Note: Clearly, the keynote speech is about Hindus. Hence, this compilation of 12 pleas made to Association for Asian Studies (AAS).
I have suggested some specific steps to be taken by AAS as regards Hindu studies including the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry on Hindu Studies in US Academia; see Letter #7 given below.
Let us hope AAS as a professional body responds positively, consistent with the high standards of excellence expected from US academics.
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
Letter #1 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From DG
Dear AAS Directors & Officers:
As advocates for American Universities, we have proclaimed for decades that American Universities are among the very best that America has to offer to the world. We remain so for STEM, Finance & Business School sections of US universities. Unfortunately, the past few years have led us to temper our enthusiasm for US graduate studies especially for what are called "liberal arts" sections.
Why? The reason is exemplified by the AAS decision to welcome and award what we consider as hate speech at your Philadelphia conference. This is an utterly appalling decision on your part. It is a decision that may brand your organization for years if not decades.
Most of you appear to be of Christian faith based on your names. So what would be your reaction to a "scholarly" statement which describes the conception of Jesus as "God raped Mary and afterwards restored her virginity". Is that "free speech" or "hate speech"? Every Christian would label it hate speech in our opinion. Replace Mary by Kunti and you have what Ms. Doniger wrote in her book as we recall. Yet, you claim to not understand why so many Hindus consider Doniger's statements as hate speech? Remember what Justice Stewart of the US Supreme Court said about pornography? It applies to hate speech too. Imagine a non-Christian "scholar" writing a "scholarly" book about the entire span of Christianity as a sexual, gratuitously violent, deeply cruel saga and calling it "Christians: An Alternative History". Would you make the writer of such a book the Keynote Speaker of an AAS Conference? Would you even welcome her into your conference? We seriously doubt it.
The decision by Penguin to withdraw her book from India has been mistakenly described by US media as a Freedom of Speech issue. And that is the angle Ms. Doniger wants to pitch at your Philadelphia conference. The reality could not be further from the truth. In our opinion, the protest against Ms. Doniger's book is a fight against "hate speech" rather than a fight for freedom of speech. Our case is made in a detailed article titled Arena for Penguin-Doniger Case - Freedom of Speech or Acts of Hate?
The article argues that American standard of Freedom of Speech is simple:
· an individual is perfectly free to express any views she or he chooses to. That is protected even if the speech abhors the vast majority of Americans. But the institutional or corporate platforms that market hateful or abhorent speech are not protected from the consequences of such speech.
That is why we strongly protest your decision to make Ms. Doniger the keynote speaker at your Philadelphia conference and allow her to argue freedom of speech in defense of Hindus think is hate speech. You would not allow the same opportunity to a "scholar" from a Saudi madrassa to explain why her or his views cannot be published in America. This disperate treatment brands you as anti-Hindu bigots in our opinion.
There is a bigger issue at stake at least for those who are Americans and care from America. Your decision to honor Ms. Doniger reminds us of similar cases when anti-Muslims writing was deemed "scholarly" and welcomed at conferences like yours. This was done through out late 1970s, 1980s & 1990s until September 2001. The unfortunate result of this long institutional contempt of Islam is the reality that America is uniformly perceived as anti-Muslim by the rest of the world even though American society is still very tolerant of Muslims.
Today we find that there is institutional contempt of Hinduism across America. American society is welcoming of and friendly towards Hindus. But US print media and especially religious study departments of US universities are as rabidly anti-Hindu as they were anti-Muslim before September 2001. This is likely to have the same horrific consequences for America's image among the world's Hindus as we argued at length in our article titled America & Asian Religions - 1990s Deja Vu all over again?.
You have decided to join this anti-Hindu cohort. Your decision to honor Ms Doniger as the Keynote Speaker is a perfect example of your contempt for Hinduism and for the hundreds of millions of Hindus around the world. Honoring her under the guise of freedom of speech is logically, philosophically or factually indefensible. In our opinion, it is honoring hate speech against Hindus when you would publicly abhor identical speech against Christians, Jews and Muslims.
We strongly urge you to reconsider your deeply flawed and prejudiced decision to make Ms. Doniger the keynote speaker of your conference.
Letter #2 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From RS
It has been brought to my attention that at the 2014 annual conference of AAS (Association for Asian Studies) Wendy Doniger will be delivering opening “Keynote Address”. The title of her address is "Academic Freedom and Censorship: Publishing Controversial Books in India".
“Academic Freedom (AF)” is also touted as “Freedom of Speech (FS)”. Wendy Doniger uses AF and/or FS and writes or speaks which is “Hateful Writing or Hateful Speech (HW and HS)” against Hindus. So, your organization is willingly supporting “HW and HS” in the disguise of AF/FS. How many times in the past you have invited speakers who have written and spoken in hateful way against Christians, Jews, Islam and African Americans? If I recollect that some time ago, an academic from Florida spoke/wrote in a “Hateful” against African Americans. You know what happened to him.
Her book – “The Hindus – An Alternate History” is full of hateful statements against Hindu. Please change Hindu Iconic names to any Iconic name from other religion and you will consider it as hateful writing.It is unique that her writing is not tainted by reality and objectivity. It is always psychoanalysis and speculations under the disguise of AF and FS.
It is not about “Academic Freedom”, it is writing “Hateful” book against Hindus and publication in India. Is this what you support?
So, I would urge you invite someone else who does not write and/or speak in hateful way against any group.
Letter #3 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From SG
As advocates for American Universities, we have proclaimed for decades that American Universities are among the very best that America has to offer to the world. It is true for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), Finance & Business School sections of US universities. Unfortunately, the past few years have led us to temper our enthusiasm for US graduate studies especially for what are called "liberal arts" sections.
Why? The reason is exemplified by the AAS decision to welcome and award what we consider as hate speech at its upcoming conference in Philadelphia. This is an appalling decision and it may reflect rather unfavorably on AAS. .
Let me ask you to ponder: What would be your reaction to a "scholarly" statement which describes the conception of Jesus as "God raped Mary and afterwards restored her virginity". Is that "free speech" or "hate speech"? Replace Mary by Kunti and you have what Ms. Doniger wrote in her book as we recall. Please recall what Justice Stewart of the US Supreme Court said about pornography? It applies to hate speech too. Imagine a non-Christian "scholar" writing a "scholarly" book about the entire span of Christianity as a sexual, gratuitously violent, deeply cruel saga and calling it "Christians: An Alternative History". Would you make the writer of such a book the Keynote Speaker of an AAS Conference? Would you even welcome her into your conference? We seriously doubt it.
The decision by Penguin to withdraw her book from India has been mistakenly described by US media as a Freedom of Speech issue. And that is the angle Ms. Doniger wants to pitch at your Philadelphia conference. In our opinion, the protest against Ms. Doniger's book is a fight against "hate speech" rather than a fight for freedom of speech. Our case is made in a detailed article titled Arena for Penguin-Doniger Case - Freedom of Speech or Acts of Hate?
The article argues that American standard of Freedom of Speech is simple: An individual is perfectly free to express any views she or he chooses to. That is protected even if the speech 'insults' the vast majority of Americans. But the institutional or corporate platforms that market hateful or abhorrent speech are not protected from the consequences of such speech. That is why we strongly protest your decision to make Ms. Doniger the keynote speaker at your Philadelphia conference and allow her to argue freedom of speech in defense of Hindus think is hate speech.
Today we find that there is institutional contempt of Hinduism across America. American society is welcoming of and friendly towards Hindus. But US print media and especially religious study departments of US universities are openly anti-Hindu. Please see what this article says: America & Asian Religions - 1990s Deja Vu all over again?.
You have decided to join this anti-Hindu cohort. Your decision to honor Ms Doniger as the Keynote Speaker is an example of your contempt for Hinduism and for the hundreds of millions of Hindus around the world. Honoring her under the guise of freedom of speech is logically, philosophically or factually indefensible. In our opinion, it is honoring hate speech against Hindus when you would publicly abhor identical speech against any of the Abrahamic faith traditions.
We strongly urge you to reconsider your deeply flawed and prejudiced decision to make Ms. Doniger the keynote speaker of your conference.
Letter #4 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From SK, PhD
We are in the cusp of change as many Asian states assert their own world views getting out of the slumber of colonial era and traumas of colonial loot.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to make Ms. Doniger the keynote speaker of 2014 annual AAS conference. Choice of Ms. Doniger is likely to be viewed as biased and also send a wrong signal that AAS as a responsible body is allowing the forum to a member to defend her follies, instead of introspecting and independently investigating as to why the L'affaire Doniger has arisen in the first place.
It would have been appropriate in the context of the ongoing debate about Ms. Doniger's flawed work and critiques highlighting shoddy scholarship bordering on porno, to focus on Academic responsibility and role of ethics in the pursuance of academic researches.
The nature of academic scholarship in Asian studies is a challenge given the untranslatability of many texts in many language streams. While heralding academic freedom as formulated in the 1940 statement, it has become increasingly necessary to pay attention to the social responsibility of academics to the institution they tenure for, to the community which supports the institution and the code of ethics of an Association to which a member belongs.
L'affaire Doniger has attracted attention to the issues of academic responsibility, hate literature versus free expression.
Questions of academic integrity are also likely to be raised against the AAS itself, as was done with American Academy of Religion in a recent debate related to L'affaire Doniger.
I think it will be appropriate if AAS anticipates a similar inquiry about AAS and prepares appropriately for answering questions on how AAS enforces its own code of ethics and if there is any need for revision of this code itself.
Such a review through a keynote can also include a need for revisions to approaches of Asian studies since most Asian states are now sovereign, independent democracies and sensitive to interventions by 'outsiders' or 'academics' questioning their autonomy and their decisions made according to the laws in force.
It will be outstepping AAS' role if AAS allows the selectio of keynote speaker for 2014 conf. and gets critiqued for allowing the forums of the body to interfere with the laws in many Asian states and thus interfere with the friendly and constructive relations between non-Asian Asian states.
AAS has a responsibility to ensure that harmful material as defined in US Penal Code is not encouraged which is likely to arouse the prurient interests of minors since AAS studies ultimately percolate down to the middle school level in many regions and school curricula.
Thanking you for your consideration,
Letter #5 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From AS, MD
As an American of both Hindu and Asian heritage, your decision to identify Prof. Wendy Doniger as a keynote speaker on the issue of "academic freedom" is troublesome. Do you value academic integrity or not? Ms. Doniger appears to confuse "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech." In doing so, she writes hateful fantasies camouflaged as an "alternative history."
I would have no trouble with her titling her book "an alternative fantasy" for that would reflect academic integrity which is surely the most valuable commodity you trade in. Unfortunately she does not; she passes off her dubious interpretations as "history" and this is what we as Hindus find most offensive. Why is your organization rewarding shoddy academic "work?" Worse, you appear to be siding with a woman who is writing in a purposefully hateful way to drum up publicity. Is this what your organization stands for? Commercialism over integrity? Hate speech over integrity?
What would be your reaction to a "scholarly" statement which describes the conception of Jesus as "God raped Mary and afterwards restored her virginity". Is that "free speech" or "hate speech"? Every Christian would label it hate speech.. Replace Mary by Kunti and you have what Ms. Doniger wrote in her book. Yet, you claim to not understand why so many Hindus consider Doniger's statements as hate speech?
This can only lead me to the conclusion that your organization is taking a disdainful and insensitive stance towards Hindu-Americans. You should consider how your actions are felt by those of us who are members of a minority religion, worse still our children who must now combat this hate speech given sanction by your "academic freedom." Worse I now wonder that your peer-review process is deeply flawed and given towards cronyism. I strongly urge you to reconsider your cowardly decision to make Ms. Doniger a keynote speaker of your conference. Now, that would be the brave decision.
I would have no trouble with her titling her book "an alternative fantasy" for that would reflect academic integrity which is surely the most valuable commodity you trade in. Unfortunately she does not; she passes off her dubious interpretations as "history" and this is what we as Hindus find most offensive. Why is your organization rewarding shoddy academic "work?" Worse, you appear to be siding with a woman who is writing in a purposefully hateful way to drum up publicity. Is this what your organization stands for? Commercialism over integrity? Hate speech over integrity?
What would be your reaction to a "scholarly" statement which describes the conception of Jesus as "God raped Mary and afterwards restored her virginity". Is that "free speech" or "hate speech"? Every Christian would label it hate speech.. Replace Mary by Kunti and you have what Ms. Doniger wrote in her book. Yet, you claim to not understand why so many Hindus consider Doniger's statements as hate speech?
This can only lead me to the conclusion that your organization is taking a disdainful and insensitive stance towards Hindu-Americans. You should consider how your actions are felt by those of us who are members of a minority religion, worse still our children who must now combat this hate speech given sanction by your "academic freedom." Worse I now wonder that your peer-review process is deeply flawed and given towards cronyism. I strongly urge you to reconsider your cowardly decision to make Ms. Doniger a keynote speaker of your conference. Now, that would be the brave decision.
Respectfully,
Letter #6 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From SG, MD, FACC
Ladies and Gentlemen of the AAS,
Wendy Donigers choice as your keynote speaker, reassures us, that Western Religious Imperialism and Racism is alive and well. Who else but a Western scholar to be the presiding deity of "Academic Freedom in the land of Brown Heathens", yet to get beyond their phallic worship. Their miserable privacy surely needed the messianic fire of the Ivy league superstar, who at once is a Freudian Incarnate, Hindu scholar par excellence, history wizard , international legal luminary and an apostle of freedom. She comes from the land of Drones and NSA, Snowden and Bradley Manning, Patriot Act, FISA Courts and Guantanamo Bay. She talks of freedom with the same gusto as the White House. Never does she focus the beacon of her illuminating genius on her own home, the faith of her own land and that of her parents. Do the church steeples represent the Penis, the American Capital - breasts with nipples? What about the courts that bear "testimony" in memory of Abraham's slave holding the infallible truth between his thighs?
Is Professor Doniger yet not satiated by the blood of pagans, infidel men or children and the directed rape of conquered women in the sacred scriptures from her part of the world. Is her own scripture on Hindus the Freudian dream of a divinely sanctioned war that is encoded in her DNA through the faith of her forefathers?
Why focus on primitive symbolism in lieu of the real thing? Why not present a Keynote on "Bible and Pedophilia in the Church" or on " Hitler and his Faith" or "Technological Innovations of Church and Human Pain Tolerance" or "Geneva Conventions or Scriptural Justice" and so on. Aren't these more relevant to the West than what distant fools do in the backwaters of the world? Does Doniger not enjoy the real thing ? Is she incurably addicted to titillation from imaginary voyeuristic fetish or could she yet be salvaged by psychotherapy ? Alas, ladies and gentlemen, none of this is true. It is not a fetish, it is a calculated assault, a deliberate construct from the Royal Empress, leading the knights of her Imperial Academy of Religion, whose business is no longer religion but extermination of ancient cultures. Dan Brown's history is fiction but a Religious Scholar's fiction is an authentic text book of history. How dare the slave subjects of this history contradict their Ivy league Master ? Serfs do not write their history - their masters do. Interrupting them is rude, crude, criminal and destructive of freedom of speech. Slander, is academic birthright - to demand respect, heathen fanaticism. Not only might is right, white is right too.
Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen of great wisdom, for choosing the author of a a text that ensures a never ending clash of civilizations, between our children who are taunted at school and those that taunt them. Thank you for strengthening the fabric of America and for proving that the pen is indeed more vicious than the sword.
Arrogance breeds stupidity. Both are easy to to brush aside, but the rotten stench of Imperial exploitation and rape of our ancient land will never disappear from our own, native Hindu narratives. The victim's children never forget the blood of their forefathers- nor do they forget the stripes of their assassins. The vicious malice of Doniger and her academic enablers, does not dwell , beyond the law of Karma, by which we abide. The day is not far when a billion Hindus will teach their children and students, what the West, their Academia, their history, their Religion and their concept of Freedom implies. Doniger's freedom which you are keen to uphold, is the unilateral right to attack, denigrate and destroy Hindus under the garb of scholarship. Never mind that a publisher withdrew the book voluntarily. Where was your academy of freedom defenders when Subramanian Swamy was terminated at Harvard for writing an article in an Indian periodical or when Narendra Modi was dis-invited from Wharton?
Letter #7 to AAS (Association for Asian Studies) From SK, PhD
Dear AAS Directors and Officers:
Further to my email of March 21, 2014 on the subject, I would like to add the following for your consideration, introspection and provide a forum in AAS deliberations during the 2014 Annual Conference, for the views of concerned Hindus to be represented.
Such a forum will be a true reflection of AAS commitment to academic freedom and equal rights.
Please do consider 1) a review of the Code of Ethics for members of AAS; and 2) commend a Commission of Inquiry into Hindu Studies in US academia while respecting civil rights of all faiths in Asia.
I am suggesting focus on Hindu studies because many academics get access to a large volume of texts and literature on Hindus who now number over one billion in all parts of the globe, representing 1/6th of humanity.
Civil rights apply equally to believers of Hinduism-Bauddham, Judaism, Islam, Christianity and many faiths which subjected to academic theological excursus in the rubric of 'Asian Studies'.
Hindus now number nearly 3 million in America and have contributed 1) significantly to the vibrant cultural mosaic of America and 2) in no small measure to the socio-economic activities of the state they reside in.
There should be no objections to ‘outsiders’ writing about Hindu history but should be balanced, fair, based on facts and contribute to cooperation with a nation now of 1.2 billion people, which got independence only in 1947 from colonial rule much later than America did. When India was under colonial rule, many American scholars wrote about India and her struggle for justice. American historian, Will Durant who had also authored a 11-volume story of philosophy and a Story of Civilizations wrote: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all." Such a perspective did influence the colonial regime to recognize the impoverishment caused to India by the colonial loot and the imperative of self-rule.
Hindus now number nearly 3 million in America and have contributed 1) significantly to the vibrant cultural mosaic of America and 2) in no small measure to the socio-economic activities of the state they reside in.
There should be no objections to ‘outsiders’ writing about Hindu history but should be balanced, fair, based on facts and contribute to cooperation with a nation now of 1.2 billion people, which got independence only in 1947 from colonial rule much later than America did. When India was under colonial rule, many American scholars wrote about India and her struggle for justice. American historian, Will Durant who had also authored a 11-volume story of philosophy and a Story of Civilizations wrote: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all." Such a perspective did influence the colonial regime to recognize the impoverishment caused to India by the colonial loot and the imperative of self-rule.
Some have sought to frame the issue as academic freedom and tenure. The issue is NOT about free speech but abuse of academic freedom exceeding the limits set by Section 43.24 Chapter 43 of US Penal Code for ensuring Public Order and Decency: "Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole:(A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor,in sex, nudity, or excretion;(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and (C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors. Doniger's book has harmful material denigrating Hindus and their historical traditions, calling it alternative history.
As examples of psychoanalysis by Doniger, two may be cited from her foreword wrote to a book by Paul Courtright: 1. Ganesa’s childlike preference for sweets is a metaphor for oral sex…2.Parvathy gave a mango to her son as a reward for answering a question thoughtfully and wisely; this is a metaphor for a Hindu mother asking for sexual intercourse with her minor son. Is it scholarship to apply Freudian analysis to Hindu narrative?
An example of appeal to prurient interests is the choice of the cover page for the book showing a contrived, possibly doctored, image made up of 8 women baring their breasts
Wendy Doniger says that the blue-bodied person seated on the horse exactly on the naked buttocks of a woman lying on her belly denotes Sri Krishna.
As examples of psychoanalysis by Doniger, two may be cited from her foreword wrote to a book by Paul Courtright: 1. Ganesa’s childlike preference for sweets is a metaphor for oral sex…2.Parvathy gave a mango to her son as a reward for answering a question thoughtfully and wisely; this is a metaphor for a Hindu mother asking for sexual intercourse with her minor son. Is it scholarship to apply Freudian analysis to Hindu narrative?
An example of appeal to prurient interests is the choice of the cover page for the book showing a contrived, possibly doctored, image made up of 8 women baring their breasts
Wendy Doniger says that the blue-bodied person seated on the horse exactly on the naked buttocks of a woman lying on her belly denotes Sri Krishna.
Directors of AAS and officers, please do rethink the keynote speech framework again and provide for an appropriate remedial measures true to the memorandum of association of a professional body as an advocacy group for members but also as a forum for arriving at collective judgement on issues of ethical responsibility, the way Hippocratic Oath serves the medical professionals.
I think L'affaire Doniger provides an opportunity for AAS to take the lead to draw up an Oath comparable to Hippocratic Oath. Framework for such an oath already exists in Hindu studies.
निष्ठा धृतिः सत्यम् / niShThA dhRRitiH satyam (Reverent dedication grasps truth)
सत्यं शिवं सुन्दरम् / satyaM shivaM sundaram (truth, auspiciousness, beauty)
सत्यं वद धर्मं चर / satyaM vada dharmaM chara (Speak the Truth, Walk the Righteous Path)
Note the context; it is a very ancient graduation speech, comparable to Keynote speech which AAS has planned for 2014.
EXHORTATION TO GRADUATING STUDENTS in TAITTIRIYA UPANISHAD तैत्ति
vedamanUchyAchAryontevAsinamanवेदमनूचि आचार्योन्तेवासिनं अनुषस्ति
satyaM vada . dharmaM chara . svAdhyAyAnmA pramadaH .सत्यं वद धर्मं चर स्वाध्यायान्माप्रमदः
AchAryAya priyaM dhanamAhRitya prajAtantuM mA vyavachChetsIH .आचार्यायप्रियं धनं आहृत्य प्रजातन्तुं मा व्यवच्छेत्सीः
satyAnna pramaditavyam.h . dharmAnna pramaditavyam.h .सत्यान्नप्रमदितव्यं धर्मान्नप्रमदितव्यं
kushalAnna pramaditavyam.h . bhUtyaina pramaditavyam.h .कुषलान्नप्रमदितव्यं भूत्यैनप्रमदितव्यम्
svAdhyAyapravachanAbhyAM na pramaditavyam.h .. 1..स्वाध्यायप्रवचनाभ्यां न प्रमदितव्यंHaving taught the Vedas, the teacher thus instructs the pupil: Speak the truth. Practise dharma. Do not neglect the study of the Vedas. Having brought to the teacher the gift desired by him, enter the householder's life and see that the line of progeny is not cut off. Do not swerve from the truth. Do not swerve from dharma. Do not neglect personal welfare. Do not neglect prosperity. Do not neglect the study and teaching of the Vedas.
Letter # 8:- From RVN, Advisor-Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha
On behalf of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, a Collective in India of more than 125 Hindu Heads of Organizations of learning, teaching and practices of various Hindu Sampradayas, I write to say that Wendy Doniger's book on "An alternative History of Hinduism" has brought great pain and revulsion to the revered members of the Acharya Sabha and the millions of followers of various Hindu Sampradayas. She has got her facts wrong in numerous instances in her book and has given outlandish interpretations offensive to Hindu practitioners. She also mocks the ancient Hindu tradition with her sarcasms and untrue analysis at many places in her work.
We are dismayed to see that AAR has invited this lady to speak about India, about Hindus and about Hinduism on the pretext of defending freedom of speech and academic freedom. To be meaningful these freedoms should encourage and expand cordial relations among different Faith groups in the world and should not promote animosity, contemptuous assertions about any single Faith Tradition and should result in authentic and correct presentation of religious Traditions. Wendy Doniger's book fails in all these respects.
We would request AAR not to provide a platform to Wendy Doniger, despite the great influence she wields in the US Academia, to denigrate not only our ancient Tradition but even the Indian laws and Indian Judiciary.
Letter # 9:- From MLG, Ph.D.
Dr. Wendy Doniger is listed as a keynote speaker at the forthcoming 2014 AAS Conference in Philadelphia. This is in the context of her book on Hindus having been withdrawn from circulation by the publisher in India. Dr. Doniger has published several books on Hindus and on Hinduism. Her derogatory views on Hinduism are well-known to those who have read her works.
I ask you to provide a 15 to 20-minute time slot at the Conference for a response to Doniger’s remarks.
Academic freedom is indeed sacrosanct and should be defended widely. But academic freedom comes with a sense of academic responsibility not to demean and disparage a religion followed by millions of people in India and increasingly in the US.
American universities are world class. Their influence is global. What educated people around the world learn about Hindus and Hinduism is through the American lenses. With power comes responsibility!
Several people have written critically of Doniger scholarship on Hinduism: Rajiv Malhotra, Dr. Aseem Shukla, Suhag Shukla, Vishal Agarwal, Raam Sidhaye and myself. If a 15 to 20-minute time slot for a response to Doniger is granted, I will recruit an appropriate person to offer the critique. Please know that those of us who look askance at Doniger scholarship are not some right-wing Hindu nuts. We include academic scholars, physicians, software developers and engineers.
Attached is my 4 page critique of a section of Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, Penguin, 2009.
I do not believe in burning books, but Wendy Doniger’s 779-page tome titled, The Hindus: An Alternative History, 2009, is a hurtful book. It is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning story—Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular—to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. But, why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here.
Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler’s argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic rule fits with the dhimmi attitude described forcefully by Bat Ye'or. Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise in the academy. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called ‘struggle within’. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. No wonder that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and on elite American college campuses.
WENDY DONIGER AND HINDUISM STUDIES
Madan Lal Goel
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
The University of West Florida
I do not believe in burning books, but Wendy Doniger’s 779-page tome titled, The Hindus: An Alternative History, 2009, is a hurtful book. It is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning story—Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular—to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. But, why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here.
We organized a panel discussion on Doniger's book at the 2011 conference of Association of Asian Studies (AAS). We invited Dr. Doniger to attend and dialog with us. She made lame excuses and declined to participate. So much for open discussion and dialog.
Doniger’s book is at odds with the increasing acceptance in the United States of key Hindu spiritual precepts. Lisa Miller (Newsweek, 31 August, 2009) reports that Americans “are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.” Miller cites the following data:
1. 67 percent of Americans believe that many religions, not only Christianity can lead to eternal life, reflecting pluralistic Hindu ethos rather than exclusivist Christian doctrine;
2. 30 percent of Americans call themselves “spiritual, not religious;”
3. 24 percent say they believe in reincarnation;
4. And, more than a third choose Cremation rather than Burial. See: http://www.newsweek .com/id/212155
Falsifying Islam's Record in India
The following review of Doniger’s very large book focuses on only one section: the chapters dealing with the incursion of Islam into India.
As is well known, Islam entered Malabar Coast in south India with Arab merchants and traders in the 7thCentury. This was peaceful Islam. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 711. Mahmud Ghazni looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 CE. The Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526. The Sultanate gave place to the Mughal Empire in1526, which ended with the establishment of British Raj, about 1757.
Wendy Doniger makes the following dubious points on the Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707).
1. Muslim marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many. Ch 16
2. Temple destruction was a long standing Indian tradition. In an earlier period, Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites-- “the Muslims had no monopoly on that.” P 457
3. Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse. Pp. 454-57
4. The Jizya—the Muslim tax on non-Muslims—was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service. Pp. 448-49
5. Hindu “megalomania” for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples. P 468
6. The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South. P 467
7. Hindus want Muslims and Christians to leave India for Hindustan is only for Hindus. Concluding chapter.
I will take each one of these arguments and point out its falsity.
1. Muslim invaders beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE looted, pillaged and destroyed not few but several thousand Hindu and Buddhist temples. Accounts written by the conquering hero and/or by the Muslim chroniclers who accompanied the invader describe the destruction of many Hindu shrines. The destruction of infidel places of worship is a meritorious act under Islam. See, for example: The Mohammedan period as described by its own historians, by Sir H.M. Elliot, The Grolier Society, 1906.
Alberuni, the Muslim scholar who accompanied Mahmud Ghazni (also known as Gazhnavi) to India in 1,000 CE, describes one such event: “Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included 'five of red gold, each five yards high,' with eyes formed of priceless jewels. . . The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India.”[1]
At the destruction of another famous temple, Somnath, some 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold was divided according to Islamic tradition--the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Women were sold into concubinage and children raised as Muslim.
2. The esteemed professor asserts that during an earlier period, Hindus persecuted Jains and Buddhists and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the now discarded story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country. Then she says that “there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story.” (p 365). Then why narrate the story?
Hindu sectarian violence existed but it pales in comparison to the level of violence that occurred under Islam. (See the riveting account of the history of pillage of minorities under Islam by Egyptian born Jewish writer Bat Ye'or. Google her.) The truth is that both Jainism and Buddhism were integrated into Hinduism’s pluralistic tradition. The Buddha is regarded as one of the Avatars. Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE survive in the region dominated by Hindu Rajput rulers, falsifying notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples.
3. Wendy Doniger suggests that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so (p 457). Hindus did come to power when the Mughal rule rapidly declined after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707. The Hindu Marathas were the strongest power in Western and Southern India, as the Sikhs were in North India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maratha soldiers, Shivaji instructed that the same should be passed on to a Muslim follower rather than being burned.
4. Dr. Doniger argues that Jizia or the special tax levied on non-Muslims was for Hindus protection and a substitute for military service. Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition. It was levied to begin with on the defeated Jews and Christians, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being one of the People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the leading Islamic clergy. Unlike the clergy, however, the Muslim rulers were practical men. If they had killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [2]
5. Doniger argues that Hindu ‘megalomania’ for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. In other words, because the Muslims destroyed some of the Hindu temples, the Hindus went on a building spree. If Doniger’s argument is accepted, Hindus should thank Islamic rulers for the destruction of their shrines. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), few historical temples of any beauty remain. In contrast, temple architecture of some beauty does survive in southern India, the region that escaped long Muslim occupation.
6. Doniger opines that the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara empire in the South double-crossed their Muslim masters in Delhi and established an independent kingdom in the South. This is one among the innumerable editorial negative portrayal of Hindu character. One may ask: why wouldn’t the oppressed double cross his oppressor?
7. Contrary to what Doniger writes, the view that Muslims and Christians should leave India is held only by a minority on the extreme fringes, and not the mainstream Hindu population. Muslim population has increased in India from about 9 percent at the time of Independence in 1947 to about 13 percent in 2012. In contrast, in Pakistan, Hindu population has declined from 10 percent and now constitutes less than two percent. In Muslim Bangladesh in the same period the Hindu population has declined from 30 percent to less than 10 percent. People vote with their feet. Muslims hold important positions in government and business in contemporary India. Among the richest person in India is a Muslim, Premji; the most popular film stars are Muslim: Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan; Muslims leaders have served as governors at the state level. The single most important leader for the last decade in India is Italian-born Sonya Gandhi and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a Sikh. The former President of India APJ Kalam was a Muslim and before that K R Narayanan, a lower caste. In Federal and State civil service, 50 percent of the jobs are reserved for backward classes, in order to compensate for past discrimination. India has moved.
Invasion of Sindh by Qasim, 712-13 CE
Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows:
Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. “Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law.” Qasim “kept his promises.” The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their “protection.” He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased)
From Doniger’s assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Andrew Bostom in “The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India,” provides the following disquieting picture, based on Islamic sources.[3]
The Muslim chroniclers . . .include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri (an Islamic writer), for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair . . . Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and “700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured.”
R. C. Majumdar, another distinguished historian, describes the tragic outcome:
Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama. (Cited in Bostom.)
Selective Scholarship
Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship. Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup.
Doniger writes at page 458: when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women). They picked the more strict form of purdah from contact with the Hindu Rajput women. Doniger finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up “feminist” republics within female quarters (harems); some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (chapters 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by other historians. See for example, The Mughal Harem (1988) by K S Lal, available free on the Internet.
If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence? Or, the absence of purdah in southern India, a region that escaped extended Islamic domination?
Doniger writes at page 627, “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition.” And, Gandhi’s nonviolence succeeded against the British. But it failed against the tenaciously held Hindu ideal of violence that had grip on the real emotions of the masses.
Doniger blames "the Vedic reverence for violence" for post-Partition destruction that engulfed both India and Pakistan. What is one to make of this weighty pronouncement uttered in all seriousness by the author? Could it perhaps be an expression of the hurt feelings on the part of a scholar? While discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana in London in 2003, Doniger put forth her usual gloss: that Lakshman had the 'hots' for his brother Rama’s wife Sita, and that sexually-charged Sita reciprocated these feelings. An irate Hindu threw an egg at her and conveniently missed it. This incident is her cause célèbre.
Part of a Larger Trend of Dhimmi Attitudes of Subservience
Doniger’s scandalous book on the Hindus makes sense only in the light of a larger global trend—a trend that seeks to re-package Islamic history as a force for tolerance and progress.
Doniger is not alone in holding such views. Dhimmi attitudes of subservience have entered the Western academy, and from there into journalism, school textbooks and political discourse. One must not criticize Islam. For, “to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash.” See Bat Ye'or, http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm
The field of Middle East Studies in the U.S. is now controlled by pro-Middle East professors, according to Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle Eastern Quarterly. “The crucial turning point occurred in the late 1970s when Middle East studies centers, under /Edward/ Said's influence, began to show a preference for ideology over empirical fact and, fearing the taint of the ‘orientalist’ bias, began to prefer academic appointments of native-born Middle Easterners over qualified Western-born students.” Search the link at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989239/.
In contrast, the field of Hinduism studies by and large is controlled by non-Hindus and anti-Hindus. Hindu gods and goddesses are lampooned and denigrated. Hindu saints are described as sexual perverts and India in danger of being run over by Hindu fundamentalists. In these portrayals, Doniger is joined by Martha Nussbaum, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, Stanley Kurtz, to name only a few. Unhappily also, the American born Hindu youth choose lucrative careers in medicine, law, finance and engineering rather than in the social sciences and the humanities.Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler’s argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic rule fits with the dhimmi attitude described forcefully by Bat Ye'or. Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise in the academy. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called ‘struggle within’. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. No wonder that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and on elite American college campuses.
[1]Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Delhi, 1981, pp. 207-08. Smith derives his account of Mahmud’s raids from the account written by Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who traveled with Sultan Mahmud to India.
[2]See Ram Swarup’s Hindu View of Christianity and Islam, 1992. And, Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, 2005, at: http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/.
[3]Published in 2005 in the American Thinker by Andrew Bostom and available at: http://www.islam-watch.org/Bostom/Legacy-of-Islamic-Jihad-terrorism-in-India.htm
Letter # 10:- From VA
Dear Organizers,
I am dismayed to hear of your decision to invite Profoessor Wendy as a keynote speaker at your conference next week. Ostensibly, she will speak on the perils of publishing controversial books in India. I wish that you had designated your conference more as a dialogue (and not as a monologue or a sermon) between Indians/Hindus and western Academics to understand why books like hers are considered as pornographic, hate-speech and academically deficient by her critics. Inviting her to deliver the keynote address reflects, in my opinion, a side stepping of issues of academic honesty, integrity and rigor under the guise of the right to free speech, a right that Professor Doniger and her students and acolytes have denied to dissenting voices in academic forums, publication series and other arenas that are controlled by them. I hope that AAS is not endorsing Doniger’s agendas by inviting her as the keynote speaker.
Lack of Academic Rigor and Honesty: Coming to the book “The Hindus” (Penguin, 2009), I have written a 350 page rebuttal that is in the press, and examines academically the flaws present therein. Doniger claims that her book is about Hindu women, low castes, dogs and horses. But the claim merely appears to be an excuse to present a very lewd, crude and a rude picture of Hinduism. She kinks fairly straightforward narratives in Hindu scriptures to present her own gossip-tabloid level interpretations. The over-arching themes of her book are sex and violence, and not women, low castes or animals. The book is more than 600 pages long, and the number of errors average more than one per page. They are compounded by strained and agenda driven interpretations that whitewash medieval atrocities on Indians, perpetuate colonial and racist stereotypes about Hindus, attribute many positive developments within the Hindu society to impulses from Christianity or Islam and grossly distort historical evidence. She has often claimed to quote passages in the Hindu texts that truly do not exist at all. In lay parlance, her ‘evidence’ often turns out to be ‘cooked-up.’
Hindu Deities are presented as lustful, Hindu saints are falsely alleged by the author to have indulged in sexual orgies, or to have 'taken actions against Muslims', Hindu worshippers are compared to cheating boyfriends, ‘intoxication’ is a ‘central theme of the Vedas’ and Hindu scriptures are presented as a litany of tales of ‘faithful women forsaken by their ungrateful husbands.’ One wonders if some of these caricatures of Hinduism really reflect the author’s own life rather than the culture and traditions of Hindus. Doniger claims to 'love' Hindus or their culture in her book, but this claim appears quite bizarre, perverse and frightening in view of the actual contents of the book.
The book is not an ‘Alternative History’, but rather an alternative to history. It transforms Hinduphobia into an academically acceptable pursuit. After the withdrawal of the book by the Publisher in India, Doniger and her followers are side-stepping the issue of academic honesty and rigor and are once again playing their favorite power play – that of terming her Hindu critics as dangerous fundamentalists.
Hating Hindus in a ‘Scholarly’ Way: A foolproof way to bullet-proof your writings is to claim that you are ‘representing the perspectives of oppressed classes, women and so on’; that you are ‘giving a voice to their contributions’; that your work ‘highlights the diversity inherent in your subject that is typically ignored’ and so on. Unfortunately, there are very few sections or chapters where Doniger has actually stayed true to her professed goal. Instead, the book appears to be woven around the following non-academic agendas:
- Demean the Hindu woman by projecting her as an over-sexed debauched human being who has not made any significant contribution to the Hindu traditions.
- Portray to the West the ‘upper-caste’ Hindu male as the ‘horrid erotic other’ bent on killing Muslims, and raping women.
- Downplay the fact that Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe Hindus made real contributions that they made to Hinduism by depicting them as helpless victims.
- Promote hatred against the Brahmins. Project Hinduism as a ‘Brahmanical Imaginary’ to alienate non-Brahmins from their faith.
- Back-project current caste tensions and politics to paint a picture of an oppressive hell for lower castes in ancient India.
- Deny Hindus the credit for many developments in their traditions and attribute these to other religions’ influence.
- Deny that Hinduism even existed before the British colonialists invented it.
- Promote colonial racist theories like the Aryan invasion theory.
- Depict Hindus as savages, and thus indirectly make the case for colonial rule in India.
- Demean Hindu Deities, scriptures, saints and traditions.
- Ridicule and trivialize Hindu philosophy, theology and beliefs.
- Boost the political agendas of India’s Marxist historians, and Left of the Center political parties in India.
- Silence all her critics by stereotyping them as Hindu Nationalists and thereby sidestep the need to engage in a dialog with the Hindu community.
- Curry favor with Islamists by white-washing the atrocities committed on non-Muslims during medieval India.
- Promote her students (by referring to their help in the endnotes etc.) so that her academic cartel keeps growing. Already, the empire has struck back and her pet students like Laurie Patton, David Shulman etc. have been writing blogs and articles defending her indefensible book.
Demonizing her Critics: In the year 2010, an organization named ‘Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti” headed by a retired school headmaster Dina Nath Batra, filed a complaint in the Indian courts against the book. The Indian law allows withdrawal of books that deliberately hurt the feelings of any community. The case dragged on for almost 4 years, during which the organization members or other Hindus never indulged in violence or threats. Apparently, during the legal proceedings, the judges remarked that Doniger’s book was extremely vulgar. Finally, in February 2014, Penguin Books India Ltd. reached an out of court settlement with Mr Batra and agreed to pulp the remaining copies of the book and withdraw it from circulation. Obviously, a publisher with deep pockets such as Penguin that did not receive or face any threats from Doniger’s imagined ‘Hindu fundamentalists’, must have withdrawn the book when it found the contents indefensible.
Since the withdrawal of the book, Doniger has tried to play victim, writing op-eds, addressing public meetings, giving keynote addresses etc., to claim falsely how her rights are being trampled. The same Doniger has had absolutely no time to discuss her faulty work with the Hindus, or attend academic panels devoted to a discussion of her book even though advance invitations (or copies of reviews) are sent to her. Since mid-February 2014, Doniger and her followers have been writing articles peddling the following lies and half-truths:
- India has a blasphemy law [Truth: It does not. The law only intervenes when it notices a deliberate intent to hurt and promote social discord].
- The law protects only the Hindus [Truth: It protects all religious communities and has more frequently been applied to protect non-Hindus than Hindus].
- India recently outlawed homosexuality [Truth: These laws date from the British rule, and the courts merely ruled that changing the law is not their business, but is the responsibility of the Indian legislature].
- The ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ want to ban free speech in India [Truth: It is Doniger and her acolytes who do not allow free speech in their discussion forums].
- Hindu upper caste males are angry that the book shows how oppressive they have been [Truth: As shown above, the book actually demeans Hindu women, Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and does not highlight the important contributions that they have made to Hinduism except incidentally].
- Hindu critics of the book lack scholarship [Truth: They lack the perverse imagination and hatreds of Doniger and her ilk, but do possess true scholarship].
A reading of this review of the book should reveal to the reader that Doniger has persuaded a non-academic agenda that is quite different from what she has claimed. Her work is not an ‘Alternative History’, but is rather an ‘Alternative to history.’ It is an extremely crude, rude and lewd description of the heritage of the Hindus, especially of our women, Harijans and tribals, in addition to being academically very shoddy. Till date, Doniger has arrogantly refused to correct the errors in her book and treats the Hindus as ‘an object of study’, or as a dead museum mummy to be interpreted the way she wants without the fear of the mummy talking back.
I hope that you will reconsider your decision to invite Dr Doniger, whom we perceive as a Hindu-hater, as the keynote speaker at your conference. Or, in all fairness, invite a suitable Hindu representative (whom I can suggest) to discuss the academic and extra-academic issues involved so as to make the even truly an academic conference that respects the Hindus and their faith, as well as genuine scholarship.
Regards,
It has been brought to my attention that at the 2014 annual conference of AAS (Association for Asian Studies) Wendy Doniger will be delivering opening “Keynote Address”. The title of her address is "Academic Freedom and Censorship: Publishing Controversial Books in India".
“Academic Freedom (AF)” is also touted as “Freedom of Speech (FS)”. Wendy Doniger uses AF and/or FS and writes or speaks which is “Hateful Writing or Hateful Speech (HW and HS)” against Hindus. So, your organization is willingly supporting “HW and HS” in the disguise of AF/FS.
How many times in the past you have invited speakers who have written and spoken in hateful way against Christians, Jews, Islam and African Americans? If I recollect that some time ago, an academic from Florida spoke/wrote in a “Hateful” against African Americans. You know what happened to him.
Her book – “The Hindus – An Alternate History” is full of hateful statements against Hindu. Please change Hindu Iconic names to any Iconic name from other religion and you will consider it as hateful writing.
It is unique that her writing is not tainted by reality and objectivity. It is always psychoanalysis and speculations under the disguise of AF and FS.
It is not about “Academic Freedom”, it is writing “Hateful” book against Hindus and publication in India. Is this what you support?
So, I would urge you invite someone else who does not write and/or speak in hateful way against any group.
Thanks so much for your attention.
Letter # 12:- From VR
Dear AAS Directors and Officers:
I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision to make Ms. Doniger the keynote speaker of 2014 annual AAS conference.
Choice of Ms. Doniger is likely to be viewed as biased and also send a wrong signal about AAS which is a responsible body.
I am a sensible modern and liberal Hindu with exposure to Western thoughts and culture. When I read some of the works of Ms. Doniger, it is apparent to me that she uses her excellent literary skills only to present her per-conceived views and notions under the pretext of scholarly research. In doing so she is doing a disservice to the other scholars who are objective and unbiased in their efforts.
It is for all to see that Ms. Doniger, after doing so much writing and research has found very little positive to say about Hindu heritage. Her work is far from objective and balanced to be scholarly.
Please consider that having her as a keynote speaker will elevate her without due reason and tarnish the image of AAS, which has been built over the many years.
Thanking you for your consideration,
--VR, Pune
-------- Original Message --------
Dates: From Mar 18, 2014 to March 21, 2014
Subject: Hate Speech welcomed & awarded by AAS?
To: twinicha@wisc.edu, sinha@umich.edu, ted_bastor@
gbhers@ucsc.edu, dorisoli@uci.
To: twinicha@wisc.edu, sinha@umich.edu, ted_bastor@
gbhers@ucsc.edu, dorisoli@uci.
"Anne Grimes"<grimesae@state.gov>, anne.