduism:

Why is there no (or very little) scholarship on 'Constructive Hinduism', namely, on the relevance of Hinduism to the world today and its adaptation to new historical challenges and cultural contexts, as compared to Christianity, with regard to which much such research has been done? Related to this, why is Hinduism portrayed as static and fossilized, when in fact as a non-revelatory and non-prophetic religion, it has historically been at least as versatile and creative as any others?

E. Social Responsibility:

  1. Why has nothing been done by leading scholars to attack negative stereotyping in secondary school textbooks, and/or factual portrayals where the topics are selectively negative, and/or portrayals that 13 year-olds do not have the contextual background to understand? Why is there no program to review textbooks?
  2. The same question as the previous one but applied to media coverage. Also, has academia conducted pro-active media education about Hinduism, especially since there is a special organization of religion journalists?
  3. Many conferences and events where the world's major religions are represented have NO Hinduism representation at all. Does this concern academicians, and if so, is anything being done about it?
  4. Why has there been no quantitative research to understand the reshaping of young Indians' identity, both in the US and India? Casta describes an 'Ethnic Shame' syndrome created by the British to make a certain segment of Indians look up to Europeans at the expense of their own tradition. Might there now be the emergence of a 'Hindu Shame' syndrome, and if so, what research is being done to understand it?
  5. Hindu students in America are sitting in religion/sociology classes or hearing about such portrayals of their religion from friends. Do they consider the educational portrayals as fair representations of 'their' Hindu faith? Since Hinduism is no longer about far away poor and exotic anthropological subjects, but also about our own neighbors, classmates, and co-workers right here, do you feel this sensitivity has been adequately reflected in teaching?
  6. Is Hinduism being subverted by (a) taboos and negative stereotypes, (b) omission of its many contributions to world civilization that are now only found in archives, and (c) fear of anyone standing up for Hinduism being branded a fundamentalist? To what extent has Western scholarship played a role in subversion? Are these factors causing dis-identification by many Hindu youth resulting in 'South Asianization' or otherwise alienation from their identity?
  7. Why has the academia not done any extensive quantitative surveys about Americans' attitudes towards Hinduism, in the same way as many surveys have been done about Christianity, and the way Islamic academic groups have done surveys specifically to identify the stereotypes loud and clear?
  8. Should the current leaders of Hinduism studies in America be taken to task for failing to do something about these issues, over which they have had control for several decades?

F. Power Structure:

Since the peer review process that eventually determines career advancements has no 'external' oversight or auditing process, has it promoted an unhealthy concentration of power by a select group of scholars? Is there now an academic "caste system," with (i) the agenda setters as the top caste (with fewer than ten top-level agenda setters in Hinduism today), (ii) gatekeepers in the middle (often appointed by the agenda setters), and (iii) rank and file low caste (students and untenured faculty) at the bottom seeking to impress and wheedle their way up? Is it time for a Gandhian revolution by the low caste scholars and casteless non-scholars? (The issue of the structure of the American academic hierarchy and the distribution of power therein is very interesting and perhaps worthy of further study.) Does the profession have adequate self-regulation with checks and balances? Does this structure stifle competition due to its concentration of power? Does it stifle unorthodox perspectives and positions critical of the dogmas of the academic sampradaya? To what extent is criticism made from either within or from outside of the academy on matters raised in this document? How is such criticism received? Is the insular "Ivory tower" stance a strategy to deflect criticism and deny accountability for the real social consequences of scholarship? Are all levels of the academic community equally able to voice dissent, or are some voices silenced on account of their precarious positions in the hierarchy?

G. Balancing the Representation:

There is precedence in educational policy to design programs to select and encourage scholars from specific minority groups to enter higher education. There are many initiatives to train young persons from a specific community who would then go back and lead that community in some respect for which leaders are lacking:

Do Hindu Americans also need to have their own leaders with good scholarly training, so as to avoid the leadership going into the hands of political demagogues and preachers? Is there a case for developing programs that would encourage Hindus into scholarship about Hinduism? (Perhaps, one might consider beginning with grants for higher studies that are meant specifically for Hindu students - even to encourage those based in India to come to the US for studies. The program would not determine the admissions policy of any university, but could make the grants available specifically to those who get admission and who fit a certain demographic category. These students would eventually populate new chairs and junior faculty positions.)

© The Infinity Foundation, 2000 All Rights Reserved