This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Zaheer Baber is Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore.
(If) we are to develop the study of Indian society and culture within the framework of comparative sociology, we must put back the Indological approach where it properly b e l o n g s . . , a sociology of India that has its orientation to the past and disregards or devalues the present is bound to be unfruitful and in the end self-defeating.l Andr6 Beteille In a society increasingly irrational and barbaric, to regard the attack on reason and objectivity as the basis of radicalism is to perpetuate the nightmare we want to escape. 2 Gerald Graft
In recent years, the erstwhile consensus on the concept and policy of secularism in a multi-religious arid multi-ethnic society like India has been called into question by a number of political parties and organizations like the BJP. VHP, RSS and the Shiv Sena. While some of these political parties and organizations have never made a secret of their goal of establishing a Hindu theocratic state in India, the spectre of anti-secularism gripping some prominent Indian and American intellectuals represents a disturbing trend. Although it is true that the intellectuals now competing with each other to establish their antisecularist credentials and the right wing political parties are marching to the tunes of quite different drummers, this essay seeks to establish that the views of the former provide unintended support for the aims and objectives of the latter. The main argument of this essay is that at the present social and political juncture when the very concept of a
Dialectical Anthropology 21: 317-343, 1996. 9 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
secular India is under siege by a motley coalition of extreme right wing, religious and chauvinist political parties, the emerging culture of anti-secularism amongst a dominant group of Indian intellectuals is naive, misguided and dangerous. It fails to contribute to any realistic appraisal of the gravity of the crisis confronting Indian society and reinforces the wave of anti-secular views and practices being propagated by the BJP and its allies9 Written in the context of the destruction of the sixteenth century mosque in Ayodhya and the bloodletting and soul-searching that followed, this essay seeks to critically examine the views of some intellectuals who have identified the concept and practice of secularism as the driving force behind the recurring communal conflicts in contemporary India. Spearheading the emerging culture of academic and anti-secularism in India is Ashis Nandy, who has been quite prolific in issuing "antisecularist manifestos" laced generously with vitriolic invectives for all those simple-minded enough to have any faith in the virtues of the policy of secularism in India. Nandy's recent interest in debunking the concept of secularism, in as insulting and abusive a language as possible, represents a variation on his repetitive theme of pointing to the ubiquitous hand of colonialism as the main, if not the only, source of the problems confronting contemporary India. In a recent issue of Seminar,3 a number of intellectuals were invited to contribute to a "dialogue" on the current state of communal politics and society in India. Ashis Nandy, however, was not prepared to engage in any dialogue or conversation as the term is conventionally understood. Instead, he used the occasion to launch a predictable polemic against secularists of all stripes. Dismissing supporters of secularism as "intellectually crippled and morally flawed," "senile radicals," who are "seduced and brainwashed," Nandy's rather bizarre attempt to engage in a "dialogue:" foreclosed the possibility of any meaningful conversation. In his contribution to the "dialogue" in Seminar, Nandy once again invoked his "blame it on the British" formula to characterize the policy of secularism as a "Western colonial concept introduced into Indian public l i f e . . , to subvert and discredit" Indian society. Perhaps, locked obsessively as he is into rigid dichotomies like East/West, Orient/Occident, tradition/modernity, sacred/secular, "White Man/WOG" (his terms), Nandy presumably
9 . .
" who pretend that "they are the ones who have freed themselves from traditional prejudices" and who. I have often wondered at the possible sources of Nandy's unrelenting animus against conceptual abstractions like "modernity." etc. . To borrow his words. having "taken over the white man's burden in this part of the w o r l d . . Could it be that his recent writings signify that Nandy is at war with his former self?. the groups which have taken advantage of that opportunity will become increasingly like each other. Since one would be hard pressed to find any academics who would explicitly defend "modernization theory." and because Nandy does not offer any names. twenty years ago." "rationality." a critique that is neither new nor particularly newsworthy. He has not attempted to disguise his contempt for "modern Indians" and "secularists." "secular world-view." "objectivity. see it is their bounden duty to educate and modernize the citizens in this part of the world . In a study of entrepreneurs in Howrah in the early seventies. Despite his relatively recent embrace of what can only be called "Occidentalism. what he seems to be criticizing is "modernization" or "convergency theory. we have Nandy (together with co-author Raymond Lee Owens) arguing that "to the extent that the economic opportunity presented by the Howrah engineering industry continues to grow and expand. ." "Western science." Ashis Nandy's writings in the seventies read very much like an attempt to accomplish exactly what he now revels in reviling. Apparently." etc. it may just be possible that his present-day views represent a desperate attempt to rid himself of his complicity with similar theories in the past. "4 In marked ." "rationality.319 believes that engagement in a dialogue also represents an insidious Western and colonial implant designed to discredit Indian society and culture. it might help to make sense of his compulsive and uncompromising animus against unidimensional abstractions like "modernity. he seems to have been actively engaged in discharging his "bounden duty to educate and modernize the citizens" of India. . As someone who readily admits to being "intellectually crippled and morally flawed" enough to perceive some virtues in strengthening the policy and practice of secularism in India. Although this is just conjecture. Nandy has not named any specific theories or theorists." In his latest summary dismissal of secularism.
"8 After being subjected to "regression analysis. "6 his earlier work comes as a surprise."1~ And after drawing . "when n Achievement is entered into the regression equation for the Mahisyas. the switch from total scientism and positivism in the seventies to the call for the creation of "mythographies" is quite astounding." but he was also striving hard to ensure that the measures of "indicators were based on hard performance data." he nevertheless succeeded in establishing that "even when the effects of all other variable are removed. the near-zero beta weight of n Achievement among the Mahisyas suggests that in their less modem but more entrepreneurial subculture.320 contrast to his relatively recent discovery of idealized and largely imagined constructs like "traditional values. the beta weight for n Achievement remains a redoubtable ." and assigning "beta weights" to each measures of "N-Achievement" in order to ascertain the "correlates and predictors of entrepreneurial competence. . attitudinal data."5 Given the fact that Nandy has of late concentrated most of his energies on dismissing "modem science. the need does not directly contribute to entrepreneurship. In his earlier work.9 While cautioning that "without a nonrecursive path analysis one cannot speak the language of causal modeling in this instance." all these accurate measures enabled Nandy to argue that "though the intercaste difference in the correlation between entrepreneurship and n Achievement is not significant." and has even called for the replacement of "objective" historiography by "mythography.7 And in order to ensure that the measurements were indeed accurate and contributed to "hard" data. .28--the highest among all the variables in the equation for the upper castes. Nandy was assuring us that the "entrepreneur's innovativeness [was] measured by averaging the ratings for the two independent observers on a two-point scale. Given the intemperate language now being employed by him to discuss any manifestation or supporter of modernity. Nandy was not only measuring "modernity" on the "OM and RM scale." Nandy then prophesied that "with Independence. education. it adds on two percent of variance explained." "objectivity. "After all. and so on. and assessments. India is moving towards a "mass culture" in which the distinctiveness of caste groups is breaking down." he continued.
Nor can we expect him to follow a path that is becoming increasingly fashionable." "decultured." Nandy contended that "while the motives explain more of the variance in entry into entrepreneurship than do indicators of modernity. Ronald Inden for ." "modernized. the indicators of modernity are far more powerful predictors of competence than are the motives. because "among the motives n Achievement turns out to be the best predictor of entrepreneurship. Tyranny and Utopias: Essays in the Politics of Awareness. 15In fact." "urbanized" Indians en route to exorcizing the "intimate enemy" from colonized minds." from a number of American institutions. Nandy could be less intemperate in ridiculing others for being seduced by such "alien" ideologies like secularism." "rootless. Nobody expects him to follow the route of those peddlers of "alien cosmologies. And despite having authored a book with the title Traditions." the Marxists. perhaps just a glimpse of the techniques to be perfected later for insulting."~3 Not surprisingly. ~4Nandy then seemed to exhibit little awareness of the politics of the "area study programs" in the United States during the time when he was conducting his research. his book received a rave review in the pages of that bastion of "modernization theory" Economic Development and Cultural Change. some of whom were so often off the mark in their predictions that they developed a whole genre of "autocritique" to ponder their mistakes.321 attention to the "negative beta of overall modernity in the upper caste entrepreneurs. homespun strategy of resistance expressed in code. usually unnamed. "secularists. 16 While it is true that intellectuals change their perceptions and ideas over time." although "optimism and n Affiliation bear apparently no relationship with entrepreneurship. the scientific measurement of motives was not redundant. Perhaps this expression of humility was merely an ingenious. H However. data analysis and preparation of materials for publication. the scientistic jargon is abandoned and we are told that "when formerly low-placed groups become involved in secondary industrialization the result is a wide transformation of the society in accordance with more egalitarian values. he and his coauthor acknowledged that they were "humbled by the readiness with which we have found funds to carry out the research. followed by n Power and sense of efficacy."~2 In the final chapter.
respect for selfsacrifice in a culture in which increasingly there is no scope or legitimacy for self-sacrifice. has enabled Nandy to come up with some quite amazing pronouncements. "reaffirms."19 After all. conveniently enough. he went on to rebuke those women and men who demonstrated against that particular incident. but in explaining the tragic case of Roop Kanwar."2~ Why exactly a woman was chosen for this particular mode of reaffirmation of the legitimacy of self-sacrifice is not an issue for him. This dramatic inversion of views." "modernity. Nandy will have none of this. In my admittedly "intellectually crippled" view. Nandy's "intervention" (to deploy a currently fashionable term) in the debate was positively bizarre but not unexpected for anyone who has followed his line of argument for the past few years. "colonialism is now held responsible not only for its own cruelties but. combined with his readiness to invoke the ubiquitous "pathology of colonialism" to explain all aspects of Indian society and politics has led him to argue that the much publicized case of Roop Kanwar in 1987 was nothing less than a "desperate attempt to retain through sati something of the religious world view in an increasingly desacralized. attaching "Western" modes of "knowing. and predictably. for ours too. In fact." "secularized. Nandy was wrong in . 17 after years of interpreting Indian society through predominantly Indological and Orientalist prisms. As Aijaz Ahmad has aptly put it in a different context." and urbanized individuals whose minds had been "colonized."18 But in the course of accomplishing his objectives. the practice of sati."21 Under normal circumstances. secular world. labeled them as "modernized. as Nandy goes on to argue. in any form or degree. has now discovered the linkages between "knowledge" and "power" and has almost reverted to Occidentalism. or widow immolation. under pressure from a social sphere controlled by "colonized." "decultured" individuals. even if in a bizarre. Inden at least engages in an auto-critique. one expects intellectuals to clarify admittedly complex events.322 example." etc." This time. violent and perverted fashion. from the simplistic discourse of "modernization." to the newly acquired and equally simplistic and naive contempt for "rationality. the handy explanatory device of colonial rule was mobilized by Nandy to explain both the occurrence of sati and the public response to it." "secularism. Such an inversion of views.
"26 Continuing Nandy's project." a remark that is in no way intended as a compliment to the Indian state. "27 While granting that "often there were violent clashes among the communities." Under such conditions. has in fact succeeded in destroying "religion as lived faith. . Nandy conjures up the fable of a tranquil pre-colonial existence that was shattered when the concept of secularism "was introduced in a big way in the early decades of the c e n t u r y . the issue of whether such explanations are "true" or borne by "evidence" must be raised. one wonders what to make of Nandy's belief and claim that his writings "give voice to [the] . statist.323 his earlier belief that different groups in India would "become increasingly like each other. apparently controlled by "decultured." It seems that the concept of secularism in itself led to . historian Harsh Sethi and the anthropologist T." he argues that the key difference was that "such violence never involved large aggregates such as the Hindus or the Muslims. "all of us need to rethink the intrinsic merit and efficacy of decultured. N." because "efforts at delegitimizing lived faith invariably breed not just reaction. According to Harsh Sethi.'25 For Nandy. the resurgence of violence over religious issues somehow represents a "desperate attempt. intellectuals caught up in the rush to put "secularism in its place "24 rely on another rather vacuous concept-"statism. . to retain "something of the religious world view in an increasingly desacralized w o r l d ." "brainwashed. semi-articulate p r o t e s t s . . of marginalized Indians. ." but tend to displace "religion as faith" by "religion as ideology." "modern. " At the risk of eliciting "incredulity" from the extreme postmodernists. . ." "urban" individuals. associated with the same institution as Nandy. Madan seem convinced that an all powerful and omnipotent state."22 Given his views on the Roop Kanwar issue." to borrow Nandy's words. whether he indirectly justifies sati or issues "anti-secularist manifesto(es)." just as he is wrong once again. ."23 In addition to the standard practice of invoking the hidden hand of "colonial rule" which seems to direct most of the problems in contemporary India. "secularism and statism in India have gone hand in hand. . to subvert and discredit the traditional concepts of interreligious tolerance that had allowed the thousands of communities living in the subcontinent to co-survive in neighborliness. secular values.
2s In fact. must have occurred to Nandy. . . To exhort others to provide evidence that there were indeed conflicts in pre-colonial times between "religious communities as they are presently defined." employs this very evidence to argue that "the feeble character of the Indian policy of state secularism is exposed9. to construct his "mythography" of pre-colonial harmony." It also enables him to clinch the argument against the secularists of "the intellectually crippled and morally flawed" by arguing that they can barely conceal their "glee [over the fact] that the incorrigible Hindoos and Moslems are still fighting like cats and dogs [as this enables them] to justify their privileged access to state power ." What about the oft-repeated anti-secularist claim that "statism" has destroyed or delegitimized "religion as faith"? Leaving aside the questionable distinction between religion as "faith" and "ideology. or is it even capable of. while putting "secularism in its place.. the vibrancy of "lived faith" in all its forms is very much in evidence. he will not allow such considerations to disturb his project of producing "mythographies" to replace his most reviled abstraction. simply ingenious strategies by Indians to resist the "onslaught 9 . . Madan.29 This is truly having the roti and eating it too: has the Indian state succeeded in destroying "religion as faith" or are the various expressions of religiosity." and are increasingly sought to be defined. destroying peoples' "lived faith"? Anywhere in India that one cares to look and by all contemporary accounts. objective history. were not so defined in the past. . "scientific. as "no one produced an iota of convincing empirical evidence to show that such conflicts existed on a large scale and involved religious communities as they are presently d e f i n e d . . as Nandy would no doubt argue. Nandy engages in a subtle play on words.324 widespread communal conflict. (emphasis added)." is obviously to send them on a fool's errand9 Such an assertion enables him to admit of communal conflicts in pre-colonial India while placing the onus of communal violence on the "concept of secularism [that has] hegemonized the entire domain of religious amity. N. the anthropologist T." It would seem that there remains no middle ground between objective history cast in stone and subjectivist "mythographies." Now. However. . ." did the Indian state ever intend to. " The fact that religious communities "as they are presently defined.
. autonomy and survival" by "decultured. really that powerful? Has the Indian Constitution really destroyed people's "religion as faith" and replaced it with "religion as ideology"? Nandy. ." As Sethi tells us. but ultimately. even films on this question .325 on their dignity. or even if "secularism" and "religion" were antithetical concepts.36 One presumes he is referring to the documentary on Ayodhya. Peter van der Veer's recent study has amply demonstrated the limitations of the work of those scholars who simply fetishize the pleasures of Indological texts. it is only the historian Neeladri Bhattacharya who "comes somewhat close to understanding" the complexities of Ayodhya. 3s makes it clear that he is not terribly impressed by the contributions. Harsh Sethi. ." He uses the review of the book as the occasion for dismissing a "veritable avalanche of books. Romila Thapar's essay merits an honorable mention. . secular values"? 3~ Is the state in India. only those who believe that the analysis of Indological texts provides the key to real India would fail to notice that any religious activity is inextricably intertwined with eminently secular factors and vice versa. Bhattacharya. In the Name of God by Anand Patwardhan. even Indological expertise can at times generate valuable insights into the roots of the contemporary crises. Whatever the merits of Indology." If the state has not really succeeded in its conspiracy against religion as faith. Thapar and all the other contributors to the volume "understand little about the shaping of the public mind. . 32 This argument might have appeared plausible had the policy of secularism in India implied hostility to religion. articles. statist.33 And. Empirical evidence would of course mean capitulating to such outmoded pre-postmodernist notions and concepts as "objectivity" and "evidence. as a recent paper by Sheldon Pollock has demonstrated. or anywhere for that matter. Madan and Sethi seem to offer little empirical evidence for their assertions. For Sethi. both historians "miss the mark. and in fact never intended to do so. while reviewing S. 31 then the argument that the "concept of secularism" or "statist secularism" is somehow responsible for the rise of religious fundamentalism and the precipitation of communal conflicts is surely unfounded. Gopal's recent Anatomy of a Confrontation. pamphlets. Surely. 34 Continuing the anti-secularist project.
most antisecularists like Nandy and Madan never seem to tire of invoking Gandhi's remark that "those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means. refuse to follow the script! The voices of people emerge unaffected by conceptual and Indological abstractions. it is unlikely that Nandy's impeccable English prose is accessible to anyone except a very tiny fraction of the same urbanized. in particular. somebody could always come up with the platitude that even Patwardhan's documentary reflects and represents a particular perspective. Shiv Sena and RSS? In this context. except invoke the "secular and rationalist counter arguments" that he dismisses so contemptuously? Even if one admits that simply "invoking secular and rational counter arguments" may not work. and as the contributors to the volume Anatomy of a Confrontation themselves acknowledge. as Sethi points out.326 Perhaps. how will the mantra of anti-secularism and irrationalism help? Do these arguments not concede the terms of debate to parties and organizations like the BJP. But then. the "real Indian people" he and others take it upon themselves to represent. while such organizations and political parties reach millions." a la Hayden White? The political naivet6 and honest intentions of Ashis Nandy notwithstanding. Gopal's volume on the Ayodhya issue. VHP. Horror of horrors. all the Nandys and Sethis put together can never hope to compete with the communalist ideologues who are immensely more successful and resourceful in brewing a more potent mix of mega "mythographies. and begin producing "mythographies" a la Nandy or "metahistory. . such proposals place intellectuals on extremely dangerous ground. Perhaps to believe otherwise would be little than a naive foundationalist fantasy! It is true. modernized Indians and "Western" scholars he rails against. "rarely have issues of faith and belief been effectively countered by recourse to history." Sethi is uncomfortable with the film. To come back to Harsh Sethi's castigation of S. In this arena." decry it as a pre-postmodernist ruse. having claimed a direct link to the "shaping of the public mind." But what then is the recourse for historians or other intellectuals as intellectuals? Abdicate all commitment to any semblance of "objectivity." And in any case. what else can intellectuals as intellectuals do." Nandy.
under present political conditions. as if there is only a "Hindu" or "Muslim" alternative. but simultaneously redefines the Ayodhya issue exclusively in terms of unbridgeable and homogenous "Hindu" vs.. nothing short of "moral arrogance and political folly. The onus then.. and every viewpoint has to be judged in the context of such mutually exclusive communal categories. more importantly." might be a stimulating. Or as if any proposal for the maintenance of . It is hardly surprising then that the BJP ideologues have once again adopted specific versions of Gandhi's ideas to pontificate on the relationship between politics and religion. intellectual pastime." During the course of his critique and dismissal of the historians and social scientists who do not follow the anti-secularist line. N. to borrow T. "Muslim" interests. his audience is much more limited. The hubris of Nandy notwithstanding. it can be." while an attempt to view the Hindutva movement as "fundamentalist" or "expressive of Hindu communalism. albeit vacuous. The surrender of rational debate in favor of the creation of "mythographies" or "metahistory. that he hardly has the legitimacy of Gandhi. however. "37 Such a demand not only reinforces the "mad Mullah" stereotype."38 All of the contributors to the S. about the shaping of the public mind." is to be "simplistic" or betray a lack of "understand[ing]." without which "it will be difficult to counter the Hindu nationalist shift. he even resorts to the use of similar devices. independent critical intellectuals are essentially powerless. but under present conditions. Harsh Sethi goes on to raise the demand for "saner Muslim voices. In fact. It is true that the analysis of exactly why rational and secular arguments do not cut ice with some people is extremely significant. Madan's words. Gandhi's remark about the relation between religion and politics would constitute a perfect slogan for Hindu or Muslim fundamentalists. Gopal volume are described by Sethi as criticizing the "promandir position" and adopting a "partisan" view. the social and political context of contemporary India is not quite the same as it was in Gandhi's time. At times. is on an imagined "Muslim community." apparently yet again gripped by collective insanity. He forgets. and. to throw up "saner voices.327 revels in dwelling on Gandhi's ingenuity and political acumen in interpreting "secular" events in religious idioms to communicate his ideas to the people.
by arguing that "indeed it is fortunate for all of us (?) that having come into power in U." or how the dichotomy of the "sacred" and the "profane" was mediated by the violent mobs. some enterprising academic could always analyze the whole episode from a deconstructionist perspective. even while attempting to cobble up a "pastiche" of real Indian traditions from various . One could even abandon all analyses and simply display incredulity towards the totalizing meta-narrative of the communalists. He does so only implicitly. deconstruction.J. One could even reject such dichotomies in favor of mapping out the entire "ensemble of relations" to trace their influence on the "poetics of violence" and how such violence restructured the "cosmologies" of the participants engaged either in destruction.P. who claims privileged insight into the "Shaping of the public mind. one could dismiss all talk of any structure in Ayodhya as nothing more than an illusion inspired by a "logocentric metaphysics of presence." does not tell us where exactly he stands on the Ayodhya issue. Interestingly enough. One could conceptualize the destruction of the mosque as a process of "deconstruction. isn't deconstruction not to be equated with destruction but to be conceived as a process of reconstruction? Other academics could always explore the relevance of the difference between Derrida's concept of diff~rance and Lyotard's diff~rend for their analyses of the difference between a temple and a mosque. government has been trapped by its created Frankenstein and conflicts have broken out between the different constituents of the pro-mandir coalition." given the fact that a make-shift temple has already been constructed. Sethi had written these lines before the destruction of the mosque and the predictable bloodbath. the B. if indeed a new structure or structures come up at the site. Perhaps one could even analyze the "semiotics of mob violence." Perhaps. a "Muslim" point of view. by definition. Sethi.. But then. After all.'39 Of course.P. or reconstruction. The question of whether the mosque in Ayodhya should be demolished is now purely academic. one could extend Jean Baudrillard's analysis of the Gulf war "that never happened" to the events at Ayodhya and then other parts of India. Alternatively.328 status quo regarding the Ayodhya mosque is.
"41 However. if a BJP government in UP was "fortunate for all of us." Refusing to name Ayodhya." she sarcastically dismisses some proposals for the conversion of the Ayodhya mosque into a national monument as "a museumlike approach to religion." Sidestepping the question of whether "the demands made by such movements are in themselves good or bad. the eminent sociologist Veena Das. Madan claims that secularism will not work in India as it is an "alien cultural ideology. in her contribution to the discussion on the resurgence of religious fundamentalism in India." The blanket identification of concepts as categorically "Western" or "alien" is not limited to Nandy. N. secular state" that "relies heavily upon the common sense of Western social sciences." but his remarks beg the question whether he would be in favor of a theocratic state if." she prefers to emphasize that "the only answer modernists can offer to them is to substitute national. 4~ Since Harsh Sethi believes that there is "no running away from the necessity of frontally tackling what is termed the 'Muslim question' in the country." which is "hardly likely to satisfy those for whom religious belief is not simply a matter of aesthetics. perhaps a federal BJP government." why not go the whole hog? Would that take care of what is termed as "the Muslim question"? And while putting "secularism in its place. secular symbols for secular ones--and this is no answer at all." because "it simply will not work. Thus. no solutions to suggest." T.329 Indological texts. could be adapted for the future.'42 It is not clear what exactly he means by "work. he does hasten to add that he is "not advocating the establishment of a Hindu state in India. given the cultural geography of India." While lamenting the fact that "in the whole nationalist endeavor to transform Indian society." and. we have paid scant attention to the manner in which our past.'43 In so . in fact. are also sacred to the Muslims. the RSS and the Shiv Sena might help? After all. supported by such "cultural organizations as the VHP. concludes that he really has no "conclusions to offer. in its essence. she prefers to allude to "Hindus organizing into militant communities for the 'release' of various sacred places that. it "worked. Madan and Sethi. criticizes the "conception of a neutral. The possibilities for the accumulation of "career capital" are endless. not surprisingly." "a gift of Christianity.
dharma. we may ask whether humankind has lost anything in its march towards monotheism." she urges us to "create forms of nationhood and states more responsive to our own historical experience."48 She goes on to explore the possibilities of recovering "polytheistic tendencies" in Christianity. But while the BHP/VHP discourse refers to "Hindu sentiments. . nor exotic myths and rituals that bear no relation to life whatsoever" and that "no one can wish away the existence of markets or of modern nation-states.'46 While this is not the occasion for evaluating the feasibility of her alternative "designs for the future. her arguments lend indirect and unintended support to the BJP/VHP view that "secular" institutions like the Supreme Court of India cannot adjudicate on matters pertaining to religious belief and Hindu sentiments." based upon her "reflections on the theory ofpurusartha" or "four ends of life that a person might p u r s u e . one might legitimately ask what exactly constitutes the essence of "our heritage"? It turns out that all the raw material for such courageous "experiments with our heritage" derives from "the principles of varnadharma and purusartha." "polytheism." Do the concepts of varnadharma and purusartha really encompass the diverse heterogenous traditions of India or even of Hinduism? . ''47 do Hindu texts really encompass--to use Louis Dumont's term--and exhaust "our heritage" and "our historical experience"? She discusses "other" religions to pose the question: "rather than asking how Christianity or Islam may help us to discover monotheistic trends within Hinduism." and to inculcate "the courage to experiment with our heritage."45 What follows is the charting out of "another notion of morality. and moksa. . kama.330 doing." Das strikes an appropriate multi-religious and multicultural balance by invoking the "sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims about the sacred nature of these sites. despite her repeated references to the multiplicity of religious traditions. the ultimate reference point of "our heritage" remain "Hinduism."44 What then is Das' solution to the problem of coming up with an appropriate "design for life"? Even while cautioning that "it is not frozen metaphors that we seek from our past. However." "Hindu symbols. or "social engineering" that Nandy now despises. artha." Apart from being skeptical of her faith in the pliability of social institutions.
multireligious traditions? And even if one were to decide that the Hindu chauvinists are distorting the "essence" of Hinduism and agree with Das that "we must look again at structures of significance in relation to the sacred. Her explicit critique of fundamentalists of all stripes notwithstanding. polytheism. social structures and the activities of real human beings. the RSS and their ilk? In the context of a multi-cultural and multi-religious society like India. ." how exactly might one begin to "adapt the conceptual models in such a way that they do not become instruments for inferiorizing certain traditions and those who live by them"? 5~ How shall we override "decultured statism." the "modernized" and "secular" Indians to restore the alleged communal harmony of precolonial times? Is she not ignoring the larger institutional and structural context that is simultaneously constituting and is constituted by a different set of conceptual model and "reading" of history by the BJP. who is to decide that they've got it all wrong? How do we capture "our past. regional and. pantheism or atheism by itself lead to the "means to live together in diversity and make India the spiritual home of all those ideas that are under attack from fundamentalists and purists"? 49 Her views and proposals reflect a valorization of Indological textual constructs at the expense of institutions. they seem to be on the road to acquiring more power to conduct their own "experiment with out heritage." from all the various local. the Shiv Sena. . In dismissing the concept of a neutral. Das' arguments follow a pattern established by ." In such allegedly postmodern times. are the BJP/VHP not in the process of creating "forms of nationhood and state more responsive to our own historical e x p e r i e n c e .331 But even if all Indians could decide on a perfect conceptual and textual model. in its essence. one must add. secular sate" is intriguing. will the reconstitution of all the various symbols and ideas by itself restructure Indian society? How does she square her concern for those for whom "religious belief is not simply a matter of aesthetics" with her proposal for a "critique of the dominant monotheistic traditions of Islam and Christianity? How will the recovery of monotheism. when "power" and "knowledge" are supposedly inextricably intertwined. " ? At least for the time being. secular state. Das' facile dismissal of the "overarching conception of a neutral.
" religious. multi-religious society? Das invokes disembodied "primordial loyalties" to "one's religion. But is it not analytically more useful to be historically specific and identify particular systems of governance. surely the state plays both enabling as well as repressive roles. secular state"? In increasingly complex societies. or state policies rather than to criticize an abstraction like a "neutral. N. My intention here is not to defend the actions of the Indian state which is surely as responsible as any other agency for stoking the present and earlier rounds of sectarian violence over the mosque at Ayodhya. It is not even clear whether the concept of "primordial loyalties" has much analytical value: 2 Surely Das is ignoring the work of a number of scholars who have carefully examined the particular conjuncture of political. regionally diverse. however broadly defined. Madan. in its essence. Quite apart from yet again reifying social constructs like the "East" and the "West. 53 Das' conflation of "our heritage. does the West Bengal state not have a remarkably better record in handling such conflicts? Was it not because of the prompt actions of the state that a bloodbath was avoided in the province of Bihar. In comparative terms. which was the worst affected area just a few years ago? What other alternatives to a "neutral. secular and. yes. multiethnic. cultural." "our past. and one must not forget. "54 He seeks nothing less than to provide alternatives to concepts that "have developed from thought about Western rather than Indian cultural realities" and aims to exorcize "an alien ontology and an alien epistemology" from the discourse of social science in India. ''51 But her examples do not really demonstrate that such "primordial loyalties" have suddenly emerged in a social vacuum as salient factors in the social life of Indians. "primordial. but cannot separately or together define the transactional ways in which Hindu . even economic factors that have contributed to some of the problems at hand. caste and region" and refers to the Shah Bano case.332 Ashis Nandy and T." with the Hindu heritage." and his surprising assertion that "class" and "status" may be "helpful concepts in the West. the conflict in Punjab and Ayodhya to argue that such considerations have "gained in importance in the country's political life. is taken a step further by the Chicago anthropologist McKim Marriott's attempt to construct an "Indian ethnosociology. secular state" can one suggest in a multi-cultural.
to be sensitive to the process of the creation of the "other." What about the specific "others" within an imagined Hindu community? And the many non-Hindu Indians? I should not be misunderstood as promoting the construction of specific Santhal." how exactly will it enable us to better understand Indian society? How will it allow us to break out of what A. is to draw attention to the dangers of the "violence of abstraction''57 which invariably accompany endeavors to construct tidy conceptual schemes that are completely divorced from the lived reality of human beings. in response to such critiques. Sikh. Marriott's conceptual schemes and "constituent cubes" have already been criticized on a number of grounds. as he tells us. Whitehead called "misplaced concreteness"? . Christian. the first step of his project of constructing an Indian Ethnosociology seems to have been completed with the publication of India Through Hindu Categories. Parsee or Jewish cultural concepts to strike an appropriate balance or for the restoration of a spurious "pluralist" sociology/anthropology of India. Homogenous Hindu categories for the diverse strands of Hindu and other religious traditions of India? Although not all the contributors to the volume necessarily agree with Marriott's endeavors (for example. Marriott readjusted his "Hindu constituent cubes. T." his endeavor resonates well with the prevalent BJP/VHP/RSS discourse on India. The term "infinite regress" haunts any such project. the late A. Madam contributes a preface to the volume. The point. While ostensibly attempting to construct an "Indian ethnosociology. to preserve multiple traditions and identities. 56 Not surprisingly. edited by h i m . rather. N." Marriott does refer to something about the "windless Greco-Muslim humoral scheme reflected in the notions of Muslim farmers of Panjab and Sindh.333 institutions order castes or persons. Ramanujan). Muslim. 58 But even if. In a minuscule sub-section titled "Other possible Indian social sciences. his colleague.'55 However. through "mathematical modeling. Nor am I suggesting the uncritical and indiscriminate use of rigid concepts." obtained." without any warning or explanation Marriott effortlessly switches from "Indian" to "Hindu" categories. K." to recover heterogeneity. N. what is one to make of the title of the volume? A sign of the times? And all this despite the bluster about the need to "deconstruct essentialism.
Bailey. they argued that one must "never forget that India is o n e . ''65 Now.64 Bailey brought the issue into focus by pointing out that Dumont and Pocock "equate 'Indian sociology' with an analysis of the values of Hinduism. . clearly argued that "the first condition for a sound development of a Sociology of India is found in the establishment of the proper relation between it and classical Indology. while I did not find myself "encompassed" and know countless "others" who were excluded by Dumont and Pocock's plans for Indian sociology.. .. one could talk about categories like "regional Hinduism." conceptualized as a homogenous community. G."62 Their original delineation of the field of sociology in India encompassed only "Hindu India..." as long as such categories were not "taken to mean that there are really different kinds of Hinduism. who correctly argued that their conception of " I n d i a . . All-India Hinduism." "South Indian Hinduism." The Indological perspective. Thus. . .334 But I'm probably mistaken in assuming that the aim of ethnosociologists like Marriott or other anthropologically oriented Indologists has been to interpret and understand the workings of Indian "society.63 Dumont and Pocock's perspective was immediately criticized by F. . .'59 Dumont and Pocock had definite views regarding a sociology for India and their primary object of analysis was "a system of ideas. .61 To achieve their overriding goal of establishing a "holistic" sociology that would apply to the whole country.. . they did not claim that they were promoting anything else than "one particular approach" through the then newly founded journal. Contributions in Indian Sociology.'6~ They emphasized that they were interested in a "sociology of values" which entailed that sociologists should "describe the common values and take care not to mix up facts of representation with the facts of behavior . . .. but only one in all its regional variety." He argued that he was not "comfortable with the strait-jacket they have designed for 'Indian sociology'" and criticized them for coming "near to defining 'sociology' out of existence. and nowhere else should impose this idea. and the existence of castes from one end of the country to the other. as defined by Louis Dumont and David Pocock. even though why they used the term "sociology" to describe their endeavor is baffling. . does not mean the ideas and values (let alone the behavior) of everyone who lives within the Indian subcontinent.
While there is a lot to be critical about all of the above mentioned concepts and the uncritical adoption of Western concepts and theories. . Such dangers can only be compounded when selfappointed carriers of the allegedly authentic Indian tradition. ." "Kama in the scheme ofpurusartha: the story of Ram. modernity." "The Sami tree and the sacrificial buffalo. not very original attacks on reified conceptual abstractions like "rationality. or niyogya.. like Ashis Nandy.. 66 To come back to the issue of secularism. Whether it is Michel Foucault's enthusiastic support of and characterization of the Iranian revolution as nothing short of a final break with the oppressive regime of "Western" rationality. Order and event in puranic myth. in the Mahabharata. titled The Word and the World. seem to be leading a crusade to destroy all the bathtubs in sight. acknowledges while announcing a reconstitution of the editorial committee of the journal. what would be the outcome? More likely than not. or Ashis Nandy's justification of sati. The same visitor might expectantly open the pages of a special issue. at least in the past. that the "errors of judgment" the former editor.. . it has definitely received short shrift. Although the Indian "world" has not been absent from the journal. the visitor would go back well informed about "Male surrogacy. they all derive from such unidimensional critiques and are potentially capable of leading to similar conclusions. And that even intellectuals from totally opposed theoretical perspectives continue to debate within very similar parameters and assumptions about Indian society also remains an intriguing issue.. . only to find that the "world" which does creep in is marginalized by words analyzing mythologies and religious texts. or hopes.. If the proverbial visitor from outer space glanced through the pages of the New Series of Contributions to Indian Sociology to get a sense of Indian society." and "the West. under the present social and political conjuncture in India.." "statism." seem rather limited and even dangerously ambiguous. the recent uncritical. One presumes. secularism. N Madan...67 the dangers of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath-water should not be underestimated. T." "Cosmos and paradise in the Hindu imagination.335 The fact that this perspective continues to be dominant in one form or another constitutes a topic for further sociological analysis." etc.. refer to the issues raised above.
. One does not have to doubt the intentions of Nandy. the latest word from Nandy was that much of the violence could be attributed to "uprooted. give or take a few hundred years. I am exhibiting "moral arrogance. as a secularist. Westernized and urbanized intellectuals" who fail to understand "Hindu sentiments. But then. While Ashis Nandy estimates that "alien" concepts and categories invaded and began violating or diluting the "purity" of "traditional" India some six hundred years ago. it is hard to make sense of the meaningless term "decultured" that constitutes the standard repertoire of anti-secularists. the identification of "alien concepts" and "alien ideologies" in India.68 To factors like "statism." Incidentally. or anyone else. take your choice) appears to have been "taken literally by large sections of the police and .336 Under present conditions. whether Indological or "ethnosociological. Perhaps the fact of my name has suddenly brought into acute focus the connections between what C." "secularism. to worry about the unintended consequences of such arguments. the term is simply used to describe any "culture" they despise or do not agree with." During the bloodbath that ensued after the destruction of the mosque." Or the group of cultured anti-secularists who will resolve the problems by invoking conceptual abstractions. as Gyanendra Pandey7~ has recently pointed out. One waits patiently for Nandy's identification of the real carriers of pure and "real" Indian "culture. It is hardly surprising that a recent "white paper" by the BJP on the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya comes down hard on "colonized. the "semi-literate" folks have been added to the list. ''69 perhaps. Surely. at least the cultured "cultural determinists" should know that to be human is to possess some form of culture. in projecting my "personal troubles" and anxieties into the public sphere. resonates rather comfortably with the "discourse" of the Hindu communalists. decultured people" who were "semiliterate migrants to the city. Madan's telling phrase." "modernized. the Hindu revivalist simply stretches this date back another two hundred years. Wright Mills called "personal troubles" and "public issues of social s t r u c t u r e . N. Or perhaps any culture which does not measure up to their idealized theoretical abstractions derived from religious texts." and "urbanized" Indians. Presumably. the slogan "Babar ki santan--jao Pakistan ya kabristan" (descendants of Babar--Pakistan or the grave." to use T.
" is not very different from the attempts of the British colonial administrators to invent Indian "tradition. to examine not only what people (and texts) "say. approach must take its orientation from the lived experience of the present rather than the presumed ideals of the past ''73 cannot but provide a framework fora genuinely Indian sociology. my views do arise from an attempt not only to connect "personal troubles" to "public issues of social structure. claimed that any of these intellectuals are in any way responsible for the social and political problems at hand. despite their claims and delusions. I have attempted to express the hope that some intellectuals will eventually step out of their conceptual abstractions. As for T.. Thompson accurately described as "the destructive theoreticism of some intellectuals.71 While not claiming Babar as an ancestor. the disagreements expressed above have not been driven by any "personal considerations. Besides. Madan's concern over "genuine scholarly concerns. Madan has argued that the journal "has been guided by the belief that differences of approach must be respected. that only such a broad perspective will truly "encompass" all Indians. The confidence of Nandy and Harsh Sethi notwithstanding. intellectuals are not really that powerful. such a perspective could also serve to keep a check on what E. either directly or by innuendo. Nor can they. ." but what they "do. I have not."74 There remains a larger issue concerning the selective constructions of the past and the various uses of such meta-histories. N." Regardless of his intentions. T. Nandy's call for the construction of "mythographies. surely these issues cannot simply be my "personal troubles. as opposed to the Indological. but these are my personal views."72 While I have no desire to conclude on a defensive note. N." if the term implies "career considerations" or differences emanating from personal disputes. However. just as we have trusted that disagreements are borne of genuine scholarly concerns rather than personal considerations. I believe." Andr6 Beteille's view that "the sociological." as well." but also to express concern over the dominance of the "Indological" perspective in Indian sociology. In a number of ways. P. even homespun abstractions. the .337 the local Hindu population in Bhagalpur and some other places. "represent" the "people" of India." In announcing a "change of guard" for Contributions to Indian Sociology.
338 BJP/VHP/RSS/Shiv Sena and other fundamentalist parties and organizations are in a much better position to engage in such games. In yet another piece. although the intellectuals whose ideas have been discussed represent diverse theoretical perspectives. tacitly relies on a certain "law of evolution" that was presumably disrupted by "alien" influences. H. While engagement in what E. the constant harking back to a romanticized and idealized past." in the sense of wishing history and institutions away. the ordy hope for stalling the continuing tragedy lies in the honest implementation of this "comical" . despite all their theoretical and political differences. usually at a purely cultural level." for understanding communal violence in India. or Mrs. the "normal" evolution of an Indologically defined Indian civilization would have been ensured." before moving on to discuss the relevance of the religious symbolism of wearing a "tie" in Western culture." Real structural. Thatcher's "breaking a champagne bottle. which continue to have real tragic consequences. The current obsession with the colonial or pre-colonial past and proposals to rectify real or imagined grievances implicitly relies on the assumption that somehow colonial rule or "Muslim" rule were aberrations that disrupted an otherwise "normal" evolutionary process of Indian society. and historical transformations and contingencies are ignored. In such reconstructions. and a naive "voluntarism. Nandy has dismissed the "secularism of the JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) variety as "comical. it remains that they share certain core assumptions about Indian society. Perhaps such a state of affairs represents a true postmodernist "blurring of genres" within academia." it is not clear if such exercises contribute anything towards understanding the current political and social climate of India. suggests itself as the answer to contemporary problems. and more effort is expended on attempting to understand "what might have been. real historical events are conceptualized as somehow being outside history. Carr called "parlour-games with mighthave-beens "75 can be an interesting "mental experiment. 76 Nandy's views notwithstanding. In the final analysis." In fact. This is not to suggest that British colonial rule in India represented the culmination of unavoidable structural transformations or the "laws of social evolutionism. If only such historical process had not come to pass. institutional.
Ibid.. Caste and Family. after all the other humiliations it has visited. presumably. Owens and Nandy. . Ibid. decultured people" to explain the communal violence. 160. 383-417. 1 (1991). Notes . 34-35. Owens and Ashis Nandy. 8. Seminar. 160-161. Traditions. p. unreactive agency impossible.." and his observation that it will prove to be a final victory for imperialism if. 1977). "77 one can only hope that the project of a sociology of some Indian intellectuals who are truly colonized and have indeed succumbed to the "imperialism of categories" is already underway somewhere. pp. 6. no. p. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism (Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1992. 165. "The Reproduction of Inequality: Occupation. The New Vaisyas (Bombay: Allied. 1983). "The Myth of the PostmodemistBreakthrough. 169. 152. 7s seems to provide an apt starting point for making sense of the tendency amongst some intellectuals for substituting an all too easy anti-colonial rhetoric for more sustained and rigorous analysis. pp. Ibid. self-criticism and free.. no.. 14. the philosopher Akeel Bilgrami's critique of some intellectuals' "neurotic obsession with the Western and colonial determination of their present condition. For recent studies of the politics of area studies research in the United States. Ibid. 4. . The New Vaisyas. 17. vol 26 (1973). 11. Ashis Nandy." Triquarterly. 25. As for Nandy's use of. and his gratuitous attempt to inject red blood cells into the veins of those whom he dismisses as "anaemic academic secularists. p. p. it lingers in our psyches and makes genuine self-understanding. 12. ." Contributions to Indian Sociology. pp. Ibid. see Arturo Escobar. Tyranny and Utopias: Essays in the Politics of Awareness (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ibid. 166. pp. Gerald Graff. June. 15. . vol. Ibid. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking .. . 394.339 variety of secularism. 9. 196-197. 1987). pp. Andr6 Beteille. non-selfreferential concepts like "uprooted. Raymond L. 16. p. In general. p.. 13. 176. 10. Ashis Nandy.
IbM. "An Anti-Secularist Manifesto. 30. 26. pp. 7. p. no. 27. Ashis Nandy." Seminar.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 3 (1986). 32. 815-854. Ashis Nandy. no. Ronald Inden. . Ashis Nandy.340 16. "Ramayana and Political Imagination in India. "The Politics of Indian Secularism. 25. Veena Das. Donald Fisher. 1950-1970 (Delhi: Oxford University Press. N. 13. p. For a critique if Inden. 1994). George Rosen. 26. see Aijaz Ahmad. 750. Gopal." Modern Asian Studies. no. October (1987). pp. 50-51. pp. Science. June (1992)." Nandy. 18. T. Vincente L. 1992). 101-116. "Secularism in its Place. Western Economists and Eastern Societies: Agents of Change in South Asia. 1988). Nandy. 1989). "Difference and Division as Designs for Life. The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press. vol. 1990)." p. Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1 (1992). 29." Seminar. D. Imagining India (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. "Orientalist Constructions of India. pp. "Secularism. Madan.. 34. Gopal. pp.'" Seminar. vol. 1992). In Theory: Classes. October (1985). 28." Journal of Asian Studies. Aijaz Abroad. Rafael." p. 41 (1994)." in Carla Borden ed. no. 4 (1992). 49." Journal of Asian Studies. Ronald Inden. 261-297. Gods on Earth: The Management of Religious Experience and Identity in a North Indian Pilgrimage Centre (London: Athlone Press. Nandy. vol. "Review of S. Sheldon Pollock. "Between Orientalism and Historicism: Anthropological Knowledge of India. "Secularism in its Place. Ashis Nandy. vol. 1992). 21. "The Sociology of Sati. 24. June (1992). 91-112. "Review of S. 1988). Nations and Literatures (New York: Verso. "Secularism. 196-197." Studies in History. 20. Harsh Sethi. 52. 19. Nature. vol. 747-759. Contemporary Indian Tradition: Voices on Culture." See Chris Fuller. 1992). 2 (1993). 5. For an incisive discussion of the politics of secularism in India. p. 33.C. 22. pp. Peter van der Veer. "Science. pp. 31. 0. of the Third Worm (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 23. "The Cultures of Area Studies in the United States. and the Challenge of Change (Washington. "Anatomy of a Confrontation. 4 (1987). vol. The Intimate Enemy. Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hegemony and Violence. Sethi. IbM. Madan." Indian Express. no. 13. 17. T. N. Ibid. 46. vol. 30. see Prakash Chandra Upadhyaya." Social Text." Modern Asian Studies.
pp." Ibid. vol. 49. "Why Theorize?. see E. 2 (1987). p. Ibid." Current Perspectives in Social Theory. no. 1992). 36. 140-159. 40. no. Partha Chatterjee." Ethnic and Racial Studies. "Ayodhya and Somnath: Eternal Shrines. Hindus and Others: The Question of Identity in India Today (New Delhi: Viking. "The Indispensable Centre: Ethnicity and Politics in the Nation State. "History and the Nationalization of Hinduism. pp. Contested Histories. "Difference and Division. Utopias in 39. pp. . 37. 46. "The varnasrama syndrome of Indian sociology. 4 (1990). 45. Gods on Earth. 53.." Social Research. "Difference and Division. 1 (1992). 1 (1992). "Which of us are Hindus?" and Akeel Bilgrami. A. no. S. 20.. no. ix-xii. Peter van der Veer. p." Theory and Society. 41. 283-303." Contributions to Indian Sociology. Ainslie T. "Colonialism and ethnogenesis: A study of Kerala. 281-298. 46. Ibid. 52. 43. Susana Devalle. pp. p.59. no. "Difference and Division. /bid.. 38.. 521539. For a critique see Daya Krishna. Anatomy of a Confrontation: The Babri MasjidRamjanambhoomi Issue (Delhi: Penguin. 11 (1991). 2 (1987). no. "Review of S. no. pp. 85-110." The term "career capital. 111-150. 45-46. Das. "What is a Muslim? Fundamental Commitment and Cultural Identity. 1993)." comes from Ben Agger. Sethi. see Prema Kurien. Coughlan. Other prominent discussions on the topic include: Gyanendra Pandey. Gopal. Boundaries and Identities: Work and Status in Aligarh (New Delhi: Sage. Discourses of Ethnicity: Culture and Protest in Jharkhand (New Delhi: Sage. Arthur Helweg.. no. 46. pp. pp. vol. "Review of S. Das." both in Gyanendra Pandey ed. Gopal. vol. 56. 26. p.. 23. vol." p. 758. vol. Gopal ed. 2 (1993). 21. 2 (1992). "God Must be Liberated! A Hindu Liberation Movement in Ayodhya. vol. pp. "India's Sikhs: Problems and Prospects. 59. vol. 46. 51. "The Poverty of Primordialism: the Demystification of Ethnic Attachments. 47.51 Ibid. Ibid. 44. "Secularism in its Place. Madan. Sethi. 48. Das.." obviously inspired by Bourdieu's concept of "cultural capital. vol. 46. Jack David Eller and Reed M. 16." Dipankar Gupta. For an empirically based critique of the idea of a homogenous Muslim community in India. pp." Social Research. For a discussion of the impact of changing structural and political context on the salience of ethnic identity. 17." pp. Ibid. pp. 52." Journal of Contemporary Asia." Journal of Contemporary Asia. India. 42. Mann.341 35." p. 385-418. pp. 1992). 3 (1994)." Modern Asian Studies. 1992). 49. 52. 183-202. vol. 50.. Embree.
Ibid. 55. Michael Moffat. McKim Marriott ed. 35-78. no. Hindus and Others: The Question of Identity in India Today (Delhi: Viking. 58. 1990). vol." Contributions to Indian Sociology. 307-338. 2 (1990). vol. 62. see Syed Farid Alatas. "Women on the March: Right Wing Mobilization in Contemporary India. W. Ibid. 1." Theory and Society. 40." Alternatives." Representations vol. 91. 1992. 63. Sharma. no. K. 26. p. "In Defense of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu-Muslim Riots in India Today. 59..." Comparative Civilizations Review. quoted in Arthur Max. Beteille." Contributions to Indian Sociology. 1. "In Defense of the Fragment. Gyanendra Pandey ed." Contributions to Indian Sociology. Ibid. 66. pp. Sucheta Mazumdar. no. pp. "Gender and Communal Riots. 2522-2524. . 1980). 68. Shah.. 1 (1990). 24. Pandey. 25. no. 47 (1992). and "A Khaldunian Perspective on the Dynamics of Asiatic Societies. 1993). "For a Sociology of India. 64. vol. vol. 27-55. 2 (1990). pp. Conflict: Religion and Nationalism in Modern India (Berkeley: University of California Press. 18. 1 (1989). 29 (1993). India 1988-1993. 23. "Why Local Riots are not Simply Local: Collective Violence and the State of Bijnor. McKim Marriott." Economic and Political Weekly. 57. vol. vol 24. N. pp. Madan. p. no. C. "Deconstructing McKim MarrioR's Etlmosociology: an Outcaste's Critique." Feminist Review. 27. Bailey. pp. December 8. B. F. Aparnu Basu. "On the Indigenization of Academic Discourse. 56. 7.3 (1959). 24 (1995). vol. pp. "Constructing an Indian ethnosociology. 69. Madan. Mills." Contributions to Indian Sociology. Derek Sayer. "The Reproduction of Inequality. 3 (1993). pp." The Globe and Mail (Toronto). 1-28. India Through Hindu Categories (New Delhi: Sage. Ibid. 11. 1987). 61. p. "Western Sociology with Indian Icing. Ibid. 1 (1957). vol. 65. For a sensitive discussion that does not lapse into nativism. pp.342 54. Louis Dumont and David Pocock. p. The Violence of Abstraction: The Analytic Foundations of Historical Materialism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ibid. vol. vol. T. Ashis Nandy.1. 29-51. 49 (1995). 37 (1992). G. 0. 91. p. 14. p." p. "Editorial: Change of Guard. p. 1-40. 70." Contributions to Indian Sociology. 88. 32. 71.. "Editorial.." p. no. 44. N.. pp." p. 251-258.. 9. The Sociological Imagination (Hamondsworth: Penguin. 72. 1990). no. "For a Sociology of India?. Gyanendra Pandey. vol. "Culture of Violence Source of Bloodletting. pp." Contributions to Indian Sociology. 215-236. Mehta and T. 7. p.
"What is a Muslim?" 74. Mirrors of Violence: Communities. p. Nandy. 72." India Today. quoted in Geoffrey Hawthorn. December 4. Plausible Worlds: Possibility and Understanding in History and the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. 69. "The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance. P. H. 78. E. Thompson. pp. 30. 76. 3. "In the Gentleman's Cause: The Irish Layer in the Silences of Edmund Burke. Riots and Survivors in South Asia (Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ashis Nandy. Bilgrami. E. Cart." in Veena Das ed. 77." The Times Literary Supplement. 1992. June (1992). Ashis Nandy. 61-62. "Secularism. 75. 1991. p. p. 1991). . 1990).343 73." Seminar. "Cross-Fire: Discussion on Secularism. May 15.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.