There has been considerable controversy about Prof. Paul Courtright's book on Lord Ganesha. At the center of the controversy are several assertions within the book, that have caused outrage among devout Hindus, including assertions that Ganesha's trunk represents a limp phallus in contrast to Shiva's erect one, that Ganesha's fondness for sweets is a substitute for oral sex and so on.

For a detailed history of the controversy, the protest of some Hindus against the book, and the response of academic scholars of Hinduism on the RISA (Religion in South Asia) list, see Rajiv Malhotra's detailed article: RISA Lila 2, Limp Scholarship and Demonology[1]. In this article we are concerned less with the particulars of the controversy than the broader issues it raises about Hinduism studies and academic freedoms in the American academic system. Even when we use Courtright as an example, the critique is ultimately not intended to be personal, but systematic, given the support Courtright has elicited from his RISA peers.

Outside the academic circles, the question has more or less been of devout practitioners and believers feeling hurt at what they perceive is the deliberate and provocative misrepresentations of a symbol of their devotion. This has resulted in a response of petitions and protest, not unfamiliar from those observed in followers of other religious persuasions in similar matters. Inside academia, likewise, are the familiar refrains of the danger to "academic freedom” and so on. The general sentiment of the religion scholars is captured by the idea expressed on the RISA list that “no matter what you all might think of Paul's claims, I think we need to defend the academic study of religion in general...”.  

Indeed for those ultimately interested in truth, religious sentiments that prevent a rigorous pursuit of the truth can only be regarded as obstacles. So should a truth-seeker side with the hurt Hindus or with the RISA academics?  

Well, speaking personally, I was not outraged by Courtright's book per se, even though Ganesha is a meaningful symbol of devotion for me. This is because I was informed by the sentiment expressed in our scriptures "Jaki Rahi Bhavana Jaisee, Prabhu Murat Dekhi tin taisee." (Whatever the feelings one brings to the Lord, the Lord's image appears likewise). As with anyone describing what he sees when faced with a clear mirror, Courtright's book is not a commentary on Ganesha, who is no doubt jovially unperturbed by the controversy, but likely a far more accurate study of Courtright and his own stage of mental, emotional and spiritual development in approaching that subject matter. That his academic peers stand huddled around him in support might allow us to catch an even larger glimpse in this mirror.

For someone who holds truth, above all else, to be dear, perhaps resonating with a tradition that holds that Truth is the highest dharma, and indeed Truth as the prime aspect of the Supreme Lord, Sat-Chit-Ananda, the central question for lack of outrage or otherwise becomes not one of sentiments, but one of truth. If Courtright's observations are true, then however, insensitive they may appear to dogmatists, they need to be supported (discounting for the moment that being sensitive to the impact one's words, even when true, is also part of the Indian tradition - -we shall remove standard academic discourse from the requirement of sensitivity, for the moment). However, if they serve to ultimately propagate falsehoods, with our without an underlying agenda, then some degree of outrage is justified, perhaps proportional to the degree of falsehood and the amount of damage such falsehood may cause.

However, any question of truth is obviously tricky. Unlike the debate of Shankara with Mandana Mishra, there is no person such as Mishra's wife Ubhaya-Bharati, who is mutually accepted, as the impartial arbiter of truth nor does there appear to be any separate objective touchstone of truth.

Indeed it is to a different, apparently inviolable, touchstone that we are pointed to by Prof. Douglas Berger, writing on the RISA list:

“Should Courtright's representations of Ganesha be inaccurate, then these will be discredited by his peers, and he will be held intellectually responsible for his views.[2]”

Thus, considering that, Courtright's book was originally published nearly 20 years ago[3] and given the support it still enjoys among his RISA peers, one can only conclude that his views have not been discredited. Hence given the proposition above and applying the rule of modus tollens we are forced to admit that Courtright's representations of Ganesha are not inaccurate i.e. removing the double negation, are accurate. Thus the Hindus that protest against this must be crazed fanatics, and by the further logic of demonology, very likely the same as those that kill innocent Muslims in Gujarat or those that support those actions. If there was any doubt of this Orwellian logic, we have an aspiring entrant into this power structure, a self-described all-but-done doctoral candidate on “Sarvarkar and Hinduism” make this explicit:

“So, I would imgaine the issue is related less to Ganesa' state of affairs (e.g. "limp," "flaccid") and more a part of a larger campaign for the "self-defense of 'Hinduism'" in the face of 'attack' by Western scholars (the new colonial gaze) and problematic Muslims (the feared 'other').[4]”

The case in the academy is thus closed. There are mild protestations from a few that deign to meet with some of the Hindu community, but scarcely has the question been raised (as it hardly could be, from within the system) that questions the proposition that Prof. Berger made explicit – If Courtright were inaccurate, he would have been discredited by his peers. Thus if it could be shown that Ganesha's trunk does not, in fact, represent a limp phallus and given that Courtright's views are not discredited within academia in the peer review process, then Prof. Berger's proposition itself is false i.e. that the peer review process in Hinduism studies is, instead, unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood, or between good and bad scholarship. That is, practically anything could be said and written, anything, that is, which doesn't draw any common ground with “Hindutva” (we must not forget our bright line of unmitigated evil), as long as it is written in the “bon ton” academic language and as long as it follows the framework already established within the peer-reviewing clique – it deserves, at best, unconditional plaudits and at worse an impassioned defense of free speech.

The first question, that all truth seekers whether within or outside academia must ask is – is the academic study of Hinduism in America, as it currently exists, a valid discipline in that it has some ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and between scholarship and fiction?

The problem, of course, is that the burden of proof is on the challenger. Prof. Courtright's limp phallus comes with all the authority of peer-reviewed academia. A challenger cannot simply claim hurt feelings, since as Patrick Olivelle writes, quite justifiably, in RISA: “If we were not to "offend" any believer of any religious persuasion with what we write, then we may as well give up the academic study of religion.” Nor is it sufficient, as some have done, to argue against the inapplicability of Freudian methodology or how it has been discredited elsewhere. The methodology itself comes with the weight of academic tradition, of course, generated from within the same peer group[5]. Finally, the statement itself is beyond verification or falsification – how does one “prove” that Courtright's conception of Ganesha's trunk as a limp phallus is false? One can point out that it is ahistorical, that it has no basis within the tradition, no textual references and so on, but nothing really prevents Courtright's personal fantasies about Ganesha's trunk to be presented as scholarly opinion.

Coutright's righteous indignation about academic freedom and the support this has received from his academic peers, appear to arise from a belief that his peers will not /cannot hold him to account on matters of accuracy or evidence. The challenge to the accuracy of the book has again come in a recent article by an outsider to the academic study of Hinduism[6]. Courtright can thus state with remarkable disdain for the voices of his sources “"Although there seem to be no myths or folktales in which Ganesa explicitly performs oral sex; his insatiable appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones." [em. added]

In most academic disciplines, to come to such a definite conclusion, a scholar would have to marshal evidence, a fraud would have to manufacture evidence but in Academic Hinduism studies such efforts are, in Prof. Courtright's estimation, overkill. Courtright may be credited with inventing one of the most ingenious devices in academic Hinduism studies – a field known for its ingenious devices-“The Courtright Twist” - whereby a respectable scholar can go from a hopeless “no evidence” to a tentative “may be interpreted” to “clear... overtones” all in the space of a single sentence.

Is this then harbinger of true Academic freedom? Freedom from responsibility or pesky facts? No wonder a chorus of voices has been shrilly raised in his support within RISA academics for their desire to preserve this freedom, unquestioned by any opposing voices.

Hold on, someone might say, isn't this true of the field of religious studies, or all of humanities in general – that many statements exists that are neither verifiable nor can be falsified. What's so special about the Courtright Twist in Hinduism Studies?

Indeed. It might help to explore this issue by analogy and see if we can detect some differences. How would works produced by Wendy's Children[7], directly or metaphorically speaking, look like in the study of other religions? What would happen if we were to do a similar exercise with significant symbols of other religions? Would what be the response from within academia to the following presentations (apologies in advance for the scatological suggestions): 

For Muslims, the Prophet Mohammad is a significant central figure. Would psycho-analyzing the Prophet's relationship with his young wife Ayesha, who was 9 at the time of their marriage, and drawing “clear overtones” about Islam using the Courtright Twist be considered legitimate scholarship by the AAR? More particularly, could such scholarship about Islam go completely without challenge within the American academia as was the case with Courtright's book?

Let us take another example:

One can imagine scholarship psycho-analyzing Joseph faced with his virgin wife Mary giving birth and drawing clear overtones about the impact this had on the upraising of the baby Jesus and the development of Christianity. Would such a book exist for 20 years in the American academia without any internal critique?  

Can one imagine a legitimate “American Studies” chair being conferred by an accredited University based on the following thesis, without facing any academic challenges? “Although there is no folklore or historical documents supporting this, one can readily appreciate that by national consensus the American people built the Washington Monument as an assertion of American manhood, its large size compensating for the insecurity of their nationhood. Its image reaching towards the Lincoln memorial, designed appropriately as a receptacle, has clear overtones of the deep American and Christian inner conflict regarding homosexuality.  

Taking these as “seed” ideas I am sure a properly motivated and guided graduate students would be able to come up with a paper in the right academic language on these topics. Someone interested in more subtle subversion may sprinkle these “observations” in the context of an otherwise scholarly appearing work, I apologize those that I have no doubt offended by presenting these examples of "scholarly topics" – indeed my point is to state that these are speculative fantasies, more suitable for a hormonally-charged adolescent brain than for any serious work of published academic scholarship.  For most other scholarly disciplines such as the field of Islam or American studies, it would be hard for anyone to pass these off as serious work. More importantly, even if some scholars did speculate on these, they would no doubt at the very least be seriously challenged or worse, their motivation, ethics and intellectual standards questioned, and would likely be laughed out of town and blackballed by serious mainstream scholars. Certainly, as has been the case of psychoanalytic models being applied to Jesus in Biblical studies, at the very least such interpretations wouldn't be allowed to exist without refutation from within academia.

In effect, that is how social science academia prevents trash being written – not by “proving” as false fantasies or opinions that can't be falsified but by the balance of power and the relative development of understanding within the field of the academic discipline itself that would not allow this work to pass off as serious mainstream scholarship.

Yet, what does it say about standards in the field of Hinduism studies in American academia that fantasies such as those perpetuated by Courtright, Kripal and a whole host of Wendy's children pass off as scholarship -- with some of them later admitting that they have been struggling with their own sexuality in the process? What enables Courtright's work to result in no substantial outrage or heated debate from within academia as similar scholarship attacking major Muslim, Christian or even secular American symbols would undoubtedly have done from within the disciplines of Islamic, Christian, or American studies? Why does it take an outsider Rajiv Malhotra to write an article or an act of signature gathering by Hindu community groups outside academia to even begin the discussion on RISA, twenty years after Courtright's book is originally published? Why does it take Vishal Agarwal, again from the outside, to even question the veracity of references for the dramatic claims[8] in this peer-acclaimed book? Has the peer review system in RISA entirely failed, operating simply as a mutual back-scratching clique?

So the second question is this – What does it tell us about the state of academia in Hinduism studies when a host of academic writing that is highly deviant from “emic” understanding passes off as mainstream scholarship, without any significant internal academic challenge?

Ultimately, this lack of the strong dissenting voice from within the academia in Hinduism shouldn't be considered a victory by any serious truth-seeking scholar. In a well-functioning system truth and harmony lie in the dynamic balance point of opposing forces[9] – without this balance there will be genocide, intellectual or otherwise. This balance is as important in India politically between say Hindutva and its opposing political forces, as it is politically in America, Left and Right, or in academia. Voices from the Hindu community are speaking up, not always politely, rarely in academically digestible forms, but they are speaking up from outside because the opposition has failed to exist within the system. Perhaps the worst response sincere academics in Hinduism studies, who care about fairness and the importance of dissent, would be to dismiss these voices of dissent as voices of fanaticism.

Of course, one reason that the state of affairs has remained as it is, is because the power structure supports it. In other words, there have been little academic or economic consequences for Hinduism-bashing within the academia – no thesis will be held up, no tenure withheld, no conference invitations passed by, no grants that will fail to materialize – the consequences in the other direction may well be disastrous. Thus the, by now predictable, response in academia has been to dismiss all criticism as the result of “Hindu fanatics” or “Hindutva.” The existing power equations make it very dangerous for even scholars that disagree to come out in support of Hindu viewpoints – the use of the “Hindutva” label is thus used very effectively for censorship through blackballing within the academic community. Unfortunately, that has been the stock response in trade, a most amusing recent example (if it hadn't been so predictable) on RISA being the smear post[10] against Jakob De Roover and Prof. Balu for arguing[11] for a more nuanced understanding of Indian secularism.

What is particularly interesting is also the failure of most of the scholars active on the RISA list to even understand why Hindus would find this scholarship on Ganesha offensive, without resorting to branding the authors of the petition as fanatics. While I personally did not support the petition simply on the grounds that banning the book is an ineffective response to the problem of prejudice in Hinduism studies[12] and, in fact, an avoidance of the need to develop an intellectual critique strongly rooted in the dharmic traditions, something that many of the Hindutva people fail to see; yet it isn't particularly difficult to understand why, irrespective of who organized the petition, many Hindus would be incensed at the depictions in the book, whether or not they support the ideological stances of Hindutva. At the very least the Hindu activists are owed our gratitude for bringing this issue into public debate.

As David Freedholm, an American school teacher concerned about the depiction of Hinduism in the American academic system, writes:

“RISA scholars find themselves in this situation because they for too long have failed to listen carefully to the concerns of the Hindu community here in North America (and, for that matter, in India). Of course, scholars are not required to do this but it seems to me that it is both the ethical and the practical thing to do.  

“Contrast this to the Study of Islam section of AAR. In its mission statement, the Study of Islam section recognizes the key role it has in shaping the understanding of Islam in public schools, universities, and in the public consciousness. They explicitly state that they need to contribute to the “public understanding of religion” in general and of Islam in particular. This concern that Islam be understood in ways that are balanced and fair from both the emic and the etic perspective is seen in the various projects they take on. They created a website (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm) in order to deflect criticism of Islam after the terrorist attack on the WTC. Many Study of Islam scholars have dedicated themselves to making Islam better understood in the West. Prof. Alan Godlas has created an award-winning website ( http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/#islam) that is “intended to be of use for non-Muslim and Muslim students and teachers at all levels as well for members of the general public who wish to get a non-polemical view of Islam.” On his site, Godlas provides links to a number of other efforts by Study of Islam members to make Islam better understood and to present a positive spin on Islam.

  “It is clear that these efforts emerge because scholars of Islam in AAR, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, feel a responsibility to the community they study. Why are there no similar efforts by RISA? Where are the websites, public talks and statements, and books that try to provide a fair and balanced presentation of Hinduism and to correct misunderstandings of Hinduism in the public sphere (in the media, in schools, etc.)?  

“Instead, RISA scholars appear more interested in the exotic and erotic aspects that they identify in Hinduism. They appear more concerned with trying to highlight social problems in India which they blithely blame on Hinduism. It is no wonder there is such a disconnect between the Hindu community and RISA scholars.

“Now the diaspora Hindu community is reading their work and feeling its effect and many find little resemblance between their faith and the religion described in scholarly books. This inevitably leads to some cognitive dissonance and to dissatisfaction and hurt.

  “Unlike with Christianity, Judaism and even Buddhism in North America, there is no more mainstream counterbalance to the more radical approaches taken by scholars to Hinduism. Christians of a more traditional or mainstream inclination have many seminaries and publishing houses to train scholars and publish books. For every scholarly work on Jesus that takes a more radical approach (and such books and articles do exist) there are several others that critique them and offer more traditional views. At AAR/SBL one can find evangelical Christian and traditional Catholic scholars rubbing elbows with more secular and radical scholars of Christianity.

  “This is not the case with Hinduism. There is very little representation of more mainstream or traditional Hindu views in Western academia. When such views do appear they are scorned as “fundamentalist” or worse. And, even worse, these scholarly views are seen to become the authoritative interpretations of Hinduism in the West. For example, Courtright's book on Ganesha is one of a relatively few books on the subject in English available to a wide audience. Because it has received approving accolades from the RISA community, it will be taken as an authoritative perspective on Ganesha, despite the fact that its interpretation is wildly at odds with that of most Hindus. It will be cited by authors of textbooks and its views disseminated into material designed for non-scholarly audiences. This would almost certainly never happen with a Freudian analysis of Jesus because it would be just one of many scholarly and popular interpretations of Jesus available. There is no such balance in Hinduism studies.[13]”

Thus, as Freedholm points out, even legitimate moderate Hindu anger is sought to be denied by many in the academic community, by branding it under the “Hindutva” label, which itself is equated with unmitigated evil, classifying anyone who espouses sympathy with their issues as a “Hilter worshipper”, supporter of the murder of Muslims etc., irrespective of their support or otherwise for those indulging in violence. The tool of Hindutva demonology is of course used very effectively to keep the Hindu voices from emerging that would challenge abusive scholarship more aggressively in academia internally, which is a phenomena worth studying in its own right. But the denial of the right to be angry at abuse is particularly interesting. Again, recourse to the analogies from other religions might help illustrate this. If we take a major symbol of another minority religion in the US, say, the Prophet Mohammad and have an academic paper calling him a pedophile or a terrorist, with an attached psychoanalytical map, it will not surprise most of us if it incenses a large section of the Muslim community. Whether or not one provides logical arguments to prove their case, it would be difficult to deny that many Muslims would be legitimately angry and aggrieved at these depictions.

Would the same standards of labeling such Muslims as a "extremist" apply, as it was done in the case of the Hindu petitioners, or would the focus of the gaze switch to prejudice and lack of sensitivity of the those making the original remarks instead? What allows Paul Coutright's demeaning of Hindu symbols meet no liberal critique, unlike the legitimate support that American Muslims received for Jerry Falwell's remarks against the Prophet Mohammad. Why are the Hindus expressing pique at Paul Courtright's attack dubbed as fanatics instead, with very little criticism of Courtright in the academic community?

This raises the third question -- are the standards of sensitivity in dealing with religious symbols of Hindus in the academy lower than that for other religious traditions such as Islam, Judaism or Christianity? What are the causes of this relative insensitivity arise and what part does it play in dismissing any Hindu protest as “fanaticism”?

Is the technique of branding all Hindus that speak up as “fanatics” used to "keep people in their place” and reflective on the power balance within academia in the study of those traditions? What are the levers of this power-balance? How important a role does funding from “emic” sources (such as Saudi Arabia in the case of Islam) play in creating “defenders of the faith” within academia and conversely the predominance of funding from sources inimical to Hinduism create incentives for Hindu-bashing?

What is even more ironic is that many of the academics studying Hinduism often classify themselves as liberals; at the same time they refuse to acknowledge the negative impact of their own work on mainstream portrayals of Hinduism or on Hindu children encountering this work in schools and colleges[14].

Now someone might argue that the Prophet Mohammad or Jesus Christ are historic figures while Lord Ganesha is a “god” that can be picked on with impunity, but such an approach again fails to acknowledge the power of symbols of devotion. For many Hindus, Ganesha is not like an abstract Greek pagan god but a living entity present in their daily experience and ritual. He is as potent a symbol of reverence as the Prophet Mohammad or Allah or Jesus Christ/Jehovah is for Muslims or Christians. While academics may dispute the historicity of Jesus, it is the significance of the symbol of Jesus as meaningful object of personal devotion for Christians that creates the emotional bond for them. That those who have been studying Hinduism for years still haven't figured this out means that they have either understood very little or have deliberately chosen to ignore it.

A poster in RISA-L gives the example of Socrates picking on "gods", in defense of Courtright. Yet, there is a large gap between Socrates and Courtright. Where Socrates uses insistent reason, that can be engaged with and disputed, Courtright uses scatology, provided legitimacy by his academic platform. As such it has already served its purpose. As a fantasy, it can neither be engaged with nor falsified (how do you prove that Ganesha's trunk doesn't represent a limp phallus if it does in Courtright's dreams?). And, unlike Socrates, no chalice of poison awaits Courtright. He is not bucking the system – to do so would be to pick on the gods and goddesses of the academic system itself, like Wendy Doniger and others. Rather, he is an entrenched part of the system, assured of benevolence and manna from its gods. Given that in wishing to knock Ganesha of the Hindu pedestal, he can likely find enough well-heeled sponsors and peer accolades, can anything but laurels await him?

The Courtright issue is ultimately not simply about feelings or academic freedoms but about the legitimacy of the academic study of religions itself. Is to serve as a platform for propaganda of various vested interests and cliques or will it forge for itself the ethical and intellectual standards required of a legitimate discipline seeking knowledge and truth? Is part of its mission to promote an understanding of diverse viewpoints in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society or to reinforce false stereotypes and create new ones?

If it is indeed to be a serious discipline, organizations like the AAR would be well put to pay serious heed to this criticism from outside the academic community. Some ideas for this include:

1. A public disclosure of a map of the scholars' own beliefs system and the significant influences on that.
2. A full disclosure of the funding sources of the scholars and the institutes that employ them with their religious and ideological affiliations, if any.
3. An active effort to provide space for a legitimate platform for community-scholar interaction that is willing to treat each side with symmetrical respect.

While none of this will guarantee the validity of scholarship or its truthfulness or objectivity, it can help make the system more transparent, legitimate and ultimately more effective in its quest for understanding the human situation. Indeed it is not unusual for other high-stakes disciplines such as medical researchers and even stock-brokers to make such disclosures to maintain transparency. What could be more high-stakes and all pervasive than religion?

The author is a practitioner of Sanatana Dharma. He has not received any financial support for this essay or his other writings criticizing the portrayal of Hinduism in the American academia.

Notes:

[1] http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305890

[2] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07228.html

[3] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07223.html

[4] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07241.html

[5] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07230.html

[6] See, instead, a detailed rebuttal that has come from outside the RISA system: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307042

[7] Rajiv Malhotra created this phrase for this school of scholarship in Hinduism studies, see http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=239156

[8] http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307042

[9] At the risk of generalizing, this may well represent an Eastern Way of looking at things vs. the Abrahamic model of looking at the “other” as darkness to be eliminated.

[10] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/msg07275.html

[11] Yes, I'm using that abbreviation with full awareness of the logic that will cause this branding iron to swing to my back.:) [12] See, for instance, http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733

[13] Private email communication

[14] See, for instance the letter by Trisha Pasricha, a 14-yr old Hindu American on mis-representations of Hinduism in the school curriculum, quoted at the end of the article: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305890