Review of Imaging Hinduism: A Postcolonial perspective. By Sharada Sugirtharajah. Routledge, 2003. 164 pages
This book is the first of its kind to bring post-colonial perspectivesinto a study of Hinduism. Consequently, there are no conventionalreference points for the author to use to build her narrative. She has to figure out how to use the conceptual apparatus ofthe one to study the other. In this sense, although the bookis experimental in its nature, there is nothing hesitant ortentative about some of the conclusions she draws. How successfulis the author in bringing the two, the study of Hinduism anda post-colonial perspective, together? If someone is influencedby post-colonial thought, the judgment will have to be in thepositive. However, having never been enamored by this genreof thinking, I find her framework both limiting and damagingto the study of Hinduism. Before I identify some of my problems,a few words about the book are necessary.
Each chapter conveniently divides into two recognizable parts:one part where the author tells her narrative and the otherin which she explains in a transparent way the basic conceptsshe uses in the course of that chapter. Admirably free of jargon,which is definitely not one of the virtues of post-colonialwritings, the author succinctly explains the meaning and useof some of the crucial concepts of this genre of thinking andwriting in one part of each chapter. In the other, she plotsthe trajectories pursued by of some of the colonial writerson Hinduism.
To the students of Hinduism, the figures talked about are relativelyfamiliar: William Jones, Max Müller, William Ward and JohnFarquhar. Each is given a full chapter and the discussion oftheir ideas is rich and nuanced but, ultimately, unsatisfactory.In the last chapter, she takes up one of the aspects that agitateall those who study Hinduism: the practice of sati, the practiceof burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.
In the introduction, the author lays out her project and herambition: “This volume aims to show how Hinduism came to betailored to fit the varied hermeneutical and ideological positionsof both western and Indian interpreters, all of whom, on theirown terms, tried to homogenize a loosely knit tradition, andinvest it with a tight structure, thereby making it static;fixed and palatable” (ix, italics mine). This theme is the leitmotiv:homogenization of a tradition which makes it static. In thecase of each of the authors she treats, she tries to demonstratethe tropes and the strategies they use to achieve this goalwithout, however, really appreciating the cognitive significanceof the question that is never far away from her consciousness:Why did they want to try and homogenize a tradition? In thecase of Jones, a “part of his motive” lay in the “needs of thecolonial government” (22), but here, it is not a complete explanation(23). In the case of Max Müller, a speculative psychologyprovides the answer: “his own romantic quest for the lost originsof the European culture” (73). To William Ward, a Christian missionary, his evangelical longings provide the answer: he"essentializes, dramatizes and manipulates" (89) his descriptionof Hinduism to show the “superiority” of Protestant Christianity.Farquhar, despite his desire for an “empathetic understanding"of Hinduism, merely wants to show that Christianity is the fulfillmentof Hinduism.
There are two ways of looking at these explanations. One isto draw attention to the varied set of “motives.” However, indoing so, one is merely trying to hide the fact of indulgingin some very bad arm-chair psychologising. There is no way onearth that one could demonstrate or “prove” the individual psychologicalmotives on the basis of their writings, whether they are booksor personal letters. Even if one can provide some plausibilityto such a speculation, what, if any, is the relation betweena theory and the psychological motive of an author? Unless thisquestion can be satisfactorily answered, the answers are totallyad hoc. And that is the second way of looking at such explanations:they are ad hoc and do not further the cause of knowledge. Onecould as well say that the traveler’s diarrhea inflictedJones, which is why he could never forgive the natives. Why would this speculation be any less acceptable than the “administrativeneeds” of the British East India Company?
In fact, there are two major challenges facing any study suchas this one: one set of challenges arises from the subject matter;the other set has its origins in the limitations of post-colonialthought. Let me begin with the last.
The first and the most obvious problem is about the usefulnessof a post-colonial perspective. What precisely is the theoreticalgain of using such a perspective? Apart from simply statingthat “knowledge is bound to power” or that one uses the tropeof a “child” to describe the Indian civilization to show the"superiority” of the western culture and civilization, thereare no other cognitive advantages. The disadvantages, by contrast,are many. Each claim from a post-colonial perspective generatesso many questions that cry out for an answer that it is simplyamazing to see them done away with some cliché from thearsenal. Consider just a random selection of questions thata few of the chapters raise. It is indeed a fact that the Britishwere very keen to discover the original legal texts from theIndian traditions and codify them. But why were they so keento do so? It could not be because of their “administrative needs.“The Islamic colonial rule was in place for centuries beforethat, and these rulers did not codify legal texts for their"administrative needs.” Why, then, could the British not followthe Mogul example? Or again, the Protestant evangelical needto show the “superiority” of Protestant Christianity was nowhereequal to the Muslim belief in the superiority of Islam or thelatter’s drive to convert the Kaffirs. Why, then, didthe West do what the Muslims never did, namely try and understandHinduism by “imaginatively constructing” it?
Consider a different kind of question that emerges from thelast chapter: the need to defend or attack the practice of burningthe widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands by referringto the scriptural sanction for this practice. If we follow thedetails of this debate in colonial India, there is one staggeringfact that cries out for an explanation. The British did notban this practice straightaway, whatever their denominationalaffiliations, but sought instead to find out whether the Indianscriptures sanctified it. I know of no single instance of anyBritish official condoning it; without exception, they consideredit inhuman and barbaric. Nevertheless, they first wanted toknow what the Indian scriptures said of this practice. Why?Why did they not ban it straightaway? Surely, these questionscannot be answered by table thumping and hand waving in thedirection of “colonial exigencies.”
If anything, because Sharada Sugirtharajah does not raise oranswer these questions, she runs the risk of simplifying someof her criticisms to such an extent that they end up becomingridiculous. Let me take an example. One of her criticisms whichis also the standard diet in post-colonial thinking is the leitmotivof the book. There is no one homogenized “Hinduism” but merelymultiple, “loosely knit Hinduisms.” One does not need any philosophicalsophistication to realize that this standard criticism is completelyuntenable. There is nothing logically, linguistically, or evenphilosophically wrong in using “Hinduism” in the singular evenwhere the word refers to a multiplicity and plurality of phenomena.On the contrary, such use is absolutely essential. As homo Sapiens,we belong to a single species. However, by indicating that webelong to a single species, there is no suggestion anywherethat this species is either “monolithic” or that there is no"diversity.” To speak of “Hinduisms” in the plural, and to denyits singular use, is an expression of philosophical, logical,and linguistic illiteracy; it does not express any conceptualsophistication. The very possibility of “Hinduisms” making sensedepends on the guarantee that “Hinduism” makes sense.
Concomitant to this post-colonial stance, a huge explanatoryproblem comes into existence. Why did generations of writersfrom the West fail to appreciate the multiplicity and complexityof Hinduism, if they indeed failed in appreciating this factso evident to every post-colonial writer? I am aware of the answers that float around, including the many ego-flatteringones. The problem with them is their ad hoc nature: they merelypick up some or another random difference between the past andthe present (lack of information, “wrong” philosophical presupposition,colonialism, etc) and simply postulate or allege a “causal"relationship.
To appreciate the absurdity of such “explanations"consider another random collection of such differences. Theearlier generations failed in appreciating the depth and complexityof “Hinduism” because: (a) Bush was not the president of theUnited States; (b) the X-Files had not yet been screened; (c)this reviewer was not yet born; (d) the European Union did nothave 25 member states . . . . Why does one random collection"explain” and not the other?
I consider this question the biggest challenge and a litmustest to any and all studies into the history of Hinduism. Ifone is inclined to say that the earlier generations failed,the onus is on the claimant to come up with a reasoned “explanation"of such a failure without appealing to ad hoc arguments. Pointingat imperialism and colonialism and what have you is no answerunless one is able to show what the relationship is betweenthe one and the other. Here, the track record of post-colonial thought has been abysmal so far. If the author of this bookwas not blinded by this genre of thinking, she would have seenit as well.
The second problem that faces any and all attempts like thisbook is the relationship between the Christian theology andthe study of Hinduism. Increasingly, it is becoming acceptedthat the former has shaped the latter. But this insight merelyincreases the complexity of the task: those who criticize theearlier generations of thinkers in their failure and lay thisfailure at the doorstep of their Christian understanding needto exhibit a superior mastery in the field of Christian theologicaldiscussions as well. It is not sufficient anymore to merelynote that Max Müller was “influenced” by Protestant thinking.One has to show (a) not merely how and in what sense such aninfluence can be traced in his writings but also (b) more importantlywhat is wrong with that influence. What is wrong with the influenceexerted by the Protestant theology? To simply wave one’shands vaguely in the direction of “ideological” influence isto say and show nothing. The stakes merely go up: What indeedis wrong with ideological influences in the study of religion?Is one contrasting “science” with “ideology”? In which case,how does a “scientific” study of Hinduism look like?
Although one cannot blame the author for not raising or answeringthese questions in this slim volume, I would have liked to knowwhether she is cognizant of these issues. Nothing in the booksuggests that she is; by the same token, nothing in the booksuggests that she is not. I hope she takes up these issues inher future research.
Quite apart from these challenges, the nature of the subjectmatter raises other kinds of problems as well. The most obviouslacuna lies in the selection of the authors when the book isabout “Imagining Hinduism.” Quite apart from the fact that theseauthors are well-known figures in the British study of Hinduism,there is nothing else that brings them together in the confinesof a single volume. It is almost as though these authors, allon their own, came up with the constructions they did come up with. The rest of Europe simply plays no role in the narrativethat Sharada Sugirtharajah pens. Of course, there are explanationsfor this oversight; the most obvious one, perhaps, is the author’slack of mastery in other European languages. However, this hasbeen the bane of most Anglo-Saxon writings on this subject.The foundations, the frameworks, and even most of the contentfor these authors were prepared in Continental Europe first;it was in continental Europe that the work of the Asiatic Societyresonated first before it moved people in the British Isles.Even the schism in Christianity took place in continental Europefirst. If one is unable to bring the absolutely vital contributionsof the continental Europeans into the picture, our understandingof the “imaginative construction of Hinduism” will not merelybe poor; it will also be distorted and one-sided. It will be distorted because one of the hobbyhorses, the “exigencies ofthe British colonial rule” which is the “favorite” song of thepost-colonials, used to explain the construction of Hinduismwill bite dust. It will be one-sided because we will have nounderstanding why these earlier generations of scholars claimed what they did claim.
Correlated to the above problem is the absence of context. Thisis a kind of history writing that ends up denying intelligibilityto its subject matter. We have some big names, intellectualgiants of their time no doubt, floating in an intellectual vacuum.They appear to have no precedents, either in the commonsenseideas that floated around in their time or in the debates oftheir age. Consequently, both the questions confronting theseauthors and the answers they provide become unintelligible. Instead of a history of ideas that is supposed to help us understandthe nature and status of the study of Hinduism, the narrativeitself becomes an opaque puzzle. What were the intellectualand cognitive problems faced by the earlier generations of writers?Where did these problems emerge from? Not answering these questionsis to take away the crucial instrument we need to evaluate the adequacy of their answers.
By embracing the post-colonial perspective, I think SharadaSugirtharajah has done a great disservice to herself. Despitebeing eminently readable and thoroughly enjoyable, the bookis beset with problems inherited from her fascination for post-colonialthinking. However, despite this deficiency, I consider thisbook an indispensable companion to any classroom teaching ofHinduism. It goes further than the many textbooks on HinduismI know, and it provides a much needed correction to their representation of Hinduism. It would have been a very good contribution toa study of Hinduism, if the author did not force some avoidableproblems on the book. She will do better by getting off thebandwagon of post-colonial thinking and focusing on what sheseems to be good at: provide a rich and balanced reading ofthe original texts and contribute meaningfully to the much neededdebate on the nature and structure of Hinduism.