Who decides the Life of Hindus in the West? A Handful of Academics or Practitioners?
There are two issues noted in the subject area of Hindu studies in the West. The academic study of Hinduism wields uncontrollable power and destructive behavior in its practices. Practitioner perspectives are somehow discounted as not valuable to understand true Hinduism even though a religion thrives on the practitioner’s belief. Some academic work focuses exclusively on disproving the practitioner's perspectives as well as denouncing their practices. Thus, denouncing the subject that they study closely. Silencing the subject peoples while creating theories of understanding about Hinduism, the academia displays destructive behavior if not entrenched superiority complex. This manifests in two ways affecting the academia and outside perceptions of Hinduism. Primarily this also leads to Hindu academics and Hindus to be held to a standard in which they are expected to deny their Hindu practices or become non-Hindus, which is not the case with practitioners of other religions. The practitioner’s perspective is somehow seen as jaded not conducive to research.
Religious practice is generally governed by long-held notions and received traditional wisdom. In this context, academic research matters little for a practitioner. However, in the case of Hinduism academic research and academic perspective impose themselves on the practitioners and try to silence their voices. Practitioner perspectives are actively discouraged as theoretical understanding developed in academia dominates the public and policy discourse. However, since the academic perspectives are developed without clear consideration of practitioner perspectives, this could often lead to problems in public perceptions of Hinduism.
While a religion thrives on the practice of its followers in the case of Hinduism it is being altered as academic theoreticians interject themselves within the tradition declaring what is right or wrong practice discounting the voices of practitioners at every step. The issue of Hinduphobia stems from this exceptional pressure placed on Hindus not from inside the practice, but from outside the practice through imposing the academic perspectives. Under these imposed perspectives simple practicing Hindus are depicted as fanatics and outliers by using less than respectable terms such as ‘Hindutva’. The problem with Hinduphobia in the West is that it stems from misrepresentations and half-truths concerning Hinduism.
Hindu history and culture are wrought with generalizations and simplifications in addition to misnomers and misinformation. However, its presentation outside of India had been very problematic, since out of context generalizations and public activism targeting a micro-minority has led to unforeseen consequences leading to vilification and persecution of these minorities outside of India. For example, how many in the general public know the infamous Nazi symbol has nothing to do with the Hindu symbol Swastika or that the Nazi symbol had never been called Swastika.
Colonial beginnings of Hindu studies implanted suspicion of practitioners within the subject. The epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are reinterpreted to reflect the ‘invader vs. indigenous’ dichotomy. Even though the ‘invader vs. Indigenous’ paradigm based on the fictional theory of Aryans is disproven these narratives still continue to dominate Hindu studies. Symbolic representations of evil, the demons, are identified as Dalits even though internal evidence of the epics does not support such identifications. These narratives are then used to spread suspicions of the established practice and religion of Hinduism. Misunderstandings of Hinduism come from these misplaced identity constructs, which effectively disconnect the authentic practices from public perceptions. Scholars disproving this dichotomy of ‘invader vs. indigenous’ perspective through disproving the Aryan invasion theory are name-called.
Sacred texts of Hinduism, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana are reinterpreted with racial overtones. What is happening now is the ‘othering’ of Hindus using such misinterpreted tales of festivals, gods, and goddesses. Symbolic representations of evil or demons are identified with groups of modern society even though no such connections are seen in original texts or practices. For example, the festival of Holi is reinterpreted this way on college campuses in the recent past. Anyone opposing these misinterpretations or out-of-context generalizations is name-called or termed Hindutva. The issue is not with academic research but how it is weaponized out of context to discount practitioners.
Appallingly, misrepresentations still continue to dominate public perceptions of Hinduism. Calling Hinduism ‘casteist' or Hindu festivals as ‘oppressive’ lacks ground reality as well as context. Therefore, the larger issue with the academia in the West is two-fold: first, denial of Hinduphobia and second, continually propping up the narrative based on ‘invader vs. indigenous’ perspective while denying the native practitioner voices, thus ignoring pluralism of practices within Hinduism. Unfortunately, some academics play a larger-than-life role in shaping this public representation of Hinduism in the West. For a micro-minority, the Hindus, in the West, this could lead to confusion, isolation, and subsequently targeted attacks. It is important that public discourse understands the religious beliefs of practitioners than interpretations of a few academics.
Vilifying Hindu practices, festivals, and lifestyles, sometimes with false equivalencies have become common across all spheres of academia. This trend is really concerning, since, this could lead to grave consequences for the practitioners due to misinformation put forward on numerous occasions across America. It is unfortunate that the very places of higher learning that are believed to foster knowledge, and pluralism of thought are becoming venues of hate incidents against Hindus. The number of hate crimes and violence against Hindus has gradually increased in the past two decades. Silencing practitioner’s perspectives is also a common practice.
The strange thing is universities had a number of hate incidents recorded against Hindus. It leads one to surmise that such misinformation can have disastrous consequences. The misinformation may have isolated and traumatized the Hindu students exposing them to targeted attacks. The trend is alarming. Hate incidents on college campuses are well documented, but similar reports outside college campuses may be meager. This might not mean the absence of hate crimes against Hindus but may indicate fear of Hindus in general for reporting such incidents. Therefore, we believe there might be underreporting also.
It is important to counter such types of misinformation to integrate Hindus into American society. It is also important to counter the suppression of news concerning attacks on Hindus. Awareness and balanced perceptions with concern for practitioners might help change the status quo of Hinduphobia and improve social harmony.
