Here we go again. And by that I’m referring to the Ms. 2009 cover depicting a multi-armed mom. This time, it’s an image of President Obama. Newsweek’s November 22nd, 2010 issue headlined “God of All Things” shows Obama on the cover balancing multiple policy issues and balancing on one leg. The image is of Hindu deity, Shiva, also know as “the destroyer of the world.”
Suhag Shukla of the Washington-based Hindu-American Foundation told FoxNews that her group doesn’t think Newsweek meant to be malicious, but believes ‘the cover was in line with the media’s comfort of utilizing Hindu symbols or deities to symbolize an issue.’
Zed said that Hindus understood that the purpose of Newsweek was not to denigrate Hinduism, but warned casual flirting like this sometimes resulted in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and hurting the devotees.[dailymail]
In the rest of the world, Hindus are outraged. > Hindus in Malaysia are taking more drastic measures. They are demanding the government remove the issue from all of the country’s newsstands. [abc]
It feels like this is turning into an annual thing, isn’t it? A major magazine anthropomorphizing a Hindu God into a (famous) person and putting it on the cover seems to be an annual occurrence. What may be worse is that they really should have done their research because what had initially been a sympathetic cover of everything the President had to juggle quickly turned into a jab at the President as being a world destroyer. After those 12 stitches to his lips today from a holiday basketball game, it’s pretty clear he’s not invincible.
How offended were you, Mutineers?
UPDATED:
To provide context, the above cover is from the National Review, June 2009. Related blog post at Swami Sotomayor.
The above cover is from Ms. Magazine, July 2009. Related blog post at Keep Your Hands to Yourself.
My question is, why were more people offended by the Ms, and National Review covers (see comments in previous blogs) than they were of the Newsweek cover? How is this different?
Presumably we can develop some negotiation based on notions of mutual respect
unpack this “mutual respect” aspect. what does it entail? the reality is that many religions and some forms of atheism have baked into the cake a disrespect for other beliefs. on the other hand, you can not respect someone’s beliefs, but show fellow human feeling and respect for a person. i think i tend to be in this category. when i see a ‘beardo’ walking down the street i don’t respect him because i stereotype his beliefs. i’ve personally seen how these people speak of ‘unbelievers’ in private (usually when castigating those muslims who they perceive not to be as pious as themselves). but, if he was an old man who fell i would immediately rush to help him out. i don’t respect his beliefs, but i respect his humanity, and in particular moments in time abstractions matter far less than concrete lived experience.
You’ve more or less done it for me:
In more detail, if one were to go by this credo, the entire set of conflicts would largely be tamped down because the amount of hay that religious or secular opportunists can make out of this would largely be eliminated. Some steps might be: listening; thinking about one’s own stereotypes; trying to understand another person’s point of view and accepting it if it’s not possible; not assuming malice; not assuming bad intent; recognizing people might think a different way and trying to grapple with that; not being dismissive; looking at context; etc. But all that follows upon first accepting that it’s necessary. And understanding that there is something human most likely underlying anything that’s going on and trying to understand that.
I’m not saying anyone does this all the time – I definitely fail a LOT. but it is, I think, a useful goal and belief to try to genuinely and sincerely adopt if we want these conflicts to go away. It is, to boot, likely a goal that many decent people – both religious and secular – are open to. Finally, it is also useful in some other settings besides questions of faith or belief.
Anyway, I’ve just written the paragraph above off the top of my head- I’m sure if one were to google something like ‘interfaith dialogue’ or ‘conflict resolution strategies’ or ‘non-violent communication’ or other things like that, there would be many many different options and I’m sure that the particular one that appeals to someone is going to differ based on who they are and the particular situation they’re attempting to reconcile.
Dr Anonymous, one issue is that people just need to know each other. this doesn’t always solve problems. whites in vermont know far fewer blacks than whites in mississippi. and the ethnography of international islamic terrorism tends to suggest that the recruits tend to be more from the cultural borderlands, and more cosmopolitan than not. but segregation tend to amplify de-humanization. i’ve seen this in the most extreme sense among ultra-orthodox jews and salafist muslims (or, for a christian case, christian identity), but i think it’s a general human trend. atheists have the same problem, as they stereotype religionists as knuckle-dragging primitives. i don’t know/encounter many religious believers in my life anymore, but when i was younger all my friends were believers, so there are some stereotypes i can’t brook because i’ve had plenty of dis-confirmation in my life.
I agree about knowing people. And extending the argument, it has to do with a whole range of things which involve human beings being in geographic communities rather than atomized and extends to transportation policy, policy towards community building, education, urban planning, family dynamics, and a whole host of other activities. It’s about conceiving of ways to structure society to allow people to reconcile the sense of self with the sense of social self, I think.
I think that recognizing that this is a question that is being posed to us is a very very very basic point that we’re still at (or I’m still at!)- figuring out, both emotionally and intellectually. How does one get along with someone else who is not the same? That can be a very useful starting point for discussions like these in the context of most of our minds having been populated by stereotypes and essentialisms, not personal interactions with people of different groups / traditions / etc.
I find the outrage outrageous. Atheism is under threat!
Just noticed that the comments on the “Wise Latina” post are not closed. It might be worth shutting that discussion down. And since somebody there said that desis are sensitive, let me say that we are not. Actually, we don’t mind being bullied about our religion even. That is just how we roll.
Look, if we don’t complain, then our symbols become the go-to religious symbols for everything. Stock markets up? Lakshmi appears in the WSJ. Down? Kali.
Everyone’s too scared to use Islam, needless to say. Probably everyone’s even more afraid of the possibility of having to listen to Bill Donohue babble on inanely on late night cable. So, Catholicism’s out too. No ones exactly fond of Abe Foxman either, so Judaism’s a no. Who wants to hand Palin a winning a cultural wedge issue? You get the picture.
So that leaves us. Its a backdoor path to cultural hegemony. I say we roll with this.
manju @ comment #280148 : i don’t mean to rude but i was not advocating anything in particular. just a general observation that hindus don’t seem to be able to organize when they are bullied. it happens in many places where there are hindu minorities and it is just a fact. a better choice of words might have made things clearer for you. fwiw, i am not offended by this picture at all. nor really even by the national review cover. it doesn’t seem to be intended to make fun of hindus. although it seems that your mother would disagree.
@ jyostana – not sure who exactly you are referring to, but a lot of people have made a number of good observations, including razib, but i do see an issue. there are two separate problems – there is the problem of organizing around the idea of a hindu identity. some comments are raising the question of whether to organize or not in the interest of humanism. i think the answer would be clearly yes because for some issues clearly, it is good to organize such as the case of kashmiri pandits/bangaldeshi hindus/ et cetera. that is what the haf is trying to achieve. but then, there is also the problem of the huge differences within the religion. it is inevitable that with something as fluid as hinduism, people even within the same household are going to view a particular image differently. commonalities in such things as rta, dharma, a basic pantheon of gods, etc. however serve to ground it somewhat. it is not perfect, but it works reasonably well.
the best strategy in this mess seems to be to keep away. magazines in america seem to choose not to go too close to hinduism. the matter is so complex that it is likely to offend some mass of readers, and people may stop buying the magazine. so nobody says anything, except for the odd inoffensive cover that pops up from time to time. revealed preferences and all that jazz.
LOL–word, Manju!
Can’t speak for anyone else, but cartoon caricature playing on cultural stereotypes is more offensive to me than photogaphs. Perhaps outmoded feelings from someone who was raised before the era of really good photoshopping 🙂
The remark about people being too scared of Islam/Moslems( to make any kind of fun, light hearted comment or stereotypical image of them), and hence Hinduism then becomes the ‘target’ , is absolutely right on.
One example of this was a skit on the Canadian comedy show “This hour has 22 minutes”, soon after the World trade centre attack. It showed a couple of Hindus speaking to a Canadian female journalist over a TV screen. One of the comments by the Hindus to the lady was to ‘put some clothes on’, a reference to the fact that she was displaying her bare neck! The idea being that these Hindus are very conservative and puritanical in their attitudes to women showing even a little of themselves!
There would be an uproar if the same scene had Moslems in it. And Moslems are far more likely to be offended and criticise such ‘exposure’ than even the putative ‘fundamentalist’ Hindus displayed in the Canadian skit.
It’s interesting that most of the “outrage” in the linked article seems to be coming from the Hindu American Foundation, and I think more Hindus ought to be “offended” by the idea of HAF speaking for them, esp. as their views are neither universal nor necessarily benign.
Is the cover offensive? Meh, I don’t know. I think they were trying to convey a particularly delicate balancing act, and failed at that. I find it hard to believe that most Hindus were actually offended by this. I’m not sure this even qualifies as a misappropriation of a religious symbol that might give offense to some.
Hear, hear.
Oh NO! Hindus who are to the right of Che Guevara?! On my internets? SHUN THE UNBELIEVERS! SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!
Do you have anything constructive to add? We were having a nice conversation…
actually, yoga fire’s point is relevant dr. a. however cordial your grand global dialogue for peace may have been, the consensus that many on this site have or seem to intimate is that haf is a hindu group so it de facto must be fundamentalist or an apologist front for fundamentalists, which is absolutely not the case. mihir meghani’s view on the magazine cover may not be my view, but do cair and isna et al represent all muslim americans/north americans in all matters, all the time?
additionally, haf has done very necessary work pointing out the oppression hindus experience in many countries and the slow moving genocide they face in bangladesh. like all groups, the hindu american community also needs advocacy to ensure their needs are being represented as well. i am not a member of haf, nor do i intend to be nor do i agree with everything it says. that does not make that organization any less relevant or useful to the many south asians who have practiced and who will continue to practice the hindu faith.
Okay, I’ll bite. Why is their approach (focus on Hindu rights) better than mine (focus on human commonalities) for serving that group of people as well as others?
I personally don’t find the picture offensive or disrespectful, but I can fully understand if someone (or an organisation), who views the religion differently finds it objectionable. They are entitled their opinion, and as long as it is done peacefully and without threats, violence, stoning, arson, beheadings etc, I think their point is perfectly valid.
So let’s tackle benign first,
That sure sounds scary isn’t it?
Isn’t it interesting that a trashy ignorant hack piece from Pankaj Mishra or an empty tome by Nussbaum or Doniger is considered representative or even authoritative, but a group run buy Hindus that offers nuanced interpretations is considered narrow minded?
Maybe it is time to throw around the H word. That settles all arguments. After years of ignoring even letters from Hindu Americans, WaPo and now NYT have started to provide some space for groups such as HAF and scholars like Dr.Ramdas Lamb. The article on Yoga in the NYT last week seems to have at last acknowledged the disquiet among Hindus of the pillaging of this rich tradition by hucksters like Deepak Chopra, Bikram Choudhury, and trashy publications like Yoga Journal.
 “    that does not make that organization any less relevant or useful to the many south asians who have practiced and who will continue to practice the hindu faith.
Okay, I’ll bite. Why is their approach (focus on Hindu rights) better than mine (focus on human commonalities) for serving that group of people as well as others?”
It’s not a question of better, just a question of reality. you might as well ask cair and isna the same questions for the muslim-american context. people tend to be concerned about their own first before focusing on human commonalities. it’s not a matter of either or. In fact we need both. Just as we need some people to look out for their own–to prevent disempowerment of quieter voices and groups–we need others to think of human commonalities as well. but globalization is only interesting if we all have different things to contribute. haf and similar groups exist for that purpose as well: to preserve traditions while finding away to meaningfully draw upon them in the context of modernity.
should every human life matter as much?–of course. but the reality is people are subject to conscious or subconscious biases that motivate their actions even when they ostensibly serve “human commonalities”. What’s worse is that they even arrogate the right to determine what’s a priority and what isn’t. when was the last time you heard non-hindus vocally and meaningfully speaking on behalf of kashmiri pandits or even bengali hindu women on the indian side of the border? so the end game is that while every life/viewpoint is spoken of as equal, it starts to become apparent that some are more equal than others…
Not the point. When was the last time you heard [anyone] vocally and meaningfully speaking on behalf of [anyone suffering from human rights abuses] If you relent to the idea that it is GOOD that people only care about ‘their own’ then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is a question of values, not solely of description.
Taking your argument at face value, thoguh, which ‘their own’ should people align themselves with? Most people are not of a particular group. One possible answer is – on the basis of what they are discriminated against. Another possible answer is – don’t askt them to choose. A third possible answer is – whatever does the most good in a particular situation (strategic essentialism). A fourth possible answer is – humanism. There are an enormous number of possible social identities that one can organize behind – so what explains and what JUSTIFIES a choice of the particular one that is chosen?
I agree that all human rights violations are not created equal in the same way that all people are not, in practice, created equal. However, there are groups approaching the issues you named on human rights grounds.
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/kashmir/ http://www.zeenews.com/news627936.html http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/013/2003/en/00ecacee-fadd-11dd-8917-49d72d0853f5/asa200132003en.pdf
I think, from within other identities/”communities” the same kinds of claims can (and are!) being made. And that, again, goes back to my point and what I was discussing above – how do we escape from human rights violations or other indignities justified by communalism or other ways of politicizing people that undermine what is called social cohesion?
“Okay, I’ll bite. Why is their approach (focus on Hindu rights) better than mine (focus on human commonalities) for serving that group of people as well as others?”
Wait. Your blog is called “pass the roti”, not “pass the food”. If you haven’t dismissed the NAACP on those grounds, why the double standard for HAF. I know, you can pull out examples of the NAACP going universalist, but their focus is still American blacks. And HAF also agitates for Hindu rights on universalistic grounds. For example:
“In an era where religious literacy is an imperative, we hope that the media will respect sacred imagery, and apply the same consideration given to Abrahamic faiths, for example.â€
I think the responses to this would be details that present themselves after one settles for one’s self the question of universalism vs. group identity.
I think there are a set of standards that each person can apply for him or herself, based on his or her own values, once the playing field is leveled. However, as long as an in-group, out-group mentality dominates the ways in which we interact with each other, our answers to these kinds of questions will slide back into that mentality. Hence the first step – to stop.
“Your blog is called “pass the roti”, not “pass the food”.”
And it’s pass the roti on the left hand side, specificallly:)
Anon, the HAF is not a shadowy entity. It is HQ’d in DC and employs 3 full time staffers. Its committee is staffed by volunteers, everyone of whom has a day job, and is easily accessible. The HAF human rights reports have been published for more than a few years now. Have you ever taken the trouble of reading their reports? Leave alone the large community, even within the Hindu American community there is at best lukewarm interest in the HAF. Staffers tell me that rather than IA Hindus it is the X-A Hindus, like say from Guyana, Trinidad, Pakistan and Bangladesh that show any enthusiasm about the HAF. Fijian HA are an interesting case, although they constitute a majority of Fijians, the present Christian theocrats (thugs like George Speight and Sitveni Rambuka) are determined to drive them into the ground. If not for the HAF the irony of a nation earning plaudits for its moderation despite destroying kovils and converting the dead to Islam (as in Malaysia) would have never come to light.
There is quite a bit of traction behind the idea regarding the idea that any hindu who feels concerned about the public representation of hindu traditions and images is a bajrang dal thug.
Several blogs that carried the yoga appropriation story had a lot of comments referencing Narendra Modi and Bal Thackeray. Many of these were comments from what seemed to be indians or indian-origin people. Some of the comments even managed to bring in the palestinians and israelis!!
So there is some real issue with a centered or main-stream US representation of hindus or even indics. In that sense I am glad that organizations like HAF have become visible, even if I dont always agree with them.
Sorry – that was a poor rendering in the first paragraph. Because universalism INVOLVES group identity, and I suppose you could make a case that group identity, to some extent, invokes universalism by asking people to think about something beyond themselves. however, just for simplicity’s sake, i think it can be useful to think about as a dichotomy.
Dr. A,
I will react to two sentences:
The first sentence is “If you relent to the idea that it is GOOD that people only care about ‘their own’ then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is a question of values, not solely of description.” The management consultant George Karas said, “You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate”. Therefore all activists, politicians, op-ed writers and bloggers admit no fault on their side, while negotiating for a better deal for their constituents. Consider the Hurriyat leader Gilani. He will never admit in public that Kashmiri Hindus are afraid of living in the midst of Kashmiri Muslims, as it would affect his ability to negotiate better treatment from the state for Kashmiri Muslims. The act of negotiation forces us to take rigid positions.
The second sentence is “There are an enormous number of possible social identities that one can organize behind – so what explains and what JUSTIFIES a choice of the particular one that is chosen?” We choose the one that addresses the most searing experience of our lives.
“Not the point. When was the last time you heard [anyone] vocally and meaningfully speaking on behalf of [anyone suffering from human rights abuses] If you relent to the idea that it is GOOD that people only care about ‘their own’ then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is a question of values, not solely of description.”
No it’s not. It is possible for an individual to have more than one idea motivating him or her. The problem is you are reductionist in your approach. You deconstruct everything down to the lowest common denominator until even that is devoid of meaning, so all you’re left with is the individual and the global community with nothing in between. In reality there are building blocks that make the structure much more stable and provide each bookend with something more meaningful than its own conceit or publicized collective needs defined by the powerful: individual–>family–>community–>state–>country–>global society. People can juggle multiple identities while executing their duties at all respective levels. It is not strategic essentialism (btw, even gayatri spivak has disowned her creation saying it has become devoid of all meaning), it is dharma. Ethical/secular humanism is an excellent basis for governance under the law. But it only provides us with a framework under which life can operate. Culture, tradition, learning, duty–>this is what provides life with meaning and purpose. What is critical is understanding how to reconcile the two; otherwise maximizing individual utility becomes our highest purpose (yes, i know, philosophically more utilitarianism than humanism, but they are related and frequently linked together).
Additionally, the organizations you cited have hardly treated the pandit issue in a meaninful way. even the press release you posted mentioned one incident as well as the initial ethno-religious cleansing in the vaguest of terms (did not even use the phrase in either press release or the report).
in contrast, here is the depth of coverage on hindu issues by haf: http://www.hafsite.org/issues/human_rights
http://www.hafsite.org/sites/default/files/HHR2009.pdf
(and note, india and even hindu temples are not spared from haf critique be it for discrimination of hindus of european heritage or residual caste-based discrimination)
“how do we escape from human rights violations or other indignities justified by communalism or other ways of politicizing people that undermine what is called social cohesion?”
2.by understanding history. you can’t simply view conflicts in a vacuum (or under conveniently defined statutes of limitation). without history, people can’t understand why certain issues are so emotive (ayodhya) and remain ignorant of fair and peaceful solutions (somnath–a respectful relocation of the mosque took place under a congress government shortly after independence). The purpose of history is to not keep digging up the past for political gain, but to understand it, use it to reconcile people, and move on (much as germany has done with the holocaust). This also protects against abuse of history by states like China that frequently rewrite to advance claims (i.e. claiming koguryo was a chinese kingdom to legitimize a possible takeover of n.korea in case it collapses).
SW, thank you for the reply. I think this, more than anything else, puts the issue into relief. Dharma and strategic essentialism are in two opposite corners, but somehow linked. I choose to try to understand the two, as they struggle with each other. I think divorcing one from the other (either) is shallow. That, utlimately, is where I come down on the matter of ethics and religion and I can’t honestly understand how anyone of any faith, but particularly Hinduism, comes down on it in any other place.
However, it is clear that others do, and that is their prerogative…but not one that I have to sanction…
Jyotsana, “If not for the HAF the irony of a nation earning plaudits for its moderation despite destroying kovils and converting the dead to Islam (as in Malaysia) would have never come to light.”
Interesting, how a putrid organization like HAF could only see the destruction of temples as nothing more than a religious issue in Malaysia. The same way you and HAF see Kashmir as a religious issue while using KP as the bait for the Indian state. Check this out, a Hindu man committed suicide because his fellow Hindus demanded the state to destroy a temple temple:http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_609203.html
Ask HAF to issue a statement against the school owners (who are Hindus) who want to destroy that illegal temple.
India is receiving plaudits from others as the “world’s largest democracy” despite what it is doing in Kashmir, Manipur, and Nagaland. If the Kashmiri American Council has issued the same HR report against the Indian state, guess how Indians will react. I am pretty sure even the rabid defender of HAF would be hypocrite enough to puke ire at KAC.
Anonymous,
The Straits Times link said that a store that was attached to a temple was demolished. Nothing about the temple itself being demolished. Was this the correct link?
Dr A,
Here’s an excerpt from Anoynmous’s post “Kashmir as a religious issue while using KP as the bait for the Indian state.” KP must mean Kashmir Pundit. Anonymous is negotiating for a better deal for Kashmiri Muslims here. And he does not want to admit fault in the matter of KP. He is forced to behave in hardline manner. And so he is forced to break the social cohesion that you referred to.
However, as long as an in-group, out-group mentality dominates the ways in which we interact with each other, our answers to these kinds of questions will slide back into that mentality. Hence the first step – to stop.
people are on a spectrum, it’s not realistic to act as if most people don’t have group-based identities which drive their focus of outrage or engagement. i myself think that most identity-based groups cause more long-term structural problems than not, but in the short-term they’re effective. what you have is a coordination problem. if you don’t advocate for “your group” all the oxygen is sucked out of the room by others. it’s rational for hindus to get in on the religious-grievance game from one perspective (again, in the long-term i think it’s pernicious because the ‘activist groups’ start to push on the margin and need to justify their existence to the point where they became parasitic monsters).
You’re missing the point a bit. If I didn’t think that this mentality was pervasive – and in fact dominating – I wouldn’t bother to articulate an alternative to it. It’s BECAUSE I think we’re largely trapped in a communal discourse (meaning rigid group based identities as the focus of politics, not solely religious) that I’m suggesting the first stop for those of us who are in a position to do so is to recognize it, on a personal level, and try to decrease its influence on us. On a mass scale, this is how you minimize its influence and allow us to actually discuss what’s happening.
And the importance of doing so is that with each specific issue we face – whether it is what we think about religious discrimination in Bangladesh or what we think about religious discrimination in the U.S., we face choices about how we frame such things in order to best describe them as they are. I’m not saying you do, but we, collectively, do.
But until we accept that there is a veil being cast over our understanding, we can’t really understand it or how to deal with it. What is the point of drawing attention to things that upset us if we are only contributing to the exacerbation of those kinds of things?
So the first step is to remove the obstruction, and on multiple levels – emotionally (personal level), socially (what i described above about trying to speak to others), intellectually (what i am describing here and much of what you do in focusing on empiricism and descriptive accuracy), etc.
Submitted for consideration, not convincing.
i’m afraid part of the problem, Dr.A, is that you are making things more complex than they need to be. Dharma and Strategic essentialism could not be more different–the linkage you describe is artificial. SE is a concept from post colonial theory attempting to describe how groups paper over their differences for political advantage or often to create identity (ostensibly where one should not exist according to the western narrative: “india was a british invention” etc). The problem is there is a very tangible and coherent hindu identity (just as there is for other faiths) that is not conflict based. Based on your comment history, your frameworks are very much informed by a conflict theory of sorts which automatically necessitates the identification of distinct groups and class (or of course our all time favorite caste ) conflict. Does conflict exist?–sure, but it does not imbue everything and is not the only lens through which one can view everything. The hindu tradition is based on rta (order) and dharma, not on convenient interim political alignments that invent identity out of thin air or that pursue certain myopic goals or political agendas.
Dharma is about duty–the obligations that we owe each other and ourselves, whether as members of a family, community, country or merely as fellow human beings. i know you were trying to be polite above, so don’t read this in a rude tone, but do you really think that society functions in a way wherein we don’t feel more obligation towards our parents than other people their age? should we treat all women (who are not romantic partners) as mothers, sisters, and daughters–sure, in principle. but we have an immediate obligation to the woman who gave us life or the ones we give life to. it is only after executing existing obligations that we can ethically take on others of the same scale. now, should that stop us from helping a random old white or black lady who falls on the street–of course not, and it hasn’t. but we do have a duty to ensure our own mothers are sheltered first before we can start sheltering others (it is not about political advantage here but a moral and ethical duty). you may claim that you are equally obligated under humanism to shelter both the random lady and your mother, but not to be rude, that’s a little disingenuous. we, after all, do live in a world of scarce resources…
that said, should there be an equal standard with regard to human rights?–absolutely. all life is sacred. many of us on this site have equally condoled deaths on BOTH sides of the religious divide during riots in india–curiously, we tend to be among the ranks bracketed as strategically essentialist…
I always make things more complex than they need to be 🙂 And unsurprisingly I think that your view is overly narrow 🙂
I tried to respond in depth but it was taking too long so I will offer a brief summary: appreciate your response; Hinduism’s benefits include its pluralism and relative lack of insistence on orthodoxy, the allowance for different methods, and the appreciation of universalism and the relationship of the self – I don’t think you do justice to these in your points and I think the arguments I’ve made, even if you disagree with them, can relatively easily fit within a Hindu fold. I think this is partly because you are not recognizing that there are other possible ways of being, living, and imagining Hinduism (not least a postcolonial Hinduism for those of us who were raised postcolonially schizophrenic!) that MUST be allowed into what is ‘Hindu’ if the faith is to survive. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many brands Hindus reclaim or how much Hindu rightwingers attempts to convert Hinduism into the equivalent of an Abrahamanic faith – the faith will for me be ultimately defined by its spirtual social and emotional vibrancy among the people who take on one or more aspects of its traditions (whether or not they call themselves Hindu).
Anyway, a digression, but I do think it’s important to recognize that those of us who are socially and in some cases personally identified as Hindu have a right to say what the label means when applied to us, much more so than HAF or anyone else does.
I’m in India right now (check the UP address – no pun intended since I’m currently IN Uttar Pradesh)
India needs to start taking full responsibility for itself. It is the Prime Minister of India’s duty to improve India, not Obama’s.
More commentary later……
From the sarson ka kates of U.P…..
PG (the original)
Razib’s been on a roll on this thread – a little Wikipedia and a lot of empty bluster. For the rest of you, a little less speculation and a little more reading would do you a world of good.
Whom do you mean by “For the rest of you”, Jyotsna? Even me?
“Maybe it is time to throw around the H word. That settles all arguments. After years of ignoring even letters from Hindu Americans, WaPo and now NYT have started to provide some space for groups such as HAF and scholars like Dr.Ramdas Lamb. The article on Yoga in the NYT last week seems to have at last acknowledged the disquiet among Hindus of the pillaging of this rich tradition by hucksters like Deepak Chopra, Bikram Choudhury, and trashy publications like Yoga Journal.”
I’m writing from India right now. The crass commercialization of Hinduism and it’s icons was started by Indian Hindus themselves – a long time ago – and it is in it is in a full on, non-stop state right now.
Concerns about “commercialization of Hinduism” is something that concerns 2 groups of people; A. non-Indians that have converted to a Hindu religion and B. western born and/or raised Hindu Desis
From the sarson ka kates of Uttar Pradesh where kitschy commercialization of Hinduism rains supreme and brings in a pretty profit along with 24/7 loud speakers, PG
I don’t agree but perhaps the crass commercialization of Hindusim was started by the Hindus, but how can you not see that that is up to the Hindus? It is not OK for a non-Hindu to take these images and appropriate them. That distinction is lost on most people. If it is your culture you have a certain amount of rights to it, which others do not. If you don’t like the alleged commercialization of hinduism by hindus then talk to them about it, do not use that as a justification for a non-Hindu to do the same. That is just a silly argument, and one no doubt propounded by someone who is not Hindu or has some other agenda.
“I don’t agree but perhaps the crass commercialization of Hindusim was started by the Hindus, but how can you not see that that is up to the Hindus? It is not OK for a non-Hindu to take these images and appropriate them. That distinction is lost on most people. If it is your culture you have a certain amount of rights to it, which others do not. If you don’t like the alleged commercialization of hinduism by hindus then talk to them about it, do not use that as a justification for a non-Hindu to do the same. That is just a silly argument, and one no doubt propounded by someone who is not Hindu or has some other agenda.”
FAIR ENOUGH but what would you suggest that we (NON-Indians who have converted to Hindu religions) who are deeply saddened by the crass, kitcshy commercialization of Hindu religions by Indians here in India?
What can we do about the fast-paced destruction and pollution of the holy tirthas by locals and Government?
Any advice?
Varun Shekhar makes good points as usual.
“I am pretty sure even the rabid defender of HAF would be hypocrite enough to puke ire at KAC.”
“FAIR ENOUGH but what would you suggest that we (NON-Indians who have converted to Hindu religions) who are deeply saddened by the crass, kitcshy commercialization of Hindu religions by Indians here in India?”
Point it out to them strongly, without being too aggressive. Tell them that you, like the more sensible Indians themselves, are interested in the devotional, contemplative and philosophical quality of Hinduism. Not the commercial aspect of it.
What exactly do you mean by “commercialism?”
The Hindu Gods are just reflections of our own natures. The mobs of people who show up at pilgrimage sites is just what happens when you have a whole bunch of people with the time and money to make pilgrimages. When you have a lot of people coming you’re going to get people selling things to them. The “kitsch” is mostly in the eye of the beholder though, and nobody’s requiring anyone to buy into it. I mean, I’m pretty proud to be an American but still think American flag patterned clothing is tacky as hell. Yet people who wear it don’t really offend me. (Well they do, but usually by what comes out of their mouths rather than the clothes.)
“Point it out to them strongly, without being too aggressive. Tell them that you, like the more sensible Indians themselves, are interested in the devotional, contemplative and philosophical quality of Hinduism. Not the commercial aspect of it.”
Easier said than done.
As a foreigner it’s not my place to “change” India and it’s very hard for even “the more sensible Indians themselves” to do so. We are talking deep-seeded cultural differences here. Different concepts of what constitutes civil rights, human rights, neighbor’s rights, religious expression, beauty, peace, art, taste, etc. Also the lack of laws or the lack of enforcing whatever laws might exist. So many things.
If you’ve lived in India, you know what we’re dealing with here.
We can only observe from the sidelines and weep.
Perhaps our tears might form another holy river like Ganga with which we can worship the lotus feet of Santoshi Ma.
Well, why did you move there and convert to Hinduism if it’s all so horrible?
“Well, why did you move there and convert to Hinduism if it’s all so horrible?”
This is an example of the “difference in culture” I’m talking about.
Discussing issues in an open and frank matter is equated to thinking that “India is so horrible”.
You can’t change a thing until you first acknowledge there is something that needs to be changed or improved upon.
This tendency for (some – many?) Indians to take even obvious observations of their country as personal slights is self-defeating.
As adults we should be able to discuss issues in an objective and detached way without getting personally offended.
“Different concepts of what constitutes civil rights, human rights, neighbor’s rights, religious expression, beauty, peace, art, taste, etc. Also the lack of laws or the lack of enforcing whatever laws might exist. So many things.
If you’ve lived in India, you know what we’re dealing with here.
We can only observe from the sidelines and weep.
Perhaps our tears might form another holy river like Ganga with which we can worship the lotus feet of Santoshi Ma.”
This was your statement. Kind of indicates that you aren’t very happy there and that India is not a great place? I think that is fairly obvious to anyone who reads it.
As for frank discussion, that is a good thing, but you also have to be mindful and respectful too. Especially if you are a foreigner and newly arrived. Just like any Indian immigrant would be and is when arriving in the US, for example. You only put people’s backs up if you come charging in in an arrogant manner trying to tell everyone what is wrong with their country. You just come across as an arrogant westerner/ foreigner. Have some tact and diplomacy, highlight positives as well as negatives. There are so many good things about the country too, there must be a reason why you moved there. Every country has their problems, it is unwise to continuously point them out in an aggressive manner to the local populace. Getting on with people 101 would teach you that.
[quote]Getting on with people 101 would teach you that.[/quote]
you could be a little less rude too, you know.
Oh what I said was rude? Now who’s being sensitive? This is after PG has literally picked on every facet of Indian life and said it sucks. I think I was being remarkably restrained. What people don’t seem to understand is that to come on to an Indian-centric bulletin board and act like an arrogant foreigner is likely to annoy people. I would expect the same if an Indian was to go an a US centric board and write in a derogatory manner about the religion and everything else about the country.
As I say, tact, diplomacy, highlighting positives as well, will go a long way. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
Dr. A. The root word behind “communal” is “community.” The entire reason people have communal affinities is because they identify with one community over others. The notion that we’re supposed to divorce ourselves from our communities, i.e. the things that makes us happy and let us form our conception of what is the good life, in order to come closer to the liberal universalist unicornfairyland strikes me as bass-ackwards. You can’t have a “humanist” worldview that revolves around disregarding and minimizing the most fundamental form of human social organization. Such an arrangement can hardly be referred to as “humanist.”
Actually, I think Chesterton summarized it better in his epic takedown of George Bernard Shaw.
That’s not to say that all people aren’t entitled to dignity and respect, but to pretend that the only way to respect other cultures is to disassociate ourselves from our own is, frankly, quite nutty.
How is this not offensive? This is a deity that a TON of human beings hold to be sacred. In all honestly, it is being marginalized by being depicted as a politician. It should be respected by all people, regardless of what religion you choose or not choose to follow.
P.G. 1.
I don’t understand what exactly is crass commercialisation in your view. Do you mean mass produced religious merchandise? Do you mean godmen selling instant self-realisation courses for a meaty price? Do you mean various Bengali babas with their catalogues of occult services on offer? Are you disturbed by the sheer number of devotees cramping up places that you had imagined would offer you spiritual solace? You have got to be more specific while avoiding sweeping generalisations to get meaningful responses, without antagonising those who come under the sweep of those generalisations. I think that you have certain romantic notions of what Hinduism should be like, and are disappointed bitter when it doesn’t fulfill those fantasies.
2.
With all respect, these groups are minuscule compared to the main body of the religion, (if such a thing exists).And Sanatan Dharma not being the sole property of any one group, you are absolutely free to call yourself a Hindu and practice it whichever way you feel is not commercialised. And pray tell me, why is it something that concerns only the above 2 groups? Do you think that your western upbringing makes you in some way more immune to commercialisation? If so, any educated Indian who knows a bare minimum about western societies would find that hilarious
Doggone, we’re all responding to PG now. We’ve given her control of the conversation!
PG :
I’ve noticed this tendency too. It’s natural to be protective and defensive of one’s homeland, but Indians, more so than other nationalities, seem to interpret everything so defensively. It could be a lingual thing; maybe they interpret things more harshly, having English as a second language. For example, in a class I’m currently taking, the Professor brought up the Ganges river and its pollution problems, and the one Indian student in the class got SO defensive about it, you would have thought he went and polluted the river himself or something! I think we can attribute it to cultural differences. Indians have pefectionist tendencies, set high personal standards, are typically hard-working, and I would guess more have “type A” personalities than “type B”. I think they tend to interpret comments more personally; any perceived slight against their country is interpreted as a personal attack rather than thought of objectively. I think as a foreigner in India you have to take this into account and go out of your way to be especially diplomatic and tactful, more so than if you were dealing with any other nationality. Otherwise they will interpret you as a snobby foreigner insulting them.
(In the example I gave above, it could also be since the Ganges is considered holy in Hinduism so maybe they are naturally more defensive about that particular river).
LOL.
Or maybe it’s obnoxious when White people presume to lecture us about our country based on half-remembered stuff they read in the latest caste/cows/curry article in the Times?
Seriously, I have uncles and aunts that I don’t particularly care for. But if someone comes into my house for 5 minutes and then proceeds to talk shit about my family you can bet I’m not going to be happy.
What I said is in my personal experience, Indians tend to be more defensive on average. I don’t think anyone here is stupid enough to say ALL people of any group do/say/are ___ (insert any adjective here).
Haha do you really think I’ve only met 1 Indian person in my life? I gave 1 example based on something that happened to me 5 hours ago so it’s fresh in my mind. Considering I’m desi, my family is desi, many of my friends, co-workers, and students in university are desi, and I live in the most mult-ethnic diverse city in america, rest assured I’ve met more than 1 indian in my life 🙂
I’m obviously not white. My professor isn’t white (he’s east asian). He has a PhD in history and is teaching our class on south asian history (specifically pre-20th century India) so I’m guessing he knows a bit more about india than the latest curry article in the times. Interesting how you responded to my comment by lashing out at white people though. Worse comes to worse, you can always blame whitey, right? I guess we don’t have to ask what nationality you are.
Sooo let me get this straight…. I gave an example about something that I observed today – an indian person (in america) responding to a negative comment about india with hostility in a class that revolves around south asia. You interpreted this as someone coming into your house for 5 minutes and talking “shit about your family”. LOL thanks for the laugh and proving my point. I don’t know why pardesi_gori and I bother posting when you make our points more efficiently than both of us. Cheers!
We don’t really know why you bother posting on here either. Why don’t you stop posting since none of us can figure out why you should be on here?