Many thanks to JK for bringing this piece to my notice.

In this grand play, article, Shankar Vedantam sympathizes with some leading lights in the Hinduism studies (sorry, South Asian Studies) department in several universities in the US. To generate sympathy, one must have suffered injustice. The injustice must definitely have been done by a person/group/organization/nation. In this play, therefore, the recipient(s) of the injustice are chiefly, a professor named Wendy Doniger, and Paul Courtright. I’d like to equate Wendy Doniger with our own High Priestess of Marxism, Romila Thapar. Although Doniger lacks the guts to fib in the way Thapar does, she has so far managed to do so ever-so-subtly.

Shankar Vedantam shares Courtright’s sorrows. Paul Courtright in all his eminence applied a lot of thoughtful psychoanalysis to Lord Ganesha and presented his diagnosis. Ganesha it seems, suffers from a terrible sexual disease: his craving for sweets is somehow linked to a craving for oral sex and his trunk is compared to a limp phallus. Now, when millions of Hindus scream murder at this ghastly, insulting portrayal, Courtright is aghast. Like a good doctor, he has analyzed Ganesha’s psychological condition, even received rave reviews for his work… now, why is he being proved wrong, meeting with such hostility? Yes, Shankar assures him, it is them fanatics, the Hindutva bigots, murderers and zealots.

But let’s see what the matter is…

Detecting provocative Oedipal overtones in Ganesha’s story…

Detecting some symptom where there is none, contriving a problem where none exists, you write as you please of course, all in the correct academic language and present it as a work of monumental scholarship. Since I’m zero in this area, I’d like a few questions: is it acceptable to use psychoanalysis while studying religion? If so, what are the acceptable methods used, what are the premisses, assumptions, etc? Does the use of psychoanalysis in studying religion apply to all religions, or does it apply only to select religions? Courtright may write whatever he wants, but if his descriptions are insulting to a God revered by millions, he should be prepared to face a backlash. Suppose I write a book tomorrow where I use psychoanalysis and then conclude that Jesus Christ was a psychopath and that’s why he condemned the Jews while preaching love to everyone else? How should I react when my book is condemned precisely because my conclusion and my assumptions/premisses are false? Oh! But I’ll just hire Shankar Vedantam!

The attacks against American scholars come as a powerful movement called Hindutva has gained political power in India…

I don’t get this. “Hindutva” has gained political power? What are you talking about? If you mean the BJP as the largest stakeholder of the NDA government, then you are: a) Lying or B) A Nitwit. If anything, the BJP has all along cleverly managed to keep together its 20 odd supporters, severely mindful of the earlier AIADMK-related trouble. Forget the “frightening” Hindutva our secularists talk about, it hasn’t even been able to fulfill its main promise: of building the Ram temple at Ayodhya. On the other hand, let’s go along with Shankar’s hypothesis. Imagine if Hindutva had not gained political power. Would you then conclude that the outrage against Courtright would not have occurred? Would the people then remain silent, swallowing this insult to their God?

Western authors are imposing a Eurocentric world view on a culture they do not understand.

Which is eminently true! A simple example, before we see other evidences that support the Eurocentrism theory: most Westerners even today call Lord Krishna as the “Dark God” of the Hindus and view his Rasa Lila as acts of debauchery. Now, anyone with a basic understanding of Krishna, his life, and deeds would simply laugh it off as ignorance. However, mischief creeps in when this very ignorance is presented in academically (and politically) correct language and passes off as scholarship. I’ll give the author the benefit of doubt of his ignorance about the real work done on Eurocentrism, and present the following, for starters:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/history_overview_frameset.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/search_frameset.htm

Doniger, a 63-year-old scholar at the center of many controversies, is distressed to see her field come under the sway of what she regards as zealots.

Ah! The High Priestess of Religious Studies. While Wendy Doniger complains about zealots, why doesn’t she reply to, and/or agree to participate in healthy academic debates that seek to settle the nagging issues forever? Why isn’t she able to defend a single critique directed against her? Applying labels doesn’t make the issue disappear. She is a respected (respectable?) scholar, a veteran, and should know that an argument can be won logically, if she only agrees to the invitation.

http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=239156
http://www.fixexpress.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305890

“Malhotra’s ignorant writings have stirred up more passionate emotions in Internet subscribers who know even less than Malhotra does, who do not read books at all,” Doniger wrote in an e-mail.

Continuing, this lady lacks the courage to respond to invitations to debate, but writes so in private where she knows she’ll go unchallenged. I’ll grant her words about Malhotra’s ignorance. But why doesn’t she respond to Swami Tyagananda’s word-by-word critique of Kali’s Child?

I’ll be fair and look at the other side. It is true that Courtright has received several threats of physical violence, Doniger has had eggs thrown at her in conferences, and all that. Now that is something that I condemn. But I strongly do feel that if she people like her did agree to participate in debates, argue logically, and accepted their mistakes graciously, things wouldn’t have come to this pass.

But no, the reverse has happened precisely because she continues to defend (on really flimsy grounds) that she is right. Because she knows she’ll get support from thousands of people for various reasons. Several among these people also happen to be House Niggers.

One such House Nigger’s name happens to be Shankar Vedantam.