Introduction:
Every so often when reading books of non-fiction written by great thinkers you come across one that you find yourself hoping is wrong about the multitude of depressing facts it presents. Line after line, this is the emotion that Meera Nanda’s latest book, “The God Market: How Globalization Is Making India More Hindu”, evokes. Beginning with post-independence India, Nanda walks us forward in time, pausing at influential points in the story to build a bullet-proof case for her central assertion that- in her words- “Globalization has been good to the Gods in India”. While it is a fast and thoroughly engaging read with all references relegated to the back pages, the sheer quantity of facts is still overwhelming at times.
Since my position on Nanda’s work is familiar to most followers of this website, I will present this review in an unconventional format. I will first describe the structure and content of the book. Then I will present some popular criticisms.
Overview:
The book has five parts, each part a self-contained thesis from start to finish.
1. After a brief description of neo-liberalism, Nanda breaks down the history of post-independence India into three time periods and takes us through the political and religious events that transpired during these periods. The story begins with creation of the modern welfare state, the foundation of the democratic process and the emergence of new nationalistic and ideological movements after independence in 1947. After going through a badly bungled experimental phase, neo-liberalism arose as the dominant economic model in India towards the end of the century. To end the chapter, Nanda writes about the privatization of society under the guise of ’swatantra’. She provides evidence to show that “…privatization is not just turning higher education into a business; it is opening it up to the business of God and god-men as well.” The ideology of the ‘neo-Swatantrites’, according to Nanda, is that “the state has to have a minimal role in economic affairs, but a maximum role in propagation of Hinduism”.
2. In the second section of the book, Nanda explores the alarming increase in religiosity among the middle classes. This is unintuitive, to say the least, but the evidence presented is solid again. Despite the growing affluence and numbers among the middle classes, religion has increased its grip on society in India. Particularly noteworthy is Nanda’s assertion that this increased religiosity is more fervent and reactionary than ever before. Nanda borrows a phrase from Neill Macfarland, ‘the Rush Hour of the Gods’, to describe this growth of religiosity in India in the context of globalization and the resulting economic opportunities and “socio-psychological needs”.
Point by point, Nanda builds up her case to show how the new-found religiosity among young urban Indians goes hand in hand with a process of gentrification of the rituals and beliefs, adapting them to the new global economy. There is a new form of Hinduism taking root, one that is as comfortable in the boardroom as it is in the mandir. This section ends with a look at the “new gurus” such as Mata Amritanandamayi, Swami Dayananda, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and Swami Ramdev, who have cornered the burgeoning market in techie religiosity.
3. Having built up the case for how both neo-liberalism and religion have come to dominate the current social climate of India, Meera Nanda defends her central thesis in the third section of the book. To do this, she brilliantly adapts her argument from a popular way of describing the coevolution of two or more mutually dependent institutions. Nanda’s term for the resulting collusion between the dominant institutions in India is the “State-Temple-Corporate Complex”.
The subject of government involvement in religious affairs is often a cause for contention among the Hindu masses that are led to believe that the government treats Hindus unfairly by targeting them and not the other religions. Nanda’s work discredits these arguments. She writes in detail how the current nexus between government and Hindu groups was initiated not by the government, but on the urging of Hindu elites. In essence, not only have Hindus managed to gain from this relationship that they forced onto the state, but they now use this nexus as propaganda claiming that the government unfairly targets Hindus!
Nanda follows the money trail, discrediting the popular arguments that attempt to portray Hindus as victims of government discrimination. The state-temple-corporate complex is in business, and business is booming. The last few pages of this chapter look at the effects of this union on culture- in particular, education and religious tourism. Nanda portrays an alarming increase in government endorsement, both financially and politically, for numerous religious and religion-related beliefs and practices. She draws examples from around the country to portray this increase in religious influence on education, both in unconventional training schools and in the accredited schools, colleges and universities.
The state-temple-corporate complex has encouraged an amalgam of nationalistic and religious emotions that the masses are drawn towards. Here is a particularly poignant quote from Nanda:
“Whereas the ‘religions of the book’, that is, Islam and Christianity, bind the faithful by demanding obedience to the letter and the spirit of their revealed dogmas, Hinduism deploys familiar rituals, festivals, myths and observances- the kind of things children learn on their mothers’ knees- to knit a many-stranded rope that binds the faithful to the faith with so many little ties, at so many different points that one loses sight of the ideological indoctrination that is going on. Ordinary worshipers and the three partners described above- the state, the temples, and the corporate or business interests- perform a choreographed dance, as it were, in which each element merges into another smoothly and effortlessly. The net result is a new kind of political and nationalistic Hinduism which is invented out of old customs and traditions that people are fond of, and familiar with.”
4. In the next chapter, the belief among Indians of our cultural superiority over others is described. Nanda writes “Indians rank number one in the world in thinking that we are number one in the world”. This statement is backed by evidence from internationally recognized polls. Meera Nanda presents the data on this subject in the context of group dynamics specific to post-colonial societies that are emerging from poverty. She extends this thought to the Hindutva explanations for the IT revolution, pointing to how Hinduism is now used to justify everything from democracy to the number of science graduates in India. She says, “A great many computer professionals, important scientists and well-respected intellectuals have bought into this idea that Hinduism predisposes Indians to become great software engineers”. Nanda places these arrogant notions of Hindu superiority beside objective measures of India’s science and engineering accomplishments, demonstrating that the numbers tell a completely different story.
The last part of this chapter is concerned with the development of what Nanda calls the “Theology of Hatred”. Here she describes the “intellectual 
warriors” of the Hindutva army as resorting to “designer fascism”, whereby they claim tolerance of other religions while claiming that this tolerance arises due to the virtues of Hinduism alone. There is a powerful movement of Hindu intellectuals, such as those behind the Voice of India publishing house, who have made an art out of Hindu triumphalism while presenting Islam and Christianity as outsiders to be feared and challenged. Nanda closes the chapter with an appeal to celebrate the secular achievements of India as progress that was made independent of Hindu influence.
5. The final section of the book is concerned with global trends in religiosity and secularism. After presenting examples to demonstrate that religious influence has increased and not decreased over the past half-century of free-markets and globalization, Nanda gets down to pinning down the nature of secularism as a cultural institution. There are, she points out, differences in the Indian view of secularism. She places India’s struggle with religion in the context of this global trend towards increased religiosity and decreased secularization, and asks the reader to step back and try to understand how the two forces of globalization and secularization have affected each other in their evolution.
Quoting Peter Berger, whom she also quotes in other places in the book, Nanda shows that religion and the state are competitors for cultural capital. As reason begins to assert itself in a society, leading to more influence by the state over civilian activities that were once controlled by religion, the religiosity of the people also falls over time. Conversely, by the removal of the powers of the state towards influencing culture an available niche is created for religion to fill. Over and over Nanda points out, using Berger’s work, how this new surge in religion is actually of the supernatural kind, not the more benign rational form commonly associated with globalization.
Nanda presents an analysis of the correlation between religiosity and economic conditions, mentioning studies that show clearly how the most religious societies are either extremely poverty stricken or are the most unequal in terms of their wealth distribution, thus creating an underclass ripe for religious indoctrination. She writes about supply-side theory, which states that in the global market religions will compete and there will be new religious movements- a boom and bust cycle of religious beliefs. Nanda presents evidence from a larger scale model that overrides the smaller market trends and shows that a steady long-term decline of religion is feasible if the cultural need for supernatural beliefs fades away. Nanda closes by laying out the implications of the models of secularization theory on India, with an appeal towards building a secular future.
“There is no bigger challenge for India today than to create meaningful secular spaces and a secular public culture”
Criticism:
There is much criticism of Meera Nanda from all denominations of educated Indian society. I will list a few here.
1. Hindu Hater: Nanda is often accused of focusing only on Hindus and allowing other religious groups to get off easy. This accusation is meant to preclude intelligent conversation, even when it is advanced by the Western ’showcase intellectuals’ who are often placed on the front lines to defend Hinduism. Nevertheless, Nanda has stated previously why her focus is on Hinduism. Hers are not unlike the reasons why a Pakistani secularist would likely direct the bulk of his or her ire at Islam, or an Italian freethinker at Catholicism.
2. Christian/Islamic Apologist: When people perceive things as black or white, they are likely to place others in one of those two categories. There may be something in the religious mind that prevents such people from understanding the merits of reaching for objective thought, free of cultural bias.
3. Islam is so much Worse than Hinduism: This argument makes the fallacy of irrelevance, or simply, it is a red herring.
4. Nanda is Anti-Business: No, she is not. The prevalence of this accusation is evidence for a populist reactionism against Nanda’s work. Nanda’s positions on economics are reflective of one who calls for measured use of the potential for competition in business, in order to create innovation and progress in society. In the book, she criticizes the Indira Gandhi administration’s top-down policies, making it clear that she believes that by that stage of development, at that time in history, the government should have ceded some areas of industry that were under its control to be developed further by regulated private enterprise. India, she states, was ready for business. The work done through the Nehru years had created enough local infrastructure to begin privatization.
5. She sees all Hindus as Right-Wing Ideologues: In the book, Nanda catalogs the evolution of the Hindutva movement beginning with the foundations of the philosophy of Integral Hinduism when the prevailing mood within the movement was suspicious of both the state as well as the capitalist system, to today where Hindus have figured out ways of exploiting the current right-of-center political climate. There were left-leaning philosophical underpinnings in the beginning, and perhaps some remain, but the driving force today is the god market.
There are many other arguments raised against Nanda’s work by a particular online contingent. The religious and superstitious IT community that Nanda comes down on in her book are not exactly her biggest fans. Internet message boards, blogs and forums are filled with right-wing Hindutva hate speech directed at Nanda. Much of their criticism is not worth addressing individually. None of the criticism addresses Nanda’s evidence. This is quite understandable since, after all, there is no arguing against demonstrable facts. Much of the comments on these sites are studies in logical fallacies, containing everything from ad hominen attacks to straw-men arguments and ad absurdum reasoning. The motivation to defend their religion is so strong in these people that they do not, for an instant, let reason get in their way.
Another group of people who are highly insulted by Nanda’s thesis is the section of the rationalist community that is ideologically pro-globalization- unapologetically so, even in the face of evidence that a balanced approach is needed in certain areas of social and economic health. Very often I have seen comments from such folk attacking Nanda’s thesis simply because it offends their aesthetic sensibilities. They often contend that it could not possibly be true that free-markets have actually increased religiosity in India. It seems too obvious to them that, since they have come to reason through the internet (and cultural globalization), reason must be the beneficiary of any such socio-economic development model. Often such folks, even rationalists, will not even take the time to actually read the arguments and check the evidence, preferring to further advance their confirmation bias by deliberately ignoring that which makes them uncomfortable.
Conclusion:
Meera Nanda’s book is an eye opener for any Indian who values human rights, science, and secularism and wishes to advance these in India. The rationalist movement, despite the herculean efforts of a dedicated few, has been floundering in the sea of religious belief that surrounds it. Nanda’s work needs to be read and discussed in rationalist settings around the country, with a view towards developing strategies that are in tune with the vastly different world in which religions operate today. With this book, Nanda joins the likes of Romila Thapar as someone who speaks the unblemished truth about our country in the face of much public resentment. “The God Market” is a testament to Meera Nanda’s ability to cut through the noise and tell us the story, the complete story, and how it relates to what she has not yet begun to speak of.
Related posts:
- Introduction to “The God Market: How Globalization is making India more Hindu”
- Is ‘Hindu Atheism’ Valid? A Rationalist Critique Of The ‘Hindu’ Identity’s Usurpation Of Indian Culture
- Am I a Hindu?
- Meera Nanda’s Latest Book (and other developments)
- Hindu Terrorists and BJP Double Speak
- Producing Priests (How Government Funded Educational Institutions Are Promoting Religion in India)
- Politicians Pleasing the Rain-Gods: Religious Backwardness in India
- Proposal For A Management-Oriented Non-Profit Organization To Promote Freethought In India
- Of Eclipses, Scaremongers, and Smart Believers: July 22nd Total Solar Eclipse in India
- Rationalism tour of India - Part 6
- Annual Conference: The Science & Rationalists Association Of India- Celebrating 25 Years On March 6-7, 2010
- Reincarnation, Rebirth And Past-Life Regression Therapy In India: A Rationalist Critique
- Interview: Dr. Prabhakar Kamath On His Consumer Rights Activism in India
Please correct the typo in the last part of the last sentence:
…. and has NO quarrel with anyone on this planet.
(sorry for my poor typing skills)
Nanda’s analysis is interesting. However, the basic fact is that “Hinduism” is not a doctrine-based “religion” and is more of a compendium of philosophical thoughts and reflective analysis over ages. It is really a way of life based on the fundamental truth that this universe is ONE, manifest in different forms and names. The basic lesson of this “way of life” is to understand cognitively (not just as book or mental knowledge)this “oneness” and how the self and the rest of the world (universe) is related and make the life’s journey meaningful. What we see in the name of so called Hindu religion is a kind of distortion/aberration of the values - be it in personal life, corporate, societal or community attitudes and behaviours. There are reasons historical as well as contemporary. These are the real reasons for the present day inequalities (based on belief systems, caste, creed, cultural variations, economic status and even based on colour and sex). Unfortunately, our present political system tends to accentuate these superficial differences and variations though it claims to assure social justice, fairness and justice. What the globalization has done to India is its ability to make great economic strides, despite all the problems we continue to face internally.
What we need most are the social scientists and thinkers to help solve the problems of inequity and injustice. When these get solved one can really see a true “Hindu” who thinks and acts as “one in all & all in one” and has quarrel with anyone on this planet.
Your review is better then the one published in outlook by Dalrymple. The first line of the post is very apt and conveys my own feelings.
Point 4:
“Nanda’s positions on economics are reflective of one who calls for measured use of the potential for competition in business, in order to create innovation and progress in society.”
Ah, but who measures, who controls, who regulates? Pardon me for being skeptical, but I don’t want a Mullah or Pandit telling me how to think or what to believe or how to run my business, neither do I want the state in that space.
I would posit the converse of your thesis - Meera Nanda is partially symptomatic of failed leftist-statist ideology trying to seek space in the errors of absolutist market-ism of the last couple of decades. A “God-of-the-gaps” but with the state replacing God.
I’m not convinced she’s made the case for a causal relationship between globalization and the resurgence of religion and superstition, as a I commented elsewhere. Perhaps you can elaborate the argument?
Yes, a good correlation exists, but that’s not enough. There’s a good correlation between the decline of pirates and global warming, as the FSM-ites never tire of pointing out.
What is needed is simply for the state to stop patronizing religion - both majority and minority. She’s absolutely right there. From Ramlilas to Kumbh Mela to Haj to Godmen and Mullahs, there’s just too much state patronage of religion. The market and globalization are red herrings.
I’m more sympathetic to the argument that religion has rushed in to fill some of the space the state has vacated recently. That needs to be combated by building a secular culture and more importantly, *secular support systems*. Those with leftward inclinations tend to overemphasize culture and philosophy over practical issues (strange, because Marx was as materialist as they come). A good public healthcare and unemployment benefit system, and free or subsidized public education system would do wonders to reduce religion. Now that’s a space I’ve no problem with the state entering.
Ah, but who measures, who controls, who regulates? Pardon me for being skeptical, but I don’t want a Mullah or Pandit telling me how to think or what to believe or how to run my business, neither do I want the state in that space.
How you want the economic system to be run is not the issue here. That is opinion. I don’t have the time or patience to go into a debate on economics with you. If you are interested you can address some of my ideas on the fallacy inherent in the libertarian position here: http://www.culturalnaturalism.org/2009/06/naturalism-in-economics-part-1.html
Bear in mind the above article is just concerned with one issue where “free-market” ideology is wrong. There are other areas where it is wrong.
Meera Nanda is partially symptomatic of failed leftist-statist ideology
After I have specifically pointed out that she seeks a middle ground, you make the above statement. This only shows that you are an ideologue committed to unrealistic economic beliefs and not to evidence based rationalism.
I’m not convinced she’s made the case for a causal relationship between globalization and the resurgence of religion and superstition, as a I commented elsewhere. Perhaps you can elaborate the argument?
Too bad you are not convinced. Perhaps the reason you are not convinced is because you are not taking the time to read her book. It is not my job to list in detail the evidence supporting Nanda’s positions. That was what the book was for. The job of the reviewer does not cover presenting a complete defense of the entire thesis of the book being reviewed.
Yes, a good correlation exists, but that’s not enough. There’s a good correlation between the decline of pirates and global warming, as the FSM-ites never tire of pointing out.
I do not need a lecture on causation. Would you like to discuss causation from an epistemological or an ontological point of view? I’m pretty sure I will be able to keep up, so don’t hesitate to blow me over.
If you have read the book and then were criticizing the exact causal mechanisms that Nanda has provided replete with case studies and chronological data, then I could understand that you are coming from a place that deserves a proper response.
If you took the time to study the mentioned models of secularization theory that fit the evidence the best, and then criticized those models that support the ideas in the book, then perhaps we can have an intelligent and thoughtful conversation.
Instead, you come in swinging with no gloves on and balloons for fists.
Science works with the evidence at hand, concurrent with the gathering of new evidence. Simply seeking to dismiss available evidence that clearly provides a naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon, without even bothering to look at that evidence, is characteristic of religious ideologies and not of rational thinkers. This is akin to the anti-evolutionists’ tired old arguments that there is no evidence for evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence, simply because they are so emotionally turned off by the implications of the truth of evolution that they refuse to study the evidence.
Only a fool keeps reiterating his biases without bothering to listen to what the other side is saying.
Those with leftward inclinations tend to overemphasize culture and philosophy over practical issues (strange, because Marx was as materialist as they come).
If you don’t understand philosophy, it is better to remain silent about such issues. Marx’s dialectical materialism was the philosophy that led him to his “leftward inclinations” in economics. Many philosophers, including I dare say Meera Nanda, would describe themselves as describe themselves as materialists when it comes to natural phenomena. However, normative statements of opinion are inherently part of describing non-natural phenomena such as economic ones. Therefore, most philosophers of science including, including Nanda, would reject that materialism itself can lead to any practically applicable economic theory. This is the nature of the naturalistic fallacy. Of course, the religious believers resort to the supernaturalistic fallacy. Both are not logically defensible.
Finally,
who measures, who controls, who regulates?
Now that’s a space I’ve no problem with the state entering.
Do you see the contradiction in your own statements above? This is characteristic of someone who is coming from an ideological position and will argue anything to uphold his/her ideological inclinations.
You do what everyone else does when it comes to economics- pass subjective judgment. It may soothe you to believe that there is some objectively existent line that helps you make these determinations, but you are just as ideological as the worst or the best of them. Depending on the values of the person doing the justification, many levels of state/business/religious/communal/familial control over individual freedoms can be justified.
Economics, like politics is replete with these normative values-based cultural beliefs. The tools of science are the sharpest we have in dissecting the natural world. But there lies the boundaries of objectivity.
Marx never subscribed to the philosophy developed later and dubbed “dialectical materialism”. And he was not an “economist” per se. But his thinking on historical materialism and later his critique of political economy grew out of his engagement with the Hegelian legacy and involved dialectical thinking of some sort. In any case, Marx was not a “statist”, and his method and research were open-ended, not a closed system. I know little of the Indian Marxist tradition, but I’m guessing it was excessively influenced by Soviet Marxism.
Thanks Ralph. Although Marx was not a direct ascendent to that school, his reasoning is most closely associated with it now. Any you are also right that he was not an economist by profession (and I don’t claim that he was). What he did do was use the process of dialectics to derive a political theory that was in essence economic in at its core. Therefore philosophers have made the argument that Marx’s dialectical materialism led him to derive his socioeconomic philosophy.
I definitely agree that Marx was not statist. That is, as you have pointed out, a populist misunderstanding of Marxism. You are spot on when you describe Indian Marxism. It is extremely populist and Marx would be abhorred by how his name is being abused today. In fact, many middle-class Indians are unaware of Marx’s actual writings and choose to ascribe interpretations of Stalinistic communism to Marx himself. This, no doubt, stems from the years of American propaganda about Marx, and the modern neo-liberal climate we are in.
Ralph, I went back and checked my sources and I will revert back to my hard stance on Marx. He can be called a dialectical materialist. In fact, he was the first to be called one.
By the way, Marx’s historical materialism, which you correctly pointed out as arising from his adoption of Hagelian dialectics, was also developed and dubbed as such later. He never used either term. He was a dialectical materialist, and more specifically a historical materialist within the tradition of dialectical materialism.
I concur with everything else you have said.
By the way, I don’t think that calling Marx a dialectical materialist automatically puts him in the same camp as Lenin. The principles of dialectics are too general to be directional in that way. In any case, this whole dichotomy is a distraction, admittedly arising from my use of the term above.
I suggest you follow Dr. K’s link and read his reactionary twaddle from start to finish, if you can keep from vomiting all the way through.
I have actually read it before, Ralph. I had to swallow it back down a couple of times when reading it. The strategy is very similar to that of most postmodern critics of science and reason. The arguments are so many, so flawed and so circuitous, that just as you start to answer one fallacy you find that it leads to many more, each leading to more than the one before it, and so on until you’re hit by the shit tsunami.
Regarding Nanda’s observation, “Indians rank number one in the world in thinking that we are number one in the world”.
Here is what Al-Biruni, a great Indophile, wrote around 1030 A. D.
“In the fifth place, there are other causes, the mentioning of which sounds like a satire –peculiarities of their national character, deeply rooted in them, but manifest to everybody. We can only say, folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever. Their haughtiness is such that, if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan and Persis, they will think you to be both an ignoramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is…. Now such is the state of things in India.
Al Biruni, 1030 A. D.
I recommend every Indian to read this book. You will be amazed how time has stood still in India for a thousand years. Al-Biruni writes in minutest details about India and Indians. If Al-Biruni visited India today, he would feel quite at home. There is a lesson to be learned from his observations: Can anyone guess what it is?
Extract from INDIA by Al-Biruni
Edited by Qeyamuddin Ahmad
National Book Trust, India
KPS Kamath
Ajita,Hats off! Excellent review. Honestly, I could have written the book myself!! How true! Just yesterday my wife returned from India. She was awestruck by the religio-political atmosphere even in small towns. For example, in Udupi, during the “Paryaya” event of local Mutts, hundreds of politicians, State and Central ministers descended on to Udupi to seek blessings of Swamis! Gayatri Mantra is blaring all over the town: in the bus, in hotels, in restaurants, in market places!!!Chief Minister of Karnataka, a BJP leader who never goes any place without a huge “Nama” is busy touring temples rather than meeting with citizens.
All I can say is, God Save India! Oops!!!
KPS Kamath
Thank you!
The involvement of politicians in these large public religious ceremonies has come to be accepted as normal in India.
“Point by point, Nanda builds up her case to show how the new-found religiosity among young urban Indians goes hand in hand with a process of gentrification of the rituals and beliefs, adapting them to the new global economy.”
Could you elaborate on this? What is this process of gentrification? How is this causing young Indians to adapt to the global economy? Are you(and may be Dr. Nanda) using “adapt” in the same sense as in evolutionary biology, like “an organism adapting to its new environment”?.
If the new-found religiosity and the process of gentrification are leading young Indians to adapt to the global economy, is it not, on balance a good thing?
Krishna, thanks for your insightful question, as usual.
I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the section you quote! If you read the sentence carefully, I say “gentrification of the rituals and beliefs, adapting them to the new global economy”. You misinterpret this to lead you to say, “process of gentrification are leading young Indians to adapt to the global economy”.
There is a big difference here. Meera Nanda is talking about the gentrification of the gods. This helps Hinduism adapt to the new cultural landscape. You have misrepresented this to mean adaptation of the young Indians. The process of gentrification of the gods does not necessarily help “young Indians to adapt to the global economy” as you have suggested. That was not the suggestion at all.
I had not intended on drawing an analogy with evolutionary biology, lest we take this analogy too far, but let me do so now on your behest. We are talking about “adapt” in the cultural sense, so we are talking about memes. Daniel Dennett’s example of a parasite, or the more common example of a virus can be used to complete the analogy. If a new antibiotic becomes popular and is prescribed a lot, the virus adapts to the new evolutionary landscape. In other words, it learns to survive in the new landscape, causing as much harm as before. This adaptation is most accurately analogous to the process of gentrification of religion that Nanda refers to. This adaptation is by no means “on balance a good thing” for the victim/host.
Thanks.
Excellent review.
Thank you, Ralph!
I think Ralph wrote this in hurry. Your review may be good but Meera does not seem to be enjoying a great reputation of being an unbiased commentator -
Hinduism, Environmentalism and the Nazi Bogey
A preliminary reply by Dr. Koenraad Elst to Ms. Meera Nanda
(12 August 2004)
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/politics/bogey.html
Dr. Koenraad advises Meera Nanda to overcome her hatred, and hopes that she will be able to make impartial assessments of glorious past of India.
Hate and how to outgrow it
There are more points in Ms. Nanda’s paper which are worthy of further discussion, but for now I will conclude with an observation on what seems to be her sincere declaration of interest. Among the points that “worry” her, she mentions this as the final one: “The more prominence Hinduism gets abroad, even for wrong reasons like the new age and paganism, the more prestige it gains in India.”
Here, she really lays her cards on the table. It is very good that, unlike many other “secularists”, she does not try to be clever and claim to speak for “true Hinduism” against a “distorted Hinduism” of the Hindu revivalists. Instead, she clearly targets Hinduism itself, deploring any development which might make Hinduism “gain prestige”. Let us see if I can translate that correctly: wanting something or someone to suffer rather than to prosper is what we call “hate”. She hates Hinduism, and her academic work is written in the service of that hate.
To me, that is not the end of the matter. As a Catholic, I was taught never to give up hope, one of the great Christian virtues along with faith and charity. And under the influence of Socrates, I understand that deplorable attitudes are merely the result of ignorance. So, I don’t despair and I look forward to the day when Meera Nanda will go out and acquaint herself in person with some of the people whose positions she has now been misrepresenting. Or at least she may start reading the authors whom she criticizes. Once she comes to acquire more knowledge about her subject-matter, she may reconsider her opinion.
Dr. Koenraad advises Meera Nanda to overcome her hatred, and hopes that she will be able to make impartial assessments of glorious past of India.
Dr Koenraad is not advising anyone, he is expressing his point of view using ad hominem attacks instead of logical refutation of Dr Nanda’s positions. Why? Could it be because he has no real argument?
There is a straw man in there. Dr. Nanda is well aware of India’s past. Hinduism is a corruption of India’s ‘glorious past’. We do not need anyone else, Hindu or otherwise, to tell us about India. What Koenraad does here is the same old trick that I have explained in my other article on Hinduism- equating Hinduism with India. This is a dastardly lie. Yes, I am calling Koenraad a liar. Hinduism is a viral belief system. India is a vast cultural entity that encompasses much more. Unfortunately it also harbors this disease of Hinduism.
Hate and how to outgrow it
Ad hominem attacks and their irrelevance:
Instead, she clearly targets Hinduism itself, deploring any development which might make Hinduism “gain prestige”.
Duh? Apparently the definition of secularist/rationalist/freethinker has escaped Koenraad. If I identify a destructive virus, the objective from there on is pretty obvious to anyone who cares about people.
wanting something or someone to suffer rather than to prosper is what we call “hate”. She hates Hinduism, and her academic work is written in the service of that hate.
Do you ‘hate’ the AIDS virus? Are all the scientists who work on getting rid of the AIDA virus ‘haters’? This is childish thinking. Koenraad is nothing but an apologist for a repressive and destructive religious label. In defending it he is resorting to silly name-calling.
The thing to remember here is that there is a huge difference between the virus and the host. The virus must be destroyed. The host is to be protected and defended. People like Koenraad are confused about this part. They are defending the virus. People like Dr Nanda are the ones whose work defends the people of India because they are able to objectively identify the virus.
The last part of Koenraad’s diatribe is nothing but the vain ramblings of a sophist. All it consists of is dishonest pity wrapped in irrelevant BS. Let me try the same thing: Socretes said “deplorable attitudes are merely the result of ignorance “. So all Koenraad needs to do is read the accounts of the great Earl of Aesop to realize that fairies and hobgobblins do indeed reside in our underwear. Not very convincing, is it? Its called the Courtier’s Reply. Read this: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/463
Just to add to this, I have already mentioned the ‘Hindu Hater’ argument in the review. As mentioned in the review, this argument is meant to preclude intelligent conversation.
To demonstrate, let me turn it back on you.
You HATE reason. Your academic work is in the “service of hate” because you do not agree with us. So there.
It’s also amusing that you did not see that this section of the review where I address the ‘Hindu Hater’ idea was specifically meant for Koenraad. In other words, when I said “This accusation is meant to preclude intelligent conversation, even when it is advanced by the Western ’showcase intellectuals’ who are often placed on the front lines to defend Hinduism”, I was talking about the very person whom you now quote. Very amusing indeed that you would quote someone saying the very thing that I have dismissed that person for saying.