Pankaj Mishra on Wendy Doniger’s ‘The Hindus’

(earlier Dirda piece on the same here)
LINK

Visiting India in 1921, E. M. Forster witnessed the eight-day celebration of Lord Krishna’s birthday. This first encounter with devotional ecstasy left the Bloomsbury aesthete baffled. “There is no dignity, no taste, no form,” he complained in a letter home. Recoiling from Hindu India, Forster was relieved to enter the relatively rational world of Islam. Describing the muezzin’s call at the Taj Mahal, he wrote, “I knew at all events where I stood and what I heard; it was a land that was not merely atmosphere but had definite outlines and horizons.”

Forster, who later used his appalled fascination with India’s polytheistic muddle to superb effect in his novel “A Passage to India,” was only one in a long line of Britons who felt their notions of order and morality challenged by Indian religious and cultural practices. The British Army captain who discovered the erotic temples of Khajuraho in the early 19th century was outraged by how “extremely indecent and offensive” depictions of fornicating couples profaned a “place of worship.” Lord Macaulay thundered against the worship, still widespread in India today, of the Shiva lingam. Even Karl Marx inveighed against how man, “the sovereign of nature,” had degraded himself in India by worshipping Hanuman, the monkey god.

Repelled by such pagan blasphemies, the first British scholars of India went so far as to invent what we now call “Hinduism,” complete with a mainstream classical tradition consisting entirely of Sanskrit philosophical texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads. In fact, most Indians in the 18th century knew no Sanskrit, the language exclusive to Brahmins. For centuries, they remained unaware of the hymns of the four Vedas or the idealist monism of the Upanishads that the German Romantics, American Transcendentalists and other early Indophiles solemnly supposed to be the very essence of Indian civilization. (Smoking chillums and chanting “Om,” the Beats were closer to the mark.)

As Wendy Doniger, a scholar of Indian religions at the University of Chicago, explains in her staggeringly comprehensive book, the British Indologists who sought to tame India’s chaotic polytheisms had a “Protestant bias in favor of scripture.” In “privileging” Sanskrit over local languages, she writes, they created what has proved to be an enduring impression of a “unified Hinduism.” And they found keen collaborators among upper-caste Indian scholars and translators. This British-Brahmin version of Hinduism — one of the many invented traditions born around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries — has continued to find many takers among semi-Westernized Hindus suffering from an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the apparently more successful and organized religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The Hindu nationalists of today, who long for India to become a muscular international power, stand in a direct line of 19th-century Indian reform movements devoted to purifying and reviving a Hinduism perceived as having grown too fragmented and weak. These mostly upper-caste and middle-class nationalists have accelerated the modernization and homogenization of “Hinduism.”

Still, the nontextual, syncretic religious and philosophical traditions of India that escaped the attention of British scholars flourish even today. Popular devotional cults, shrines, festivals, rites and legends that vary across India still form the worldview of a majority of Indians. Goddesses, as Doniger writes, “continue to evolve.” Bollywood produced the most popular one of my North Indian childhood: Santoshi Mata, who seemed to fulfill the materialistic wishes of newly urbanized Hindus. Far from being a slave to mindless superstition, popular religious legend conveys a darkly ambiguous view of human action. Revered as heroes in one region, the characters of the great epics “Ramayana” and “Mahabharata” can be regarded as villains in another. Demons and gods are dialectically interrelated in a complex cosmic order that would make little sense to the theologians of the so-called war on terror.

Doniger sets herself the ambitious task of writing “a narrative alternative to the one constituted by the most famous texts in Sanskrit.” As she puts it, “It’s not all about Brahmins, Sanskrit, the Gita.” It’s also not about perfidious Muslims who destroyed innumerable Hindu temples and forcibly converted millions of Indians to Islam. Doniger, who cannot but be aware of the political historiography of Hindu nationalists, the most powerful interpreters of Indian religions in both India and abroad today, also wishes to provide an “alternative to the narrative of Hindu history that they tell.”

She writes at length about the devotional “bhakti” tradition, an ecstatic and radically egalitarian form of Hindu religiosity which, though possessing royal and literary lineage, was “also a folk and oral phenomenon,” accommodating women, low-caste men and illiterates. She explores, contra Marx, the role of monkeys as the “human unconscious” in the “Ramayana,” the bible of muscular Hinduism, while casting a sympathetic eye on its chief ogre, Ravana. And she examines the mythology and ritual of Tantra, the most misunderstood of Indian traditions.

She doesn’t neglect high-table Hinduism. Her chapter on violence in the “Mahabharata” is particularly insightful, highlighting the tragic aspects of the great epic, and unraveling, in the process, the hoary cliché of Hindus as doctrinally pacifist. Both “dharma” and “karma” get their due. Those who tilt at organized religions today on behalf of a residual Enlightenment rationalism may be startled to learn that atheism and agnosticism have long traditions in Indian religions and philosophies.

Though the potted biographies of Mughal emperors seem superfluous in a long book, Doniger’s chapter on the centuries of Muslim rule over India helps dilute the lurid mythology of Hindu nationalists. Motivated by realpolitik rather than religious fundamentalism, the Mughals destroyed temples; they also built and patronized them. Not only is there “no evidence of massive coercive conversion” to Islam, but also so much of what we know as popular Hinduism — the currently popular devotional cults of Rama and Krishna, the network of pilgrimages, ashrams and sects — acquired its distinctive form during Mughal rule.

Doniger’s winsomely eclectic range of reference — she enlists Philip Roth’s novel “I Married a Communist” for a description of the Hindu renunciant’s psychology — begins to seem too determinedly eccentric when she discusses Rudyard Kipling, a figure with no discernible influence on Indian religions, with greater interpretative vigor than she does Mohandas K. Gandhi, the most creative of modern devout Hindus. More puzzlingly, Doniger has little to say about the forms Indian cultures have assumed in Bali, Mauritius, Trinidad and Fiji, even as she describes at length the Internet-enabled liturgies of Hindus in America.

Yet it is impossible not to admire a book that strides so intrepidly into a polemical arena almost as treacherous as Israel-­Arab relations. During a lecture in London in 2003, Doniger escaped being hit by an egg thrown by a Hindu nationalist apparently angry at the “sexual thrust” of her interpretation of the “sacred” “Ramayana.” This book will no doubt further expose her to the fury of the modern-day Indian heirs of the British imperialists who invented “Hinduism.” Happily, it will also serve as a salutary antidote to the fanatics who perceive — correctly — the fluid existential identities and commodious metaphysic of practiced Indian religions as a threat to their project of a culturally homogenous and militant nation-state.

Pankaj Mishra is the author of “An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World” and “Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond.”

35 Responses to “Pankaj Mishra on Wendy Doniger’s ‘The Hindus’”

  1. I recent;y got this book, will be getting into it soon…

    Like

  2. Lalitha.S Says:

    Thanks for sharing this review from Pankaj Mishra, one of my favourit writers. I’ve loved his books right from his very first one, a hilarious take on small town India. Met him in Chennai at the book-reading of his last book Tempatations of the West (dealing with Kashmir, Afghanistan, Bollywood–everything—but the Bollywood chapter is poorly done).

    The book under review—I won’t be surprised if some hardliner politico tries to ban it here. Have not seen any reviews of it here in India, so obviously it has not been released here yet.

    BTW–I’m lalsub from NG.

    Is it mandatory to register here, or can one comment occasionally in this manner?

    Like

  3. Outlook interview:

    Interview
    “Ram Was Happy With Sita…Indulging In Every Way…And Then He Threw Her Out”
    Internationally acclaimed Sanskrit scholar and author on her learned and rambunctious 780-page opus
    Sheela Reddy

    Internationally acclaimed Sanskrit scholar and author Wendy Doniger was famously at the receiving end of an egg thrown by an enraged Hindu at a London lecture in 2003. Since then, she has continued to infuriate the Hindutva brigade with her unorthodox views on Hinduism and its sacred texts, earning for herself the epithet: “crude, lewd and very rude in the hallowed portals of Sanskrit academics”. Undeterred, Doniger has gone on to write a learned and rambunctious 780-page opus, The Hindus: An Alternative History, which is out this week in its Indian edition. Some excerpts of an interview with Sheela Reddy:

    You have faced much flak from the Hindu right wing for your writings. Why?

    You’ll have to ask them why. It doesn’t seem to me to have much to do with the book. They don’t say, “Look here, you said this on page 200, and that’s a terrible thing to say.” Instead, they say things not related to the book: you hate Hindus, you are sex-obsessed, you don’t know anything about the Hindus, you got it all wrong. The objections seem to be a) I presume to know things about Hindus that they didn’t know; and b) I was saying things about the Ramayana which they didn’t like.

    If whatever you say about the Ramayana is all there in the texts, why don’t we recognize it? Who bowdlerized it and when?

    It happened over the centuries. After all, the oldest Ramayana is well over 2,000 years old. Over the years things have happened, Hinduism has changed a lot. It probably started with the Bhakti movement —in the sense of the passionate worship of a single god. Rama did things in the Ramayana that the Bhakti movement wouldn’t have said about him, had they written the Ramayana.

    Until recently, there wasn’t only one way to tell the Ramayana. That’s why Hinduism is such a wonderful religion.

    So puritanism crept into the Ramayana around the 10th century?

    Yes, I guess so. It’s not just puritanism, but the idea that Rama was a perfect man and couldn’t have made a mistake. Did you, for instance, know that in the Tulsidas version, the real Sita never went with Ravan to Lanka, but a chhaya (shadow) Sita went to Lanka?

    So how do you explain the many versions of the Ramayana – many of them very subversive texts – that have survived along with the Ramayana we now know?

    That’s why Hinduism is such a wonderful religion. It’s because people are allowed to have their own texts: there was no Pope or ulemas to say you may not tell the story that way—until now. You have groups that say Rama would never have sent Sita away so we have the shadow Sita who went to Lanka instead of the real Sita. Then you have other stories that say that in fact Lakshman was really in love with Sita , which of course Tulsidas doesn’t say, and neither does Valmiki. And you have stories in which Sita is the daughter of Ravana. Until recently, there was no one who said there was only one way to tell the Ramayana. Everyone in India knew that the stories were told differently, because women married into different families and right away there was a different story. And no one would say that you got it wrong.

    Is it in Valmiki’s version that Rama thinks his father, Dasaratha, is a sex-addict?

    Lakshman is the one who actually says it. He says the king is hopelessly attached to sensual objects. But Rama himself says (at 2.47.8) that the king is kama-atma, entirely consumed by kama.

    You also suggest that because Rama is afraid of turning into a sex addict like his father, he throws Sita out after enjoying sex with her?

    You have a chapter in Valmiki’s Ramayana where Rama was so happy with Sita, they drank wine together, they were alone, enjoying themselves in every way, indulging in various ways, not just the sexual act. And in the very next chapter he says I’ve got to throw you out. So I’m suggesting: what is the connection between those two things? And what does it mean that Rama knows that Dasaratha, his father, disgraced himself because of his attachment to his young and beautiful wife. So I’m taking pieces of the Ramayana and putting them together and saying these are not disconnected.

    Lakshmana says his father Dasaratha is hopelessly attached to sensual objects. Rama himself says that the king is kama-atma, entirely consumed by kama.

    So you are saying his fear of following in his father’s footsteps is making him betray his own sexuality?

    Yes, I am. Or even of being perceived that way. Remember he keeps repeating: “People will say….” Maybe he knows that his love for Sita is much purer than Dasaratha’s love for Kaikeyi. But even so, he is afraid that people who noticed Dasaratha’s love for Ram will say that like his father, he too is keeping a woman he should not because he’s so crazy about her. So he fears public opinion will connect him with his father. Yes, I think that’s there — but it’s not the only thing there is in the Ramayana. It’s just something others haven’t pointed out, so I thought I’d better point it out.

    Isn’t that foolhardy, especially when you are already the target of Hindu outrage?

    Not really. There’s no point in writing a book if you don’t say what you believe. Otherwise you have to stop writing, and I didn’t want to do that. My real fear is that I might not be able to return to India and that’s a very sad thing for me. Two of my colleagues can’t go back to India because there are court cases against them for blasphemy. But I think liberal forces are gaining ground in India. The Supreme Court threw out the last blasphemy case saying it was nonsense. I am hoping to return to India next year.

    What has been the response so far from American Hindus?

    My favourite one on Amazon accuses me of being a Christian fundamentalist and my book a defence of Christianity against Hinduism. And of course, I’m not a Christian, I’m a Jew! I’m very Jewish, and all my writing is very Jewish.

    Historians point out that the first temple for Ram was built only in 10th century AD, whereas the Ramayana was composed between 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD. How do you explain it?

    Well, in order to have a temple you have to have a real movement. You have to have a lot of money, land, a whole system of building temples, which the Hindus did not have at first. The Buddhist were the first to build temples—the stupas. But Hindu worship originally was the puja. The king of course had royal ceremonies like the ashwamedha and so on. But Hindu people mainly did their own puja—you had the family priests, you had your Agni sacrifices. But it took the Bhakti movement to organize Ram or Shiva worship. The Kama Sutra does not refer to temple worship, it talks only of festivals you go to. Hinduism underwent changes from the organized religion of the Vedic period before you had temple worship.

    Most Indians now are ‘neo-Vedantic’. They think Hinduism is spiritual—the sensual was suppressed, censored during British rule.

    So temples to Ram came at the same time when the Ramayana was becoming more straitlaced?

    Exactly. People invested in how Rama should be. When you build a great big temple to a man who was perfect, then you can’t tell these kind of stories in that kind of a temple.

    While Valmiki is generally said to be the author of the Ramayana, the older books– two to six—have no mention of him?

    Well, we don’t know who Valmiki was. It’s unlikely that one person wrote the whole Ramayana. Certainly unlikely that Vyasa wrote the Mahabharata—it was too great a book for a single author. Things were added on in Ramayana’s first and seventh book later on. For instance, in the seventh book we have a story long before the story of Rama and Sita about how Ravana raped one of the great apsaras, Rambha. And she comes weeping, dirty and bleeding, to her husband, who asks: “What has happened to you?”

    When he finds out, he curses Ravana that if he ever touches a woman against her will, his head will shatter into a thousand pieces. So that story is then told in the Ramayana to explain why Ravana didn’t force himself on Sita despite keeping her in his house all those years. In the earlier Ramayana, there’s nothing about this. Ravana doesn’t force himself on Sita for other reasons – he doesn’t want to or because she has a power over him. This is a later idea that creeps in.

    In the later books, they started telling stories about Valmiki, who may have been the author of the earlier books but didn’t talk about himself. Tradition has it that Valmiki wrote the Ramayana, but there’s no way of telling if it’s true.

    It’s so interesting that the Balmikis, who were Untouchables, just took his name and have their own stories about Valmiki — how he wasn’t a Brahmin, but a robber. Until this (Hindutva) crowd got hold of the internet, people didn’t say you can’t tell the Ramayana that way. It wasn’t a Hindu idea.

    Do you think the Ramayana’s evolution has been brought to a stop by the “internet brigade” of the Hindu Right?

    Absolutely not. India is a big country. People are still free and telling the Ramayana their own way. Have you seen the film Sita Sings the Blues by Nina Paley? It’s a very funny Ramayana. I am editing an anthology of Hindu texts where there is a Marathi text called Ashvamedha, which is a satire on the sacrifice. Satire is still alive in India, and retelling the Ramayana hasn’t yet closed down. The sad thing is that the simplified version is widespread, and most people will know it by what they see on television. Or read in the Amar Chitra Katha comics, which has had an enormous influence. This version is also the cleaned-up version. In fact, it cleans up all the Hindu gods—it is Christianised in many ways. The story of Skanda, for instance, where Agni interrupts Shiva and Parvati making love in order to catch his seed in his hands and throws it in the Ganges, is transformed in the Amar Chitra version into Agni arriving at Shiva’s court, where Shiva sits side by side with Parvati, ending up with Shiva actually climbing a tree to pluck a seed which he then gives to Agni.

    You refer to a time in Hinduism “of glorious sexual openness and insight.” When did the sense of shame and denial creep in?

    I don’t know when it started but it became powerful under the British. You’ve got Protestant missionaries in India saying, “My God! You people are oversexed. Look at the carvings at Khajuraho and the temple dancers!” The British made the upper caste Hindus, the kind of Hindus that wanted to please the British, ashamed of those aspects of their religion. It was under the British that the worst kind of rewriting and censorship happened.

    So why haven’t historians in the modern period revived the suppressed texts?

    It’s sad that most Indians will know Ramayana from the simplified, cleaned-up versions of the television and Amar Chitra Katha.

    Most historians, at least those who know Sanskrit, know what’s there. But most people don’t know Sanskrit. Of those who do, many are Brahmins who have an investment in this prudish hyper-Hinduism. The general public is what I call neo-Vedantic: they believe Hinduism is spiritual, philosophical. The British loved Hindu philosophy, so did Europeans and even the Americans—they loved Vivekananda and the philosophical Hinduism he brought to the West. The great leaders of the nineteenth century came from this non-sensual aspect of Hinduism and that is what Hindus who read English and worked for the British by and large thought was Hinduism. That is what they were proud of. The Gita is the most important example of this. The Gita has always been well-known and well-loved in Hinduism but it is by no means the most important book for most Hindus for most of Hindu history. Most Hindus have other books that were important to them than the Gita like the Upanishads, the Puranas, Tulsidas’s and Kamban’s Ramayana. But the British loved the Gita—it was the first book to be translated from Sanskrit to English. And ever since the British period, many Hindus have believed that the Gita is their most important book. It has become a very important book but it was made central.

    You once described the Gita as a book of war?

    It’s another of those things where I am so badly misquoted. Twenty years ago I gave a talk on the Gita in Philadelphia and a newspaper wrote that I had said something bad about the Gita, which I never said and which has been quoted for 20 years. I’ve written about the Gita, and it is indeed a book of war. In the sense that if you read it in the Mahabharata, it takes place when Arjuna doesn’t want to enter the battlefield and fight. By the end of it, he fights. It says the body is not real, only the soul, so it doesn’t matter if you kill your cousins.

    Critics accuse you of eroticisation of Hinduism. Why?

    The accusation that I only write about sex is crazy when you read a list of my books. The best book I’ve written is about dreams and maya —Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities. My second best book is about the origins of evil in Hindu mythology. They mention I translated the Kama Sutra but don’t tell you that I also translated the Rig Veda and the Laws of Manu. I think I have a double disadvantage among the Hindutva types. One is that I’m not a Hindu and the other is that I am not a male. I suppose the third is that I’m not a Brahmin, but I don’t even get there because I’m not a Hindu! I think it’s considered unseemly in the conservative Hindu view for a woman to talk about sex—that’s something men talk about among themselves.

    Have you ever been tempted to maintain a discreet silence on the sensual aspect of Hinduism in order not to entangle with the Hindu right wing and not tarnish your academic reputation?

    Never. My mother was a terrific revolutionary and iconoclast and she raised me not to care about what other people said if I thought I was doing the right thing. So it’s just not in me to do that. My feeling is more that if no one is saying it, someone has got to say it. When I write, I try not to tell all the stories of Krishna as a charming little baby because everybody knows those things. So I say, what about the stories people don’t know like Krishna’s lies and the amazing things he does. If Krishna is God and he lies and lets the battle happen, this is something to know about the vision of the deity, the vision of God. These raise interesting questions about the nature of God. I am 68 years old, I have publishers who will take what I write, so I have nothing to lose. I can’t be fired. They might kill me, but I’m going to die soon anyway. Like my favourite actor John Garfield says to some gangsters who want him to throw a fight: “What can you do to me? Everybody dies.” It’s a wonderful line.

    Why do you call your book “An Alternative History” ?

    Books about Hinduism are about spiritualism, about Brahmins , about men…I wanted to write a book about the more worldly aspects of Hinduism, about its concerns with women, lower castes, children, animals. I wanted to show there was a rich source of information for alternative people. I also wanted to show an alternative history to the BJP version—about Babur’s mosque being built over a Ram temple sort of thing or that monkeys built a bridge to Lanka. It was also an alternative to the way British wrote Indian history: all about kings and battles. I wanted to write an alternative to the old fashioned, political history of kings.

    Is Ram a historical figure?

    There may have been a man named Rama, but Valmiki’s Ramayana is not his story. Ramayana is a story that an author made up. Whether there was a king or not, we don’t know. And if there was a king, we don’t know if he said the words that Valmiki put in the mouth of Rama. We don’t even know, as Romila Thapar has pointed out, that the Lanka of the Ramayana is the Sri Lanka of today. There’s a lot of evidence that they are not the same place at all.

    Why do you call yourself a “recovering orientalist”.

    I was trained 50 years ago in the old-fashioned way Sanskritists were trained—I learnt Latin and Greek. And I didn’t learn Bengali and Tamil as my students now do. They didn’t teach any other Indian language along with Sanskrit in those days. Ancient India is all that one studied—so in that sense I was trained as an Orientalist. That’s why in my book I couldn’t say nearly as much about the medieval and modern period as I could about ancient India—I couldn’t get to the sources because I know only Sanskrit. But I am recovering from the Orientalist training I received 50 years ago. I’m learning about the other periods.

    Like

  4. To my knowledge, it hasn’t been proved that the Uttar Ramayana (i.e., “after the Ramayana”, the part where Sita is thrown out) was written by Valmiki. Most versions of the Valmiki Ramayana that I’m familiar with end with the return of Rama and his coronation. The story about Sita being sent away is referred to very briefly, in the Mahabharata. So I wonder which “chapter” in the Ramayana Doniger is referring to when she talks about Rama and Sita having an enjoyable evening, and then her being sent away. There are several Sanskrit plays on this story, each with a different characterization and plot elements, and this scene sounds like one from one of those plays. The rest of her comments, about Lakshmana accusing his father of being a sex addict, are generally true, though I think she is using deliberately provocative language. In the above example, for example, Lakshmana doesn’t say his father is a “sex addict,” he says something like, “he is blinded by his love/attraction to his young wife. This is what happens when old men marry young women. They become slaves to their desire.” This is a paraphrase of what I remember from the original (I can look it up if anyone wants). I was quite surprised when I first read this, and Lakshaman repeats this charge on several occasions. But the very fact that I read this proves, I think, that there is no systematic suppression of the sensual aspects of Hindu religious texts. Anyone who is interested in reading the originals can easily do so. The problem is that most people don’t read the originals, but some other distorted version, even something like the AKC, and think they know the “original”, and claim its authority for their interpretation.

    In this context, it is worthwhile mentioning a book called “Ramayana Vishavrksham” in Telugu, by the writer Ranganayakamma. She wrote this book to deconstruct a previous book called “Ramayana Kalpavrksham”, which was a reteling of the Ramayana in classical style poetry, by Vishwanatha Satyanarayana, for which he was given the Jnanapeetha award. Anyway, the time she wrote this book, Ranganayakamma had become a dedicated Marxist, so she reexamined the Ramayana to prove that it was the source of most of the ills of Indian society. The book caused a furore, and was highly criticized in literary circles, but fortunately in those days (late 1970s to early 1980s) there were no Hindu groups out to violently “protect” the religion, so the whole thing was more or less confined to readers and writers, who comprise a small minority of the general population. But the important point is, Ranganayakamma’s book did not alter the original Ramayana at all, merely gave a commentary on it by means of extensive footnotes on every other line. It was in fact reading this book that prompted me to read the original Ramayana.

    Sorry for rambling on, but I guess the point I wanted to make was that there’s been no shortage of critical examinations of the Ramayana by Indian authors.

    Like

    • SM, I will get to all of this later but Wendy Doniger is one of the world’s foremost experts on all of this. So I wouldn’t dismiss anything she says out of hand.

      Like

      • Who’s dismissing her? I merely disagreed with a small component of her interview, and agreed with another small component. Most of my comments were more about Indians than her, anyway. Now if you meant that you didn’t have time to read my ramblings, then that’s OK. 🙂

        Like

        • I was referring to the following:

          [So I wonder which “chapter” in the Ramayana Doniger is referring to when she talks about Rama and Sita having an enjoyable evening, and then her being sent away. There are several Sanskrit plays on this story, each with a different characterization and plot elements, and this scene sounds like one from one of those plays. The rest of her comments, about Lakshmana accusing his father of being a sex addict, are generally true, though I think she is using deliberately provocative language. In the above example, for example, Lakshmana doesn’t say his father is a “sex addict,” he says something like, “he is blinded by his love/attraction to his young wife.]

          Like

        • OK, thanks. But it’s true that the Sita abandonment being in the Valmiki Ramayan is questionable. Heck, why is it called the Uttara Ramayana (a terminology that everyone agrees on)? I am only questioning attributing this episode to the Valmiki Ramayana, for which there are adequate grounds, not questioning her interpretation. Similarly, the term “sex addict” didn’t even exist in American discourse till fairly recently, so to say that Lakshmana says his father is a “sex addict” is using sensationalistic terminology, which is not even accurate in this context, since the clinical definition of sex addiction indicates reckless or unnecessary risk taking in the pursuit of sex. This is not the case with Dasaratha. He merely had multiple wives and concubines, which was pretty much par for the course for a lot of kings down the ages. By this definition, would she call Shah Jahan a “sex addict” for having hundreds of concubines and multiple wives? I do think that’s an unnecessarily provocative term. But, as I pointed out, Lakshmana does blame his father’s sexual attraction to Kaikeyi for losing his judgment in this instance, so I wasn’t disagreeing with the substance of her interpretation.

          Like

        • But why would you bring up Shah Jahan at all?

          Like

        • Because he’s the first guy I could think of who also had hundreds of sexual partners, which always struck me as ironical, considering how he’s held up in modern times as the symbol of romantic love and devotion for having built the Taj Mahal.

          Like

        • Actually, the young Akbar was far more promiscuous as far as number of sexual partners are concerned…

          Like

        • Yeah, but he doesn’t have the baggage of the Taj Mahal hanging over him, though I guess now he has the baggage of Gowarikar’s film! 🙂

          Like

    • Re: “But the very fact that I read this proves, I think, that there is no systematic suppression of the sensual aspects of Hindu religious texts. Anyone who is interested in reading the originals can easily do so. The problem is that most people don’t read the originals, but some other distorted version, even something like the AKC, and think they know the “original”, and claim its authority for their interpretation.”

      Isn’t that Doniger’s point too? i.e., not so much that the source texts themselves “suppress” certain aspects, but that hallowed readings of the source texts/traditions more generally, do so? I saw her endeavor as precisely an attempt to reclaim the odd, the whimsical, the playful, the feminine and/or the feminist (her book is, after all, subtitled “An Alternative Histiory”; suggesting that she means it to be a counter-point and not the main course itself)…

      I have the book but have yet to read it…

      Like

      • As I said, I don’t disagree with Doniger’s points — though I do wonder why she doesn’t delve more into the causes of the “puritanical” strain being introduced around 1000 AD. There are some historical coincidences around that date that at least bear investigation, IMO.

        As for present day Indians, most of them are not only pretty uninformed about their own cultural heritage, but also have very confused ideas about sexuality and sexual expression, too, for a variety of reasons. One of my friends used to love singing one of Jayadeva’s Ashapadi’s, until she eventually found out its meaning. 🙂 I must say I was pretty surprised myself when I found a good translation of the Gita Govindam, although it only made me appreciate the poetry and romanticism more.

        Like

        • Re: “though I do wonder why she doesn’t delve more into the causes of the “puritanical” strain being introduced around 1000 AD. There are some historical coincidences around that date that at least bear investigation, IMO.”

          It is a standard view in a certain sort of historiography to link Hindu puritanism with Muslim invasions (and I assume you are getting to that too). Whatever the merits of this view (I consider it to have some plausibility, although the impact of colonialism and Victorian mores should also not be underplayed; personally I consider the latter to be more significant as far as this particular issue is concerned, although the legitimation of purdah as a value etc. clearly has a Muslim genealogy), it is pretty standard, i.e. there is nothing for Doniger’s supposedly “alternative” take to get into — most believe it anyway. More significantly, Doniger is a scholar of religious traditions, and is not a historian (i.e. of politics etc.).

          Like

        • Yes, I was referring to both the Muslim and English invasions, and, while these are commonly believed to have influenced the societal change of attitudes, I have not seen any firm connections established to this effect. I must admit I haven’t been looking for such research, so it might exist without my being aware of it. Even if Doniger is not a historian, I would expect an academic to refer to established in other fields (such as history) when she makes reference to the attitudinal change. Even if she made a tentative statement like, “this change coincided with the coming of the Muslims, and may have been influenced by them,” it would be acknowledging some work on this question. To mention the change and not make any comment on the reasons for it, especially if these have to do with the influence of other religious traditions, seems to me a strange omission, for one who is studying the religious attitudes of Hindus toward sexuality.

          Like

  5. But let me add that, while there is a lot of sex in the Hindu epics (the Mahabharata has enough variations on sexual practices to make the modern Indian mind boggle), it is not suppression to realize that it is not there only in the literal sense. That is, there is a lot of symbolism inherent in these depictions, and to ignore that symbolism and focus only on the surface sexual aspects is to miss the greater point.

    Like

    • I agree, though I question the general implicit assumption in such judgments that there is something “wrong” with “surface sexual aspects”, or that these are somehow problematic etc. They might be to our sensibility, but there isn’t anything wrong with them per se. Not suggesting you are saying that, but I was reminded of various Hindu groups who get offended by certain interpretations/readings, because for them the erotic is self-evidently something problematic that needs to be explained away. However symbolic the text, the fact that certain metaphors are used shows that the author(s) did not view things in the same way.

      Aside: if I had to choose between the post-Victorian inheritance of the Indian bourgeoisie and the sensibility of the epics when it comes to comfort with the erotic, I know what I would choose!

      Like

      • Yes, and I will be right there with you on which world view I would prefer.

        Regarding the reflexive explanations of certain groups to explain away all that is sexual in Hindu writings, I find it more or less a mirror image of the focus exclusively on these matters in some western writings. I have never understood the fascination of these people on these matters anyway — it’s as if they can’t *believe* that sex would even be mentioned, let alone accepted calmly, in the context of gods. And it isn’t even religious academics — I have seen these kinds of labored explanations from art curators or critics seeking to explain the “erotic” (to them) depictions found in most Hindu religious art.

        Anyway, what I started to say was that the reflexive defensiveness on the part of some Hindu groups can be directly traced to the suppressive attitudes brought in by outsiders, to the extent that many people refer to temple architecture as “pornography.” Of course Christian missionaries have introduced these same kind of changes in attitudes in many cultures — a friend (Catholic) and I were trying to figure out the other day why any of these people would *want* to trade their own happy and festive outlook on life for a dreary and somber one brought in by the missionaries.

        Like

      • Qalandar — I question the general implicit assumption in such judgments that there is something “wrong” with “surface sexual aspects”

        Sometimes, however, a clearly symbolic statement is taken literally, which can be problematic. I once went to an exhibition of Buddhist art, where, in one painting (by an Indian artist), an explicit copulation between an elephant and Buddha’s mother was depicted. I wasn’t objecting to the explicitness, but I was baffled by what on earth the artist was trying to convey. It took me a couple of moments to recall that, when she became pregnant, the queen is supposed to have dreamt that an elephant entered her womb. When she reported this dream, the sages at court interpreted it to mean that her pregnancy would produce a son who would become a great man. Now this is clearly symbolic, and cannot possibly be taken literally, since such a coupling would be physically impossible. And yet the artist chose to depict it so, which rendered the painting meaningless, in my view. I thought it was interesting that he chose to ignore the other things the queen dreamt about in that same dream, all foretelling the future greatness of the Buddha.

        Like

  6. Re: “Similarly, the term “sex addict” didn’t even exist in American discourse till fairly recently…”

    I agree with this paragraph — the term is anachronistic, and I found it jarring.

    Like

  7. Khilanni’s review of Doniger’s book.

    Like

  8. Rajaram K Says:

    I wonder how eggs are still spared on her? Does her sanskrit knowledge go to write language of indecency? No where she uses SAMSKRITAM, which is correct usage and sanskrit is english usage. AsPrakrit means the origin or early Samskritham means not perfected but the whole. She cannot even know all languages have multiple meanings to a single word and can be a verb or noun and even adjective; itihas, is falsely inerpreted as ” the end ” iti; ” Rama: Ramou: Ramethi: is different from Itihas and without even knowing this she writes to fool around the unknown as being done by the weterners. She may be fond of lingams but the interpretation she gives id vomiting and she chooses a Gudimangalam photo. The ignorant ,tip tongue english, born india and living abroad who have no fundemental concept may go after but this book will have to be banned thro out since no one gave the right to ink in this style and if I were to web-write christ with Magdelena (there is quote availablefrom USA) which I shall never do, is as good as her filthy writing

    Like

  9. This looks to be a must!

    Like

  10. http://www.niticentral.com/2014/02/14/wendy-doniger-and-ascent-of-academias-desire-190185.html

    Faux fury is being built up over a 21st century drain inspector’s report, this time from the groves of American academia, bewitchingly titled The Hindus: An Alternative History (Penguin, 2009). Hindu outrage at the ridicule and insult heaped on the community and its gods, and the fallacious understanding of Hindu philosophy, which psycho-babble was presented as an historical narrative about the Hindu people, led to the filing of a court case in 2011, during the course of which the publishers, Penguin Books India, found themselves unable to defend the contents and chose to retreat.

    As part of the settlement between the two parties, accepted by the Saket district court, Penguin India will recall and withdraw all copies of the book from all Indian stores and pulp it at its own cost. The triumph of this small act of Hindu assertiveness has predictably sparked outrage in Left-Liberal circles in India and exposed their close coordination with anti-Hindu circles in America, and the West.

    What adds to their discomfort is the inconvenient fact that neither the state nor the court has banned the book; it was Penguin Books that discovered that Brand Chicago has no immunity in the face of academic challenge and should not be taken at face value in future. The publisher apologetically averred that “it respects all religions worldwide,” which is a tacit admission that the book was derogatory to Hindus and their divinities.

    The next stage of this fight must be to destroy the secrecy with which ‘peer review’ functions in academia – as a closed cartel that promotes ideologically-aligned writers and ensures them publication in prestigious journals and publishing houses, and favourable reviews. This lethal nexus can be broken by naming reviewers and making them defend their decisions in writing, which must be made available to the author and interested scholars.

    Coming to Doniger’s impugned book, there are simply too many mistakes to be accidental. The very map of India is headless – minus the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The cover jacket is vulgar and lascivious, depicting Sri Krishna astride a horse made up of the bodies of numerous naked women, thereby debasing the Krishna-Gopi relationship which is based on equality between the divine (brahma) and the individual souls (jiva). But then, what can one expect from a scholar who says she is creating a “narrative of religions within the narrative of history, as a linga … is set in a yoni …” Such pornographic similes can only evoke disgust, yet Doniger and all who support her see nothing amiss in sexualising the history or civilisation of India.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.