HVK Archives: With friends like these, having enemies is better
With friends like these, having enemies is better - The Asian Age
Arun Shourie
()
30 August 1996
Title : With friends like these, having enemies is better
Author : Arun Shourie
Publication : The Asian Age
Date : August 30, 1996
Some months ago an official of the United States state
department met me through a common scholar friend. The
official had been following Indian affairs for many
years, in particular the Indian press. He knew more
about the press, specially about trends in our Indian
language papers than a casual reader like me is ever
likely to know. He was also concerned about the
frequency with which our countries get into scraps with
each other. Last week the same scholar friend sent me an
account which that officer had written and circulated
about the way India, in particular Hindus, are again
being portrayed in the USA. The note deserves to be read
in full, so what follows is the verbatim text of his
note.
Politically aware Indians have made much recently of the
increasing strain between the US administration and India
over positions and statements on Kashmir. Those
expressing this concern, however, may be unaware of a
growing phenomenon currently taking place which has more
profound and far-reaching implications: legitimisation of
Hindu-bashing in US institutions.
Influenced and supported by noisy self-appointed Indian
"secularists," many western scholars and government
officials are now taking a position on Hindu revivalism.
With very few exceptions, this position is exceedingly
negative. Though this phenomenon is now limited to those
conversant with South Asia and has riot yet influenced
the general public's opinions, in time it will. Though
there are many forums for. Hindu-bashing currently being
opened, I will reserve my' comments here to two recent
conferences, one sponsored by the US state department and
one by the University of Wisconsin.
On July 16 of this year. the state department held a
conference entitled, Hindu Revivalism in India: Position,
Prospects and Implications for the US. Many highly
placed individuals were present including ambassador
elect deputy assistant secretary for Regional Analysis
Phyllis Oakley and a wide range of US government
officials. Scholars were invited to make presentations on
Hindu revivalism. On the whole, the atmosphere was one
of ridicule. There was a lot of finger pointing at Hindu
revivalism as the source of India's current problems and
of potential conflict with the US.
On November 5-7, at the annual conference on South Asia
at Madison, Wisconsin, two panels and many individual
presentations were devoted to Hindu nationalism. Every
single presentation was negative towards Hindu
nationalism with remarkable statements being made that I
never thought I would hear in an academic institution.
I will detail the presentation of Lisa McKean of the
University of Sydney because she was a featured speaker
at both the University of Wisconsin and at the state
department conference. I will give a sampling of the
statements made by other scholars. Though I have
documented their statements as well, I will avoid
reference to their names in this note.
Lisa McKean claims to have spent a lot of time with
Vishwa Hindu Parishad, enough to make scholarly
presentations, anyway! The basic thrust of her argument
is that Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America is a fascist
organisation which remits funds to its illegal sister
organisation in India. Not mentioned of course is that
the corrupt, opportunistic Congress banned the VHP for
its own political gain. Lisa describes VHP sponsored
groups in America as "Front Organisations" for a larger
fascist cause. She refers to VHP activities, including
Diwali celebrations and Swami Chinmayananda's spiritual
camps as "covert operations" and to active members as
"militant activists." Lisa called the late Shri
Chinmayananda a "master manipulator" and alleged that he
initiated unwanted physical contact with women, including
herself. Not content with merely bashing VHP, however,
Lisa referred to the colourful monthly magazine, Hinduism
Today as a front paper supporting militant activities.
Global Vision 2000 was targeted as a fascist assembly.
She described Hindus moving into professional positions
as "infiltrators" working for the cause of Hindu
fundamentalism. Hindu Digest, Samskar and the Hindu
Students Council did not escape her censure.
Perhaps most appalling was the warm hand given to her at
the end of her presentation in both conferences. Praised
as a "bright, young progressive scholar," most of the
audience accepted her statements as fact, particularly
those progressive Indian "secularists." One even
suggested that universities should perhaps ban Hindu
Students Council of America - imagine the outcry if
someone suggested banning an Islamic or Christian
Students' Council. Lisa was certainly not alone and
played to an appreciative audience in both locations.
Scholars making presentations at the state department
conference were 'less concerned with facts than with
making points. Many erroneous statements were made such
as "The Sangh Parivar planned the execution of Mahatma
Gandhi and will stop at nothing. "The misquoted statement
of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray about Indian Muslims
being like the Jews of Europe was used in making the
authoritative statement that "Sangh Parivar under-
prinnings are just like those of Nazis." An example
of how criticism of Sangh Parivar activities is extended
to Hindus in general is the statement of a Johns Hopkins
scholar that "Hindus in the US are very sympathetic and
supportive of fundamentalism." One scholar even justified
discrimination against Hindus in India itself with the
remarkable statement, "Equal rights tot- Hindus is equal
to abolition of minority rights." The scholar made this
statement after echoing the hollow line started by Indian
"secularist" Romila Thapar that "There is in reality no
such thing as Hinduism."
The University of Wisconsin panels were truly pitiful and
I will give only a few quotes from various presentations.
One Indian "secularist" suggested that India was an
artificial entity which "Requires fascism to maintain its
existence." A scholar from Berkeley referred to the
"dirty communal imprint" that Hindus leave on Indian
society. Hindu Sangram Parishad's effort in India to
spread Sanskrit learning among all castes and classes was
seen as "militant activity" rather than a remarkable
democratisation. Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was
referred to as a "Celluloid Divinity" and Swami
Vivekananda was refereed to as "reactionary at home
though seemingly progressive abroad." The popular
Ramayana and Mahabharata serials were referred to as
"communalist, oppressive and inspirational to fascists."
The University of Wisconsin's willing (witting or
unwitting) participation in Hindu-bashing is proven by
their giving a booth to the so-called "Overseas Friends
of India" from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. This
organisation has apparently taken the lead in spreading
malicious and misleading propaganda. Calling Hinduism
"unrivaled in sheer bigotry and intolerances these
overseas "friends" claim that Hindus plan pogroms of
minorities and are guilty of having "banished Buddhism,"
and having "Forced Jainism into a sect of Hinduism." Rape
is claimed as the normal response of a Hindu male to a
"minority" woman. Harijans are claimed to he non-Hindu.
Sympathy is claimed for the "persecuted Harijans who are
not allowed to convert to Christianity or Islam." The
"lack of availability of beef' is claimed a "denial of
protein to a poor population." Finally these "friends" of
India urge overseas Indians to write to their ambassador
to urge India to stop this communalist behavior (assist
efforts to delegitimise and malign Hinduism). With
"friends" like these, having enemies would be an
improvement.
There is no doubt that "secular progressive" scholars
bash other religion,., and traditions as well. The
consensus viewpoint of western scholarship for quite
some time has basically been one of aggressively
promoting atheistic values which denigrate traditional
culture and religion. Yet despite the "normalcy" of this
denigration, I cannot therefore dismiss these scholars'
work as harmless and limited to ivory towers. Though
their arrogant pronouncements are irrelevant to, and
cannot impact upon divine truth, I fear Hindus in the
West may be persecuted due to the willful spread of false
and misleading propaganda on the part of these scholars.
It particularly pains me to see Indians, Hindu by birth,
participate in the denigration of their own civilisation.
What would they replace it with, a "progressive India"
with a 50 per cent divorce rate, high illegitimate birth
rates, McDonalds on every corner, discos replacing
temples and MTV as the most watched TV show?
Incredible as the assertions of these misguided
"intellectuals" are, there is a danger of an appearance
of legitimisation of these ideas through repetition.
These unprincipled "scholars" would leave no stone
unturned to denigrate Hindu culture. The "secular"
Indians are at the forefront of this campaign which is
willingly supported by proselytising Muslims and
Christians who have the same goal: the denigration and
delegitimisation of the traditional Hindu culture and
world view. The rhetoric of the "Overseas Friends of
India" is similar to that of an extreme group of
Protestant evangelicals who have portrayed Rajneesh as
mainstream Hinduism and maliciousness and ignorance as
prerequisites to being Hindu. How this will affect an
unknowing American public, when repeated over time
remains an open question. Some possibilities:
Tenure of an university professor of Indian ethnicity
being contingent upon his or her allegiance to Hindu-
bashing rhetoric when dealing with Indian subject matter
(a very real possibility in light of the suppression of
the truth already being justified in some universities
due to political correctness ideology).
Professional advancement among Hindus in non-university
settings requiring their disassociation from "backward"
delegitimised practices and beliefs (based on the
assumption that the only good Indian is a dead Indian or
at least a secular atheist who is "dead" to his own
culture and civilisation and therefore "progressive" and
"liberal."
Increasing embarrassment and alienation on the part of
Hindu youth growing up in this country from identifying
with Hindu beliefs and practices due to their
delegitimisation.
Hindus having to repeatedly justify their religious
practices such as Puja to Ganapati as, not being "one of
those weird cult practices."
Hindus having to work much harder to dispel mistaken
impressions and to ward off a witch hunt mentality which
could be precipitated by incessant Hindu bashing. There
is much historical precedent for this in Western culture
(Jew-hunts, etc).
The complexity of Indian civilisation simply overwhelms
most western scholars (and apparently, Indian "secular"
scholars as well). They do not, for the most part,
understand that the rhythms of Hinduism beat in the heart
of most "oppressed untouchables" and in the hearts of
much of "the minorities" as well, including most Indian
Muslims before 20th century politicisation. One scholar,
facing the complexity of increasing Harijan, Christian
and Muslim sympathy for Hindutva, echoed the true
feelings that most western scholars have always exhibited
towards India. Asked how he could analyse such a complex
civilisation, he replied, "When Hinduism dies, we'll do a
better job."
The note speaks for itself. Notice the kinds of things
that pass for scholarship at meetings of scholars on
South Asia. This kind of "scholarship" will certainly
harm America itself, as it has done in the past: the then
prevalent notions of "political correctness" kept
European and American intellectuals from speaking the
truth about Communism for decades, and thereby led the
governments to misjudge the nature of the beast that
confronted them.
Next, notice how several of your friends will react to a
note like this one. Sentences in the note speak to the
regard this particular official has for India, for
Hinduism in particular. In the eyes of so many this fact
alone will be sufficient to destroy the veracity of his
narrative, to reduce the importance of what he has
pointed out. Now look at the question the other way: how
many of the same persons ever discount what a person says
about India and Hinduism when it is evident that he hates
Hinduism and India? When someone who is obviously
attached to Islam says something about Islam - even in
the face of all of its history and all the canonical
texts - do these scholars and friends dismiss it? Do
they not on the contrary insist that what he is saying
must take precedence over the evidence of mere texts and
history'? And now? Because sentences suggest that the
official thinks well of India and Hinduism what he says
must be discounted! Almost the only thing which might
keep such persons from throwing out the note altogether
and at the outset itself is the fact it has been written
by an American and not an Indian! But what if the
officer, though American, actually is one who has
converted to Hinduism?! That would be the final,
conclusive "proof' surely - the content itself being the
primary "proof!" - that nothing in the note should be
believed at all! "That explains it all," these friends
will proclaim in triumph!
"But surely," even the non-secularists among us will
exclaim, "it would have been so much better if a person
less obviously appreciative of India and Hinduism had
written the note." And what is the proof of the person
hem. less than fit to narrate the facts? That he has not
indulged in Hindu-bashing! That he has not conformed to
the prevailing intellectual fashion, that instead he has
shown it up! And what if the "objective," "neutral"
scholars are too intimidated by the intellectual fashion
to testify to the truth? My friend puts it well. A man
tried to stand up to the gangsters in town. In
retaliation they set upon his sister, and raped her in
view of a large crowd. Everyone was terrified. The
brother ran from one eye-witness to the other beseeching
them to help him lodge a complaint with the police. None
dared. At last he went himself and lodged the FIR. "But
wouldn't it have been better if someone other than you
had come to register the case'."' exclaimed the
policeman. "After all, she is your sister. Everyone will
say are an interested party."
That is the secularist position. But notice that this is
their position vis-a-vis India and Hindus alone: if the
country in question is Palestine and the narrator is a
Muslim, say, then they insist that what he says has
conclusive evidentiary status. And then there is the
other point: if even the brother will shy away from
filing the case when his own sister has been raped, why
would others?
In a word, what answers to the preceding questions
explain is the depth to which our self-esteem has been
pushed. what they document is the extent to which
secularists have internalised double standards and
calumny, and the extent to which they have been able to
brow-beat others into adhering to these skewed standards.
Notice the persistence of calumny; the falsehoods which
are being hurled at us are exactly the ones which the
missionaries fabricated and smeared us with a 100 years
ago-and yet when, at the invitation of the Catholic
Bishops Conference of India, I had occasion to refer to
them two years ago in my book, Missionaries in India, the
cry went up, "But why are you digging up these old
things? Who talks about India and Hinduism to those terms
today?"
Notice the congruence of themes: what is being put of at
these conference in the US is exactly what our
secularists and others put out in the newspapers here;
the themes and premises are the very same-that there
really is no such thing as Hinduism-the very words are
the same. The primary responsibility for this is not of
the foreign scholar as of the secularist Indians: just as
the spectacles of the foreign correspondent working in
Delhi get coloured by what he reads and hears from Indian
journalists writing in the English newspapers in this one
city, the perception of the foreign scholar-a "specialist
on South Asia" though he be - gets coloured by what he
hears from and reads of the output of Indian scholars.
Notice also the convergence of interests: of the
interests of Christian missionaries and Islamic groups,
of the official US establishment, of our secularists.
Notice the subservience of US academies to the current
fashion of "political correctness." Notice the total
perversion, indeed the complete inversion: the groups
whose foundational belief is theocracy, whose ideology is
exclusiveness distilled 10 times over are the very ones
who are accusing Hindus of hem. theocratic! The very
groups the Leftists - whose forbears collaborated with
the Nazis, whose ideology is Nazism by a different name
are the ones who are accusing Hindus of being Nazis.
But falsehood is a potent weapon. Neither American
Presidents and Congressmen nor the American people at
large have any time to ascertain facts about India.
Policy is therefore formed by just a handful of middle-
level officers - the Robin Raphaels whose predilections
have been on display in such vivid colours these five
years. Presidents and Americans in general go along with
what this handful concocts - they are conditioned to do
so by the stereotype which they have been fed over the
years. It is this stereotype which this kind of
falsehood manufactures.
When what the note of this official reveals is the
perception Americans are let to form of India, the policy
which they will countenance will be one of unadulterated
hostility. That will harm not just Indo-US relations, it
will harm India no end.
But who cares?
Back
Top
|
