Hinduphobia in academia

Hinduphobia in academic circles is a narrative discourse which "typically portrays Hinduism exclusively as an oppressive and regressive tradition, inextricably bound up with social institutions like caste and patriarchy. In this discourse, positive and progressive aspects of Hindu traditions—such as those which question or oppose caste prejudice or male chauvinism—are either ignored or attributed to outside, non-Hindu influences".
Accusations
Faulting Hinduism
Indologist Jeffrey Long argues that Hinduphobia in academia "is not simply a critique of Hinduism" but "a deeply embedded and very often unexamined set of assumptions pervading some, though not all, academic writing on Hinduism...hinduphobic discourse... follows a circular logic, in which the conclusion has already been built into the premises: that, whatever the problem or issue in question, Hindus and Hinduism are at fault.."
Revisiting History
Historian Audrey Truschke's views on the genocide of Hindus and destruction of Hindu temples by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb have also been criticized and called Hinduphobic. Truschke defended her views by stating "My book looks at Aurangzeb as part of an Indian dynasty in all its complexities and nuances. I don’t ask if he was good or bad; that’s not an interesting historical question". Rutgers - Newark responded that it "affirms support... for the Hindu community" while "fostering full, open, and respectful engagement on ideas across this spectrum".
Aryan race portrayals
Vamsee Juluri mentions that in academia "the most vile and baseless writing too is deemed acceptable against Hindus", while maintaining that “we need to respect Dalit and subaltern positions outside of the orientalist colonial Aryan sort of myths that surround them at the moment.” He has also criticized the replacement of the word "Indian" or "Hindu" with "South Asian" in school textbooks as "extreme" and "unjustified".
Criticisms
Martha Nussbaum states that "For about 20 years at least, members of the Hindu community in the U.S. have been carrying on a well-funded campaign to substitute an ideological Hindu-right version of Indian history for serious historical scholarship." and that Indian immigrants are "sensitive to perceived insults to India’s history or Hinduism by (as the narrative goes) “callous American orientalist scholars”."
De Roover agrees that Juluri "rightly points out" that "something is rotten in the study of Hinduism" but asserts that Hinduphobia "is more of an empty label than a well-developed concept."
While Anantanand Rambachan states that "There is this concern -- what happens to a tradition or how is it taught when the majority of its teachers don’t have an existential commitment to the tradition," he maintains that "demonization of the academy" by some Hindu groups is not justified.<ref name=":0" />

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu