Preface

The opening line of the Wikipedia entry on Indology reads thus:

Indology is a name given by indologists to the academic study of the history, languages, and cultures of South Asia.

Which only reinforces the India-as-South-East-Asia stereotype, a veil that serves very useful political purposes. Among others, it helps to keep people like Pankaj Mishra, Arundhati Roy, and others in business. But that’s beyond the scope of this entry.

I don’t imply that Wikipedia has indulged in stereotyping but simply took the entry as an example of an academic discipline gone horribly haywire.

Introduction

Indology as a separate discipline of academic study–not in its present form–roughly began when the Europeans discovered Sanskrit. In its introduction to the First Indologists, this site says:

It was Pope Honorius IV (1286-87 A.D.) who first encouraged the study of oriental languages as an aid to missionary work. Soon after, the Ecumenical Council of Vienna (1311-12 A.D.) decided that “the Holy Church should have an abundant number of Catholics well versed in the languages, especially in those of the infidels, so as to be able to instruct them in the sacred doctrine.”

The motivation and approach of the Western academia towards this subject has more or less been the same over 800-plus years. The scope, material, scholars, and research has witnessed exponential growth over this period, but I repeat, the motivation remains the same. More on this as we go along.

The Pioneers

Variously called Sanskrit studies, Vedic studies, and Indian philosophy, Indology was, roughly speaking, pioneered by William Jones, better known as a linguist. He mastered Sanskrit and translated several Sanskrit works into English. Yet, he described the Bhagavata Purana as a “motley story,” and asserted that the Hindu society had been inert for so long that in beholding the Hindus of the present day, we are beholding the Hindus of many ages past.

Then there’s of course, everybody’s favourite whipping boy, Lord Maculay who contributed nothing specific to Indology but gained infamy for disconnecting several generations of India with her past with this infamous schooling system. For a scholarly perspective on Maculay’s exact role in Indian education, see this article by Koenraad Elst.

Perhaps the only scholar who devoted nearly his entire life to studying Sanatana Dharma is Max Mueller. His influence was so pervasive during his own lifetime that a whole array of academics and others quoted him copiously to bolster their work. Dr. Radhakrishnan also figures in that list. Mueller’s Sacred Books of the East enjoyed a cult-like status. The assumption for this almost-blind endorsement of Mueller was the acceptance of the (supposed) superiority of Western scholarship. Yet Mueller wasn’t really as lofty as he was made out to be. In a letter to the Duke of Orgoil he says:

The ancient religion of India is totally doomed and if Christianity doesn’t step in whose fault will it be.

And in a letter to his wife, he notes:

I hope I shall finish that work and feel convinced that though I shall not live to see it, yet this edition of mine and translation of Vedas will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of the souls in this country…. It [Veda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has been sprung from it during the last three thousand years

This from a man who (outwardly) so exhibited a sacred passion for India and her glorious civilization. In a way, Mueller laid down the blueprint for Indic scholars of posterity. Michael Witzel is an over zealous, present-day adherent. Only, he lacks Mueller’s subtlety. Few notable exceptions exist, however.

What is common among all these scholars is either their inability to comprehend Sanatana Dharma or a fundamentalist zeal to convert (or destroy) anything that does not conform to their worldview.

Part 2: Sanskrit and Deliberate Distortion