Recently, there was a heated debate on ‘Caste’ and ‘Race’ after a conference in Chennai held in January 2010. Due to miscommunication and lack of understanding, a few speakers were accused of promoting ‘casteism’, etc. Some individuals, who never participated in the full-day conference, only observed (or listened) partially, made some comments and statements, and left without having time for further questions and clarifications. As they had other important commitments, they could not stay for the entire meeting. Whether everyone is satisfied or not with the responses, finally, an opportunity was given to ask questions and get responses in an evening session.
People who came halfway through the meeting and who left in the middle, for various reasons, not only received wrong information but also likely spread it. This is not going to affect the speakers much, as they are not responsible for this.
But what is more important is the way they began to write and criticize the views of the speakers in the name of ‘scholarship’. As I am not a scholar, I observed one disturbing trend among some scholars. They fix a thesis first and try to fit everything—texts, references, historical facts, interpretation, etc., within that frame. The immediate victim of this process, apart from truth, is ‘texts and history’. Of course, no one can avoid this trap. But a true scholar, after using (or misusing) all the material for their thesis, has to read and even refer to the counter-argument. Only then can they arrive at a right conclusion about their thesis. Even if they are not convinced about the counter-argument of their interpretation, at least they should refer to them to show that they are not using the materials without considering their counter-argument. This is one of the two important marks of scholarship.
The next is, I think a scholar is one who has done research after reading the original source rather than reading others’ works on the original. For example, a Manu scholar should have read the original text in Sanskrit and various other manuscripts to have firsthand information about them. Others, however much they might have read all the books under the sun about Manusmriti, are only learners and students. Of course, they can write whatever they want about Manu, but they should refrain from thinking themselves as scholars.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 20, 2010
Recently, there was a heated debate on ‘Caste’ and ‘Race’ after a conference in Chennai held in January 2010. Due to miscommunication and lack of understanding, a few speakers were accused of promoting ‘casteism’, etc. Some individuals, who never participated in the full-day conference, only observed (or listened) partially, made some comments and statements, and left without having time for further questions and clarifications. As they had other important commitments, they could not stay for the entire meeting. Whether everyone is satisfied or not with the responses, finally, an opportunity was given to ask questions and get responses in an evening session.
People who came halfway through the meeting and who left in the middle, for various reasons, not only received wrong information but also likely spread it. This is not going to affect the speakers much, as they are not responsible for this.
But what is more important is the way they began to write and criticize the views of the speakers in the name of ‘scholarship’. As I am not a scholar, I observed one disturbing trend among some scholars. They fix a thesis first and try to fit everything—texts, references, historical facts, interpretation, etc., within that frame. The immediate victim of this process, apart from truth, is ‘texts and history’. Of course, no one can avoid this trap. But a true scholar, after using (or misusing) all the material for their thesis, has to read and even refer to the counter-argument. Only then can they arrive at a right conclusion about their thesis. Even if they are not convinced about the counter-argument of their interpretation, at least they should refer to them to show that they are not using the materials without considering their counter-argument. This is one of the two important marks of scholarship.
The next is, I think a scholar is one who has done research after reading the original source rather than reading others’ works on the original. For example, a Manu scholar should have read the original text in Sanskrit and various other manuscripts to have firsthand information about them. Others, however much they might have read all the books under the sun about Manusmriti, are only learners and students. Of course, they can write whatever they want about Manu, but they should refrain from thinking themselves as scholars.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 20, 2010
Leave a Reply