Indology has been dominated by non-Indians, mostly White people, for most of the 20th century and that skew persists even in the 21st even as India has come into its own so emphatically in other spheres. – Reshmi Dasgupta
The usual suspects are incensed once again that yet another foreign (read White) academic, Francesca Orsini, who specialises in an aspect of India—in this case, the Hindi language—and is associated with the Left-dominated School of Oriental and African Studies in London was denied entry despite a valid visa. It is being cited as yet another example of authoritarianism and suppression of free speech by the “Hindu nationalist” current Government of India.
The other side sees Orsini as an India- and Hindu-baiter and rattles off instances of her activism against India on issues from Kashmir to the Citizenship Amendment Act. However, for those who are not in the same circuit—Hindi literature and language—it is hard to discern whether there is any bias in her scholarship even if she does fall in with the usual “liberal” academic pastime of signing petitions and joining protests against right wing actions.
But a lay Indian can be forgiven for feeling rather bewildered by the sheer volume of praise that she has garnered after she was turned back from India. Judging by the [response, it] seems there is no Indian academic or researcher in the field of Hindi who can hold a candle to her scholarship and thus her absence from India is thus nothing short of a tragedy for Indians. If indeed there is no one in India of comparable expertise, the logical question should really be, “Why on Earth not?”
The Orsini incident has led to predictable lists of other prominent and unparalleled foreign scholars who have been denied entry to India or criticised by those seen as being right wing. One stark fact stands out in this peroration: that Indology has been dominated by non-Indians, mostly White people, for most of the 20th century and that skew persists even in the 21st even as India has come into its own so emphatically in other spheres. Is that acceptable?
The government says Orsini was denied entry as she had violated the terms of her tourist visa by engaging in professional work earlier this year. That she did indeed do so—attend events related to her work and even deliver talks, neither of which are touristic activities—is undeniable but her supporters aver that should be overlooked. Why? Because she is a leading light in the world of Hindi scholarship and so India should be grateful for any interactions she has here.
Imagine if most scholars on, say, France, were Indians in Indian universities or other institutions outside France, and even Europe. Unlikely? Indeed. But why? Because the French would never let a situation happen wherein foreigners know—or are said to know—about things French better than the French. They may appreciate a foreigner being a connoisseur of French poetry or wine but will they value that person’s opinions over one of their own? Jamais!
Admittedly, thanks to centuries of colonisation Indians did not have free will. They were constrained in terms of both means and opportunities. Most of the early Indologists were British or some European as they had the wherewithal to explore that field. A few Indian scholars did rise in that sphere a century ago but were succeeded by Leftist Indians who toed the same ideological line formulated in Europe and focused mostly on “modern” India and allied fields.
Soon, Indology lost its sheen among Indians who entered university from the 1960s onwards. That not only left Indology wide open for students in the West such as Orsini, Wendy Doniger, etc, it also meant India had no say in what their “scholarship” assayed about this part of the world. And later Indian students of history, philosophy, the arts including languages and music had to regard them as the modern gurus of our parampara and accept their opinions.
As these Western scholars were the only ones with recent bodies of work to be read, imbibed and cited on aspects of India—Indians in the same area of study were either outdated thanks to subsequent discoveries and evidence or simply not there thanks to Indology being neglected in Indian universities for decades—only foreigners remained the “experts”. The ignominy of it! Does any other nation of comparable cultural and historical legacies condone this?
How many Indians—that too not naturalised citizens, born there or even resident there—are regarded as experts on European or US history, politics, art, languages and philosophy with statures exceeding that of Europeans and American scholars born, raised and educated there? There may indeed be a few exceptions in some subjects, but entire fields of study are not dominated by foreigners from different races and cultural backgrounds as has happened with Indology.
Much of the fault lies with Indians, particularly those who have commanded the heights of academia here. Leftist ideology was not only a lure, but adherence to it was also de rigeuer for any kind of a future in research. Alternative—read non-Left—ideologies were actively discouraged and guaranteed exclusion. Until about a decade ago, it was thus rare for bright young people to evince interest in India’s legacy in philosophy, languages, art, religion and history.
The result was a near absence of the “other side” in research and interpretation of data, both historical and contemporary. But that lacuna is slowly being addressed; there is new interest in all aspects of India, that too from those who are not aligned with the ideology of the older—and still dominant—academic elite. However, it will take time before they achieve “statures” comparable to the phalanx of foreign experts on India, overcoming internal and external resistance.
The current derision from the old guard of Left-dominated Indian academia centres on the lack of “formal” scholarship among those espousing different ideas; over-praising foreign “experts” is also a tactic. Paucity of doctorates and professorships among the new cohort is not surprising given the exclusionist policies enforced in universities by the ancient regime. But that cannot be reason to disregard and disrespect their work, research and integrity.
There is nothing wrong with foreign scholars being critical of India, its culture, polity and even current policies, etc., if there are counter voices from India that get equal play in the same circles, leaving individuals to decide who and what they want to believe. That is not yet the case; it is not a level playing field. No right-thinking Indian should miss the irony of someone named Francesca Orsini being tom-tommed as the last word on the Hindi language, circa 2025. – News18, 24 October 20125
› Reshmi Dasgupta is a freelance writer.
See also
Filed under: india, UK, USA | Tagged: academic hinduphobia, francesca orsini, indian scholarship, western colonialism, western indologists | Comments Off on India must stop tolerating White supremacy in academia – Reshmi Dasgupta
BHARATA BHARATI 