Vijay Prashad’s note [FundamentalIssues] hereinafter "VPN", simply fails to address the bulk ofthe issues I had raised in my first piece [ADialogue With The Indian Left]. It diverts from the issues using a combination of three methods:
(A) VPN is filled with name-dropping of works by third parties (over 25 names). It’s okay to give specific quotes and thereby let an author’swords speak directly. But sending each other our respective bibliographies does not address an issue, andwould only be suitable for some "Name That Quote" type of game.
(B) Vijay slips into the common weakness of defending the citadel, through irrelevant praise for peers and for the system that sustains them. Here, I raise the issue of the roleof power in institutionalized South Asian Studies. Especially since VPN criticizes "the American Empire" as theworld’s top culprit today, I wish to ask Vijay how US institutional funding of South Asian Studies comparesto the East India Company’s control over Indology and the way the colonial/imperial masters used power(combining funding, symbolic credibility, and positional authority) to produce Orientalism.
If Vijay disagreeswith this comparison, on what basis does he claim that American imperialism (to use his own expression) isless prejudiced than British imperialism was? In other words, he should shoulder the burden to prove thatAmerican power is not mixed up in the intellectual discourse about others. This will pose tricky choices forVijay, between
(i) freedom of critical inquiry claimed by the academician-activist on the one hand (importantfor his credibility), and
(ii) the academician-activist’s career considerations (which are enmeshed in whatVPN alleges to be "American imperialism") on the other.
How do many of today’s desi South Asianistsreally differ from what became known as the Brown Sahibs in 19th century Bengal? The role of power indiscourse simply cannot be ignored. One has to track the funding flows beginning in the Cold War era to thepresent from western governments, churches, corporate foundations into the construction of South Asianismtoday.
(C) VPN brings in standard third party "culprits" as diversions, even though the given conceptual issues are independent of any individuals. There seems to be an initiationceremony required these days, a sort of agni pariksha to prove oneself free of "fascism", "Nazism","chauvinism", "fundamentalism", and a whole litany of branded terms. Leftist discourse these days hasbecome too often reduced to bumper-stickers attacking some standard list of Hindutva – Arun Shourie, Elst,Savarkar, Frawley, BJP, etc. – with the Hindutva fans pouncing back to counter-attack in equally naïveways, and, meanwhile, the real issues get side-tracked.
But since I have no reason to defend Hindutva leadersor ideology, we cannot get diverted in this manner. The question this raises, especially in light of item Babove is: Is Hindutva the Indian Left’s "other"? Why does the Left fail to answer questions about its first principles without resorting to the Hindutva otherfor its own self-definition?
I agree with VPN that: "This is a good opportunity to fight over our first principles and our methodsof analysis" (emphasis supplied). However, "first principles" and "methods of analysis" are notbeing dealt with in most of VPN. Using prestigious writers’ names as proxies makes his positions secondprinciples, not first. Defending the citadel (of "American imperialism’s" study of others) to fortifyhis positions makes them third principles. Finally, using the Hindutva other to define/defend hispositions makes them fourth principles. To be first principles, he must get rid of the threeintellectual crutches mentioned here.
A. The Left And Right As Categories
VPN rightly rejects the idea of the left as a universal. But then he goes on to use "Left" (with acapital "L") many times to represent himself. Frankly, I have no problem either way, as I am moreinterested in issues and where someone stands.
But VPN simply ignores my interrogation of whether the left/right are appropriate categories for the understanding of India. I mentioned LiberationTheology and Gandhi as examples that do not fit this schema. By simply saying that there are many lefts, VPNdoes not remove this fundamental question about categories from the discussion table. Yes, there are manylefts, so Vijay should clearly articulate and differentiate the one he subscribes to and deal with the issue:why is left/right the best lens to interpret India?
B. History-Centrism
VPN simply ignores my very specific thesis about History-Centrism
A religion based primarily on a unique Historical Event (typically involving a unique Prophet) isHistory-Centric, because History turns into a form of social capital controlled by the institution. Abrahamicreligions tend to have a core of literalist dogma that is their proprietary and non-negotiable History of God’sinterventions. This form of social capital is extremely powerful in sustaining the authority and credibilityof certain institutions and groups. Absolute History becomes the main property of the institution, whichderives its power by interpreting it, and by having the exclusive franchise to preach/distribute it, and itdoes this in the name of protecting and propagating God’s Truth. Any challenge to the official account ofHistory is seen a threat that would dilute or undermine the institutional authority. Hence, History fuelsfundamentalism and conflicts.
I thought this insight from me would be a great opening for the Left, especially since I take the positionin my aforementioned essay that Hindutva is attempting to turn Hinduism into a History-Centric religion: withRam akin to Jesus and Ayodhya akin to Jerusalem, etc. Hinduism has not in the past been History-Centric forits most part, and hence has remained pliable and accommodative, easily "negotiable." MyHistory-Centrism based critique of Hindutva is an internal critique from a solid Hindu perspective. It is one of my main reasons for not being a supporter of Hindutva.
Furthermore, when seen as non History-Centric, the legitimacy of Hinduism is not contingent upon "revising"or "correcting" any account of history. History, therefore, assumes a different significance, and God iseither left out of it, or else is omnipresent so that no event is a unique intervention. The study of historybecomes mainly for general interest and for deeper insights. But it ceases to be a necessary condition for thelegitimacy of Hindu epistemological claims. This alone could de-intensify much of the Left vs. Hindutvatension today, which in my opinion does not deal with core issues.
History-Centrism needs to be included in the taxonomy for studying religions. It is an important factor inmaking religion normative and rigid. All the problems with Grand Narratives that are found in postmoderncritiques get amplified one hundred-fold when God is the GN’s central protagonist, and especially when thisis to be God’s only appearance, or the most authentic appearance recorded, or the final one.
So, frankly, I was disappointed that VPN failed to take note of my thesis. I consider this to be a solidplank for Liberation Hinduism along the lines of Liberation Theology from the Catholics – an approach thatthe Indian Left ought to embrace.
VPN states: "We always maintain a clear distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva." Vijay might want tobecome clearer on what his philosophical distinctions between these two are, so we may compare our thoughts. Iwould suggest that he would find the issue of History-Centrism to be very useful in this. On the other hand,the rhetoric about "pogroms," etc. is political, worn out, challenged by counter-claims, and ignores theunderlying epistemological ideas concerning the very nature of Hinduism.
C. Teleology And 'Progress'
VPN states: "There is neither a singular "Left" nor is there one ‘Marxist Grand Narrative.’"While there may be multiple Marxist GNs, my point still holds: Each Marxist GN has some teleologicaltrajectories that every society is supposed to follow. These tend to be linear theories of History,very much like in the Abrahamic religions. From-Evil-to-Good gets replaced with secular "progress" as thelinear trajectory that must apply to all societies. VPN’s statement that there are several versions of theMarxist GN merely makes the issue more complex.
In particular, I had raised the issue of whether "progress" must be discontinuous, as "revolutions"imply, or whether it can be adaptive, as was usually the case in India’s past. This is important. "Progressives"(a self-description by the Indian Left) often assume that moving forward requires denigrating the past. Thisis why anyone suspected of re-visiting India’s past with appreciation (especially if it is about thepre-Islamic period) is instantly branded a "chauvinist," presumably for fear that the case for continuousprogress would undermine the revolution for discontinuous progress. Because only one kind of possible progressis allowed by the Left, those who oppose their revolution must, by inference, be accused of going back in timeto some idealized past. I submit that the multiplicity of Indic models of progress must be examinedcritically. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has done this. There is no monopoly on the meaning ofprogress.
Furthermore, I suggest that this notion of discontinuity is borrowed from the Abrahamic religions. BeingHistory-Centric, Abrahamic religions relied on a new Revelation to replace the previous Truth. This had to bediscontinuous and abrupt. The old view had to be rejected, books burnt, the old practitioners demonized aswitches, pagans, kafirs, whatever. There was no way to simply let them remain and live alongside with respectinto the new system of belief. This, I claim, is the result of absolutist Religious Grand Narratives ofHistory.
Marxism, as a non-theistic form of Abrahamism, generated Grand Narratives - whether Leninism, Stalinism,Trotskyism or Maoism varieties – energized by a call for an Apocalypse to bring about an idealized city withan ideal human citizen. To implement these Grand Narratives, Stalinist, Maoist and Pol Potist pogroms by theCommunist state murdered millions in the name of cleansing society of its past traditions and culture. Theneed for such destruction is repeatedly articulated in terms of the need for struggle and fight, and thisfeeds the Left’s frenzy to identify conflicts and target the evil others.
As a less troubling way of understanding the impact of history-centrism, let’s think of software for ananalogy: A new release comes out, but many consumers continue using prior releases. In fact, the new releasemight explicitly allow for old releases to function alongside. This is the Indic way of change. Old and newco-exist without discontinuity, because there is no "One True Canon From God" with fresh covenantsordering the replacement (destruction) of the software and old user manuals.
Now consider an entirely different kind of policy from God (as owner of the rules/software): Each newrelease mandates that everyone must convert to it, that old releases must get destroyed, andthat whatever useful stuff there might have been in the old releases is understood to have already beenincorporated into the new release by the developers (who control the intellectual property).
This latter way is how the Abrahamic changes have been: (i) Release 1 said there was Adam/Eve’s OriginalSin that caused Eternal Damnation upon all humans thereafter. (ii) Release 2 gave the Jews a special escapeclause for Salvation, because they were "chosen" by God. Note that Release 1’s narrative got subsumed inRelease 2 and ceased to have its stand-alone legitimacy. (iii) Release 3 came when God wanted to extend hisoffer to "save" everyone (from Eternal Damnation) and sent his only son (hence it cannot happen everagain) – i.e. Christianity was installed. (iv) Release 4 came when God realized that humans messed up theold releases (i.e. too many viruses got in), so he sent Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to install the latest and finalrelease. Being final makes it impossible to change without calling God incompetent, and that would beblasphemy. Hence, Islam has remained stuck in a literalist interpretation of Koran (God’s latest and finalrelease).
The Ahmeddiyas (an Islamic sect) claim that their 19th century leader was a new prophet of Islam, whobrought a new release of God’s software to operate human society. In this new release’s interpretation ofHistory, Hindu texts such as Vedas are considered as valid old releases that must be respected even thoughthey are not the latest, and he also specifically stated that Ram was a genuine prophet of God. The Ahmeddiyasect is illegal in Pakistan, and every Ahmeddiya must have a stamp on his/her Pakistani passport saying that"this person is not a Muslim." For an Ahmeddiya to call himself/herself a Muslim is a criminal offense inPakistan. Such is the power of History-Centrism. Every Islamic State in the world has its own officialHistory-Centrism that becomes the basis for State Law.
Hinduism does not work this way. Vedas were followed by Upanishads, later by many darshanas of variousworldviews (debated over many centuries by thousands of persons), then later by Puranas, and then came Bhaktisaints, etc. There were plenty of successful challenges from lower echelons, women, etc. – so activistsplease do not ignore this periodic internal reformation capability. That all these old releases fromHinduism’s past still survive and thrive today demonstrates continuity of change and the voluntary nature ofupgrading to any new release. There has never been any central authority to mandate all Hindus to upgrade tothe latest release. Hence, you find Hindus practicing all vintages of releases. Unfortunately, this has oftenbeen denigrated as the mark of primitiveness, when it deserves to be seen as the epitome of tolerance,religious freedom, and as the world’s pre-eminent on-going laboratory for creative new releases to emerge.
Recently, we saw Sri Aurobindo’s own very original theories, and there is a long list of entirely new20th century exemplars who are not from within any institution. So it’s like a free-market of ideas. As inSilicon Valley, you can set up shop and the market will accept or reject. (BTW, this is why the Deepak Chopraphenomenon is better than the canonized fossilized "finality" approach of Abrahamism. This tradition ofevery generation having its own Deepak Chopras to choose from has its advantages over History-Centrism interms of the flexibility it has provided the Hindus. The system does not allow any one-and-only or finalDeepak Chopra.)
None of these changes replaced the prior releases, but simply added to the mix of ideas, symbols,practices, narratives - like downloadable shareware. So a given user may select whatever combination or customconfiguration works for him/her, change it during his/her life without having to get approved by anyone, andleave others alone to do their individual thing. I claim that this flexibility would be impossible if Hinduismwere History-Centric because there could be only one true account of History (especially involving God) andall others would have to be falsified.
Once you approach comparative religion in terms of History-Centrism or lack of it (which no teacher to thebest of my knowledge does), it also becomes clear why Sufis and certain Hindu sects got along perfectly: thesewere non history-Centric individuals on both sides and their boundaries were blurred because History took theback-seat. My essay explains how the mystics of Abrahamic religions remained on the margins, whileHistory-Centric institutions seized power.
This gives a new approach to interpreting religious conflict based on historical events, historical claimsand historical holy sites – from the Middle East to India to various other places.
The entire Islamic conflict with the Ahmeddiyas is because the latter’s foundation rests on a Historicalevent that refutes the History-Centrism of mainstream Islam. Its one History-Centrism over another, as bothcould never be right.
But for a Shaivite to hold her faith, it makes no difference if someone else is a non-theistic practitionerof chakra meditation. Furthermore, neither of these faiths is devalued if yet others believe in some literalGrand Narrative of how God sent his daughter to a nearby village. Hindu Grand Narratives are too many to causeany one to try to erase all others, and they got intertwined over time to syncretise into fused narratives.The non-literal interpretation of narratives has always been available to Hindus (for instance, the adhyatmikaRamayana) and is often considered a "higher" level of understanding. All this makes Hinduism nonHistory-Centric.
D. Multinational Religions And Grant-Making Foundations
My issue (avoided in VPN) was that Religious Multinationals (Vatican, Mormon Church, Presbyterian Church,various Pentacostals, etc.) deserve the same kinds of critiques which the Left has made for commercial MNCs. Iasked for Vijay’s position, and his response in VPN was the following:
(1) VPN appreciates that I distinguish between religious individuals and religious institutions.
(2) But then, instead of tackling the issue of institutions that are globalized religious enterprises, VPNgoes on to condemn Arun Shourie and other Hindutva people. That’s fine with me – Shourie and his group areof no relevance to me. But in this way, the topic got changed and the issue was ignored by VPN.
