[I wasn’t planning to update this week, but I wanted to post this while it was still topical.]
I have not had as much time as I would like to read Deepak Sarma‘s work in Indian philosophy. It intrigues me, and what little I have seen so far seems to be well researched and well thought out. I hope to be more involved with it in the future.
My reaction was considerably less favourable when I saw a recent short blog post of Sarma’s at the Huffington Post. (I found out about it through the RISA-L mailing list, and there has already been some discussion of the post there.) Sarma expresses discomfort with “White Hindu Converts”, those white Americans who claim to have “converted to Hinduism”. I agree that such a claim can be problematic, given that the recent term “Hinduism” typically covers such a wide and disparate range of meanings, and the concept of “conversion” does not adequately cover much of what happens in Indian traditions (where Muslims offer prayers to revered “Hindu” sites and vice versa). But Sarma’s post goes considerably further than this.
Sarma claims that White Hindu Converts (his capitalization) “mimic their imaginary (and often Orientalist) archetypal ‘Hindu’ in order to reverse-assimilate, to deny their colonial histories, to (futilely) color their lives, and, paradoxically, to be marginalized.” This claim is already deeply problematic. Could their claimed conversion be a way of expressing their belief that Vedānta traditions express reality better than any other available? Could it be the case that they have been searching for an adequate vision of divinity, found that Durgā expresses that more adequately than a Western model, and found identifying as “Hindu” the best way of expressing this vision? Could it be the case that their practice of modern haṭha yoga has seemed to them the best available technique to improve their lives, and they want to deepen their association with the tradition that has produced it? Not according to this passage; at least, not primarily. Here, Sarma pronounces that the idea of “converting to Hinduism” must be a matter of escaping white guilt and colonialism, perhaps of seeking an imagined authenticity. Considering that he expresses concern that converts “deny the voices” of “Diaspora Hindus”, Sarma seems cheerfully ready to deny the voices of the converts. He claims to know their reasons for converting, does not acknowledge any other potential reasons for it, and says all this without reference to a single word expressed in a convert’s voice.
But Sarma doesn’t stop there. He goes on to ask: “But is their mimicry merely disguised or (unintentional) mockery?” And he answers yes: “no matter their sincerity, or self-proclaimed authenticity, their mimicry seems more like mockery.” “Seems” to whom, exactly? Presumably to the “Diaspora Hindus”, with whom Sarma contrasts the “White Hindu Converts”, and on whose behalf Sarma implicitly claims to speak.
And why would it seem like mockery? Because, in short, of the history of colonialism. Diasporic Hindus mimic in the opposite direction – imitating mainstream American culture in order to “deny their colonized and oppressed histories…” in a way that nevertheless “may have subversive understones and may destablize the dominant ideology…” But this is not so for white converts, whose acts “merely reinforces existing hierarchies and paradigms.” For “the experience of being colonized is not available to white Americans.”
Let us examine some of Sarma’s claims. White Americans may not themselves have the experience of being colonized. But neither do second- and third-generation “Diaspora Hindus”, who may have well grown up in a wealthy and privileged life. One might indeed argue that neither do any Indians below retirement age, since the British colonization of India, as such, ended before they were born. Certainly, their ancestors were colonized – but so were the ancestors of Irish-Americans. As one commenter on the Huffington Post site (“IdeaTalk”) pointed out, so, indeed, were any ancestors who lived in what is now America before the Revolution!
So we are not dealing with present colonialism, but with past. And while Sarma acknowledges that white people are not currently colonizing Indians, the former’s claims to conversion nevertheless “seem like mockery” because of the lingering effects of the past history. “While the responsibility for the historical privileging may not lie with them, they cannot avoid benefitting from the ill-gotten fruits.”
Now which fruits are these? Let us first recall that India was never a colony of the United States; it was a colony of Great Britain (or of England, if you prefer). So there are no direct fruits of colonialism to be yielded. True, white Americans are much richer on the whole than the Indians whose ancestors were colonized by Britain; most of the latter continue to live in dire poverty — in India. But over here? Wikipedia’s list of US ethnic groups by household income, taken from the American census’s FactFinder, shows Indian-Americans on average to be the very highest – wealthier not only than any subgroup of white Americans, but than Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Arab-Americans and everyone else. If “ill-gotten fruits” is referring to any sort of economic plunder, then in the US, these fruits are imperceptible. It is the Indian-Americans who live in privilege!
Now of course there is still racism against Indian-Americans. I’ve experienced it myself, though not very much. But I don’t see why this experience of racism is supposed to trump other forms of privilege. Moreover, it increasingly happens in reverse too; in some quarters I’ve received a hearing for my views that I would not have received if my skin were white. The idea of “authenticity” – that some are “real Hindus” and others are just faking it – carries with it its own form of privilege. And when this article describes the practices of white converts as a “mimicry” and “mockery” of other practices which are not similarly problematized, it therefore implies the former practices are less authentic than the latter, and perpetuates this form of privilege itself.
To a white man from Appalachia raised on food stamps who later joins ISKCON and considers himself a Hindu, it is a slap in the face to be told his “privilege” makes his act a “mockery”, when this claim of privilege and mockery comes from a wealthy and well educated Indian family in New Jersey – or from a comfortable professor in Cleveland, or a comfortable educational technologist in Cambridge. The binaries of colonizer/colonized, privileged/subaltern, are not nearly so clear.
Does the history of colonialism make a difference to the experience of Indian traditions today? Yes. Does that history make the practices of those who were not colonized a “mockery”? Not at all.
The article in the HuffPo was too short to make any substantive point, I thought, and to give Sarma the benefit of the doubt I’d like to assume he would do a better job in an extended paper. The piece was, however, long on leading questions and implication. This starts with the headline (which of course might have been written by the editor), and gets worse: “Surely,” he says, “such an imagined transformation” [ — “from the oppressor to the oppressed, from the colonizer to the colonized” — ] is only available to those who are privileged in the first place.” (My emphasis.) Well, “surely,” we are able to imagine any number of ways this might work. Or again, disputing the “plethora of pleasant anecdotes that Diaspora Hindus welcomed White Hindu Converts in their temples and homes,” he asks (and already knows the answer), “But is this welcome sincere? Or is it merely proof that the Disaporic Hindus still suffer from post-traumatic, post-colonial, servile disorder?” I must say if I were an Indian-American this would feel like quite a slap in my face as well.
There are all kinds of possible snags that get in the way of genuine encounter between religious cultures. Not the least of these is the insistence that such genuine encounter is impossible.
Thanks, skholiast. Yes, I would agree that that latter comment is quite a slap in the face too – now that I think about it, it reminds me a little bit of commenters on mailing lists years ago who called me a “sepoy-in-training”. We’re expected to take sides based on the colour of our skin. Fie upon that.
So much for Hinduism as a universal religion! A Western convert’s only two options are mimicry or mockery? With no possibility of enlightenment or even genuine connection with the philosophy and rituals of the religion? From what I have heard, denigrating Westerners’ commitment is not all that uncommon (though typically an unspoken) attitude among Hindu and even Buddhist teachers (many of whom have plenty of Western students).
There are a lot of books to read — and little time. I would have to have a compelling recommendation before spending more time with Mr. Sarma.
Thank you writing this response, Amod. I had seen the piece on RISA as well and at the time had a very visceral reaction to it – which is why I abstained from commenting (also, being a newcomer to RISA and a ‘mere PhD student’, I felt a bit out of place doing so – silly, I know, but still).
However, just to add to the discussion, I have worked with various Westerners whose spirituality lies somewhere between Hindu and neopagan frontiers, and I must say there is little mockery or indeed mimicry in their actions and practices! Many of them are well aware of the sometimes problematic space they occupy, and many take care to educate themselves on the philosophical and theological practices they are drawn to, often resulting in far more informed ‘informants’ than diaspora second- and third-generation Hindus. I think attributing their sincere spiritual journeys to a psychologized “white guilt” or “desire to be marginalized” is deeply offensive. Even using the word “white” here is rather problematic; in the group of (mainly) women that I have worked with, about one third are women of colour, if not directly of East Indian origin. As you rightly point out, the boundaries between the presumed ‘elite’ and the ‘subaltern’ are not nearly as clear as Sarma claims them to be…
The idea that colonial history and its effects on conceptions of ‘Hinduism’ or on Indian society more generally will forever affect all “white non-colonized” people (whatever that might mean) is very troubling to me, since I see it often in the academy. Such blanket statements only serve to reify difference and create rigid hierarchies where perhaps the boundaries are far more fluid and permeable. In fact, such discourse reifies the notion of “white guilt” in an absurd and a-historical sense, reversing the relationship of power but keeping the same oppressive structures. It doesn’t contribute to our understanding of modern religious practices, nor of the lived experiences of various communities (whether diasporic or not), nor to the ways various communities interact… Certainly, it does little to delve into the contemporary religious landscape of North America, which, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting cultural phenomenons of our modern times.
So thank you again for the measured response – I am looking forward to seeing if this debate goes further.
Thanks, Nika. I agree with you on all counts. You should feel welcome to participate on RISA – “mere PhD students” are certainly a part of the debate. I joined those debates from the beginning of my own PhD program. (But then I never got a tenure-track job either, so maybe I’m not the one you want to listen to! :) )
Some generalizations don’t cease to be inane merely by virtue of being “embedded” in fashionable and muddled verbiage discharged from the thriving industry of “post-colonialist studies”.
Even in the heyday of British colonialism in India, there were exceptional White men and women whose conversion and dedication to “Hindu” paths of spirituality put to shame many Hindu Indians for whom those paths had no importance or significance other than being merely a part of their “tradition”.
For example, there was Ronald Nixon (1989 – 1965), whose education included studies at Cambridge, who settled in India during the British Raj, accepted an Indian Vaishnavite woman as his Guru ,and blossomed into the great Yogi Sri Krishnaprem. Sri Ramana Maharishi once remarked after a visit by Krishnaprem that he possessed a rare combination of bhakti (devotion) and jnana (insight). A writer on Krishnaprem observed that “He was certainly a thorn in the side of local British officials especially in the days before independence. They struggled to understand his wholehearted acceptance of Hindu culture and religion.”
http://sriradhakund.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/sri-krishnaprem1.jpg
There was also his disciple Alexander Phipps (1920 – 1997), from Edinburgh, who also settled in India in the late 1940’s and blossomed into the well-respected spiritual teacher Madhava Ashish. He also received the prestigious Padma Shri award from the government of India for his environmental work in the Mirtola area near Almora (Several years ago I visited the Ashram in Mirtola established by Krishna Prem’s Guru Yashoda Mai and enjoyed its extraordinarily lush green and serene environment).
http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/en/content/sri-madhava-ashish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirtola
There was J.A. Chadwick (1899 – 1939), an analytic philosopher and a student of the acute British philosopher C.D.Broad, who gave up the prospect of a promising academic career in Cambridge, went to India on a spiritual quest and finally settled in the ashram of Aurobindo. Chadwick adopted the name “Arjava” bestowed on him by his guru Aurobindo and became a respected practitioner of yoga and a composer of spiritual poetry at that ashram.
http://savitriera.wordpress.com/anurag-banerjee/arjava/
These are some notable counterexamples to facile generalizations about the motives of “White Hindu converts”.
Given that such striking counterexamples were available even in India in the days of the British Raj, how is it plausible to maintain those facile generalizations at the present time?
In any case, Sarma’s argument suffers from a glaring non sequitur springing from its ad hominem fallacy in drawing the conclusions that the motives of a convert to Hinduism must be suspect, and that, therefore, the conversion must be of a dubious nature, from the fact that the person who converted to Hinduism is white.
One’s reasons for converting to Hinduism (or for adopting the ways of living of a group or culture different from one’s own) may be bad reasons, but this cannot be inferred from one’s racial group (or the racial group of those whose ways of life one has now embraced) and its past record.
It should be obvious that reasons for conversion can be evaluated only if we know what they are! So, the sensible, common sense approach is to ask a “White Hindu Convert” what his or her reasons were for converting to Hinduism before evaluating those reasons and/or questioning the motives.
But who said that academic training is conducive to the preservation of common sense approaches? LOL
“Ronald Nixon (1989 – 1965) whose education included studies at Cambridge…”
Correction: Ronald Nixon (Sri Krishna Prem)was born in 1898 in England and passed away in India in 1965. He actually earned an M.A. from Cambridge and went to India in 1920 in pursuit of his interests in Buddhism and theosophy.
His spiritual growth in India had a remarkable trajectory, embracing in its early stages an austere and orthodox form of Krishna worship under the guidance of his guru Yashoda Ma and culminating in a non-denominational form of spiritual wisdom, essentially universal in its appeal, but with roots in theosophy, the Gita, the Katha Upanishad, and dream analysis as a means of self-knowledge.
The book “Yogi Krishnaprem” by his friend, the noted Indian musician and writer Dilip Kumar Roy, is a good account of the man and his perspective.
His disciple Alexander Phipps (Sri Madhava Ashish) offers a revealing glimpse of Krishna Prem’s methods in the following recollection:
“Krishna Prem had been sent a pamphlet of the sort scores of Indian sadhus produce expressing the writer’s particular teaching or exhortation to society. He threw it across to me with a “Take a look at that”.
When I finished reading: “Well,” he said, “is it there?”
“Is what where?” I fumbled.
“The thing,” he said. “Is the thing, the spirit, in that pamphlet?”
“How should I know?” I countered.
“But you must know. You must be able to recognize whether he is writing from experience or whether it is just words, hearsay.”
“Some of the things he says seems true,” I ventured.
The reply was devastating.
“One can’t write anything on this subject without saying something that is true. What you must see is whether the truth shines through the words or whether they are platitudes, words repeated by rote. Look behind the words. Feel!”
I felt as might a man blind from birth suddenly ordered to see. I felt as inadequate as a donkey with two legs. He might as well have said “Fly”.
That was the way he treated me, forcing me to see that it was not just a matter of his having a superior mind or of my not knowing the jargon, but that there was a range of perceptions of a different order which he had and I had not.
And since he never pretended to be anything more than an ordinary man, I could not take refuge in the plea that he was extraordinary and that nothing could be expected of ordinary mortals like me.”
Ah, what would I not give to travel back in time and meet this great “White Hindu Convert”, the man who once wrote “It is not by “thinking out” the entire reality, but by a change of consciousness
that one can pass from ignorance to knowledge—the
knowledge by which we become what we know.”!
Here is a brief but revealing account of his life and attainment:
http://www.innerdirections.org/journal/biographies/krishna-prem/
How many Hindu Indians can hold a candle to Krishna Prem, a “White Hindu Convert” in India in the heyday of the British Raj? The number can hardly exceed the digits in one hand!
Most remarkable is his account of his transcendent experience during a visit to Ramana Maharishi. Krishna Prem provided this account in one of his letters to his close friend, the Indian musician, writer, and disciple of Aurobindo, Dilip Kumar Roy. You can read about it here:
http://www.innerdirections.org/journal/biographies/krishna-prem/
Ramana, who praised Krishna Prem’s rare combination of bhakti (devotion) and jnana (insight), evidently gave “two hoots” for the color of Krishna Prem’s skin (He was as white and blue-eyed as they could possibly be!) or his national origin (British).
Ah, we can only honor and cherish the unfathomable “incommensurability” between a mystic’s perspective and the inane “interpretations” (still)born of academic theory!
Thanks, Thill.
Pingback: Mimicry, mockery or mumukṣutva? A response to Deepak Sarma, by Jeffery D. Long | Love of All Wisdom
I appreciate your thoughts on this, Amod. Over the years my sympathies have tended toward both your perspective and Sarma’s (though certainly never as extreme as his views). I am coming at this both as a former academic student of Hinduism and as a convert to Judaism. The critique of Hindu converts stings in part because similar comments are at times made regarding converts to Judaism – ie, being told that “becoming Jewish is like trying to become black.” Such people tend to back off or at least be somewhat “pacified” when I explain that I do in fact have a degree of ethnic Jewish heritage. However, I wasn’t raised Jewish, although I began practicing and became involved as a teenager – should this ethnic toehold let me “off the hook?”
And does the ethnicity-trumps-all attitude work with Hindu Indians? If Sarma is all right with half-Indian Hindus, how about a quarter, or less? Does a one-drop rule apply? What about Asian Buddhists who might decide to take on Hindu practices?
I would describe myself as an appreciator and sometimes-student of Hinduism, but I never sincerely considered embracing Hinduism as my primary spiritual path. In part, my committments lay elsewhere, but in truth, I would have also felt rather silly declaring myself a Hindu, in part for the reasons he meant here. So perhaps I’m not free of Sarma’s inclinations after all.
Thank you. Ironically (given the attention I seem to be attracting), as the intro hints, I do have some qualms about the idea of “converting to Hinduism”, because it’s never been entirely clear to me that there’s a “there” to convert to. I see no reason why one should not become a Vedāntin, Śaiva, etc. from outside of India, but the original reference of the term “Hindu” is an ethnic one, and that meaning still attaches to it. In that respect “converting to Hinduism” is a bit like “converting to Chinese religion” (as opposed to converting to Daoism or Confucianism – though the latter have their own problems). Though I suppose those difficulties are mitigated because of people like Jeff Long (in the guest post), converting to modern Hindu traditions like Vivekananda’s that postdate the concept of Hinduism – the term sticks better there. https://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/08/did-hinduism-exist/
I would have had somewhat less problem with the article if he’d kept the critique down to that term. But it seems pretty clear that he has a problem with people converting to Vaiṣṇavism or the like as well.
I understand the hesitation re: the term Hinduism, but think this is less of a concern regarding modern conversion as Hinduism does exist as a modern entity and identity (a bit of unintentional rhyming there…) However, it’s a somewhat nebulous identity, and one wrapped up with ethnicity/Indian-ness (witness modern Hindutva as Indian-ness and its elevation of even secular Hindu identity). We then wind up with a situation like Sarma’s editorial, where it seems to be the ethnicity which is sancrosanct and incable of replication, not the philosophical or praxis systems. I’m not convinced this is the answer to overcoming the ‘sins’ of colonialism.
1. It is no mystery that the term “religion” refers to a family of belief systems, and, therefore, implies a “family resemblance” among the instantiations of that term or concept.
Obviously, the fact that a family is large does not entail that it is not a family, or that the members do not have a family resemblance to each other.
Hence, the fact that the family of religions is large does not entail that the term “religion” does not refer to a family of belief systems, or that these belief systems have a family resemblance to each other.
2. It’s an analogous situation with the term “Hindu”. It refers to a large family of systems of belief (and, of course, values and practices) and the fact that it is large does not imply that its members don’t constitute a family.
The interesting and challenging task here is to identify the family resemblances or similarities among the members of the Hindu family of belief systems, values, and practices.
3. The problems with Sarma’s facile generalization on “White Hindu Converts” illustrates the importance of mindfulness in the use of concepts.
By any stretch, the concept of “conversion” is not consistent with that of “mockery” of the beliefs and practices one has converted to or embraced! There is no room for mockery in any genuine case of conversion. Hence, it is an abuse of the word “conversion” to use it in conjunction with the term “mockery”.
If Sarma’s intent is to claim that these cases of alleged conversion to Hinduism by individuals who are white are not really cases of conversion to Hinduism, then he needs to specify his criteria of “conversion to Hinduism” and present evidence to support his generalization that “White Hindu Converts” have not genuinely converted to Hinduism.
The fact that the individuals in question are white, that their ancestors have a history of colonialism, and so on, is irrelevant to the claim that their conversions to Hinduism are not genuine.
This is because the sort of evidence which would show that a case of conversion is not genuine pertains to evidence of lack of sincerity, commitment, and respect for the appropriate beliefs, values, and practices deemed “Hindu” on the part of the alleged converts to Hinduism.
An appeal to irrelevant facts in support of one’s claims is evidence that one does not really understand the truth-conditions (conditions in which a claim is true) of those claims, and, therefore, the meaning of those claims.
Hi there!
Sharma is absolutely wrong! How can he say Hinduism is an ethnic religion? People from Central Asia to Indo-China have been Hindus!! The world’s largest Hindu temple is in Cambodia! The oldest Sanskrit inscription in Central Asia. There were numerous Hindu rulers in Central Asia and Indo-China! Compare Hindus from North India, South India, Nepal, Bali, Afghan Hindus(HinduShahi rulers) among others.. Read about the Mittani kingdoms of Syria; who were Hindus… Please update your knowledge, Sarma..! On a side note, Sarma doesnot even correctly know the spelling of his title. It’s Sharma and not Sarma. I see a tint of westernization. Now, I am not casteist but Bhumihar people like Sarma are not even proper Hindus. They are believed to be migrants from other places who got adopted by Hindus. They tend to be very exploitative in my state of Bihar!!
Pingback: Indian heritage? | Love of All Wisdom
Good rebuttal to Deepak Sarma.Being from a Indian background and born in the West I have to say this guy definitely dosent speak for me or millions of other Hindus from Indian backgrounds.He seems to have some personal identity issues with race which hes reflecting in his article.Hinduism has never been confined within the borders of India and only to Indians even historically let alone now.After invading Scythians or Huns were finally defeated by Hindu armies they were welcomed into Sanatan Dharma to change to the path of Dharma under the guidance of Vedic Rishis.To which they did to becoming part of Hindu society. So Its a welcome sign that many people from various countries and backgrounds are taking Hinduism up to extend it even further something that Sarma has a personal issue with but it will not make any impact on Hindus from India or the ones from the West.