Related Columns:

In Response To Rajiv Malhotra's Column by Shankar Vedantam

Washington Post and Hinduphobia by Rajiv Malhotra 

There have been strong protests against Washington Post's Hinduphobic article that appeared two weeks ago [1]. The Post's journalist, Mr. Shankar Vedantam, has tried in vain to do corporate damage control. (See comments-1 and comments-2 .) While it may be a positive indication that his superiors are taking the matter seriously, the real issues at stake continue to be ignored by the Post. Furthermore, it is disturbing that the Post has not published the counter positions submitted to it by individuals and groups directly involved in the matter.

Therefore, I pose the following set of challenges to Washington Post, asking it to rise to the standards of journalism commensurate with its reputation.

Challenge #1: Stop spreading Hinduphobia by combining unrelated data:

Mr. Vedantam claimed that he was doing an investigative report on the controversy surrounding Paul Courtright's scholarly book about the Hindu deity Ganesha. The book contains many fabrications, such as Courtright's claims that Ganesha's trunk represents a “limp phallus” so that Ganesha would not have sex with his mother, Parvati, in competition with the “hard penis” of his father, Shiva.

Unfortunately, Mr. Vedantam places the central issue of Hindus' frustrations at Courtright's distortions in an entirely different light. He manages to combine unrelated and random “allegations” to deflect from the real issue, and to falsely convey the impression that all Hindus who complain are militants.

To achieve this distorted “framing” of the story, he starts with several unproven “violent threats” to depict the scholars as “victims.”

Furthermore, he brings in an unrelated controversy concerning a different book involving an entirely different set of issues (not about Hinduism at all), i.e. a book by Prof. Laine concerning a 17th century ruler in India. He conflates the violence of that incident with the debates surrounding the Courtright book, even though there is no connection whatsoever, except in the minds of Hinduphobics.

Mr. Vedantam further confuses my stances concerning India's geopolitical matters with my critiques of academic works by certain scholars of Hinduism. He uses my views on the former to claim that I am engaged in PR in the latter, thereby undermining the seriousness of my critical charge.

Mr. Vedantam ignores the fact that Hinduism is a vibrant American minority religion whose discourse must be re-imagined and reengaged in the context of American multiculturalism.

Challenge #2: Stop sensationalizing unsubstantiated claims:

Mr. Vedantam starts off by listing alleged “violent threats” made on the internet by Hindus against the scholars. However, the sites where these were posted do not authenticate the person's true identity – a common practice on the internet. People routinely use false names and geographical locations on the internet. Furthermore, it has been suggested by many that these alleged “threats” may well have been posted by Courtright's team wanting to derail the petition and show him as a “victim.” Finally, there is no way for Mr. Vedantam to ascertain that a given post was written by a Hindu per se.

Mr. Vedantam presented these allegations as hard facts without bothering to verify them. Since his entire story is framed around these unsubstantiated “threats,” his article is inflammatory in dangerous ways.

The only legitimate statement about these so-called “threats” that a responsible newspaper should have printed would have been something along the following lines: A small handful of “threats” were posted by anonymous person(s) who adopted Hindu identities and who claimed to be located in various parts of the world. But there is no way to authenticate any of these. Furthermore, it has been alleged that these could have been posted by Courtright's supporters to derail the petition and to portray him as a “victim.” The journalist was unable to verify either side's assertions.

Out of thousands of signatures on the petition, only a small number were egregious, and these few were condemned by all individuals and organizations involved in the petition. But let this not become an opportunity to detract from the legitimacy of the concerns and outrage over Courtright's book.

In sharp contrast to the way he gives Courtright the benefit of doubt of being a “victim,” he refuses to even mention Wendy Doniger's telling statement, as quoted in the Philadelphia Enquirer that “the Gita is a dishonest book.”

How are the Post's readers expected to evaluate the “reaction” of the Hindus when they are not told what exactly Doniger said to provoke them? Mr. Vedantam camouflages Doniger's denigration of the Gita and many other hate-ridden statements by dignifying her work as an “academic” and “scholarly” use of “Freudian psychoanalysis” of Hindu texts and symbols. The reader is left to imagine that a bunch of irrational, uninformed, and emotionally charged Hindus are ganging up on a scholar.

Even if Doniger denies saying these words, the Philadelphia Enquirer, a credible newspaper, has not agreed to retract its story.

In deciding which claims are credible, Mr. Vedantam fails to apply consistent standards. Doniger's mere denial compels Mr. Vedantam to override the Philadelphia Enquirer's report without even calling the Enquirer's reporter to get his account. On the other hand, despite the Hindu community contesting the authenticity of anonymous internet “threats,” Mr. Vedantam blindly believes what Courtright told him. He always gives the Courtright/Doniger camp the overall benefit of doubt.

Challenge #3: Stop branding people in asymmetric and pejorative ways:

Mr. Vedantam labels the Hindu voices in ways to brand them with pejorative associations. He refers to Mr. Sanu as a “Hindu activist” and McGill's Prof. Arvind Sharma as a “practicing Hindu,” in an article that is lavishly sprinkled with terms such as “Hindutva”, militancy, violence, threats, and so forth. This is guilt-by-association and every journalist knows what that means. He also includes Doniger's ad hominems, calling me “ignorant” of her writings, without any basis or verification.

On the other hand, he fails to use comparable labeling of the side he supports. He fails to tag Vijay Prashad as a “communist activist” even though this is well-known publicly, based on Mr. Prashad's own writings. He fails to explain the Christian fundamentalist beliefs or the parochial backgrounds of important protagonists in this matter. This is inconsistent and is an asymmetric labeling of the voices involved.

Challenge #4: Stop ignoring the dispute over academic corruption:

Mr. Vedantam ignores the large number of severe criticisms of the work of Courtright/Doniger from within the academic community itself. My earlier rebuttal to his article lists some of the specific names of these critics, including those that I had referred him to during his “investigation.”

By ignoring them, especially those scholars who told him point-blank of specific instances of anti-Hindu bias in his telephone interviews, Mr. Vedantam conveys the impression that the complaints came only from “Hindu activists” and not from academic scholars, and from Indians and not from white persons. Both implications are untrue.

Challenge #5: Stop misinterpreting Hindu symbolism:

Unlike the history-centric institutionalized religions based on Abrahamic prophets, Hinduism's vast and diverse narratives are not seen by most Hindus as always describing literal history.

Disregarding such a key distinction, Mr. Vedantam explains Ganesha by using an obscure story as though it were literal history, and ignores how Hindus interpret Ganesha's symbolism in actual practice. He uses this history-centric interpretation as his cover to be able to claim “balanced” journalism.

Washington Post should conduct a survey of Hindus who worship Ganesha and ask them of Ganesha's significance to them. It will find that the vast majority do not see Ganesha even remotely along the lines of the particular story Mr. Vedantam used.

Mr. Vedantam then tries to rationalize Courtright's claim as legitimate “scholarship” and caricaturizes the Hindu protesters as being “emotionally” offended without intellectual basis.

Challenge #6: Provide readers the facts about academic bias:

While Mr. Sankrant Sanu's article contained many proofs of Encarta's biases against Hinduism which convinced Microsoft to remove Doniger as the author for its Hinduism section, Mr. Vedantam fails to use any of these examples to demonstrate the strength of Mr. Sanu's critique. Instead, he concludes with a Doniger quote which implies that there was racial bias since her name is not Sharma.

It is telling that Wendy Doniger is defended not on the basis of her positions but through attacking those who raise objections to her scholarship.

A point-by-point rebuttal of Courtright's Ganesha thesis that has been widely discussed on the internet is simply ignored by Mr. Vedantam, even though this thesis is at the center of the controversy under discussion. (See rebuttal.)

Furthermore, Mr. Vedantam completely ignores the diaspora group of corporate executives, entrepreneurs and academicians, called “The Concerned Community,” and their on-going meetings and debates with Emory University's Dean and the Chair of South Asian Studies. Here is what one of dozens of angry comments against Mr. Vedantam on Sulekha had to say in this regard:

“Dear Mr. Vedantam - My father was involved with the group in Atlanta that you stated asked Courtright to be fired. I have a few questions: Why did you not contact that group? Did you see their original letter (it did not ask that he be fired, though it was strongly worded)? Did you know that they in fact had a meeting with Emory officials in February well before your article was published that was conducted in a civilized and rationale way? ...Your article gives the impression that there were no Hindus who had any kind of productive debate with Emory. While of course you owe no explanation to me, you will surely understand that these type of omissions breed suspicion on the part of the Hindu community.”

Challenge #7: Stop ignoring the relevant comparables:

While using plenty of irrelevant and misleading data to frame the article, Mr. Vedantam fails to make the comparisons that would have been directly relevant and insightful. For instance, there have been recent protests by Indian Muslims of denigration and these have received sympathetic media treatment. (See examples of Taslima Nasreen's autobiography and M.F. Hussein's movie.) There have been numerous instances where Christians have complained against pejoratives, but these controversies have not been turned into hatchet jobs by journalists bent on showing dissenters as “dangerous” people. (See example of recent Virgin Mary film controversy.)

In labeling my work as PR, Mr. Vedantam fails to consider the examples of many American groups that do positive cultural projection for minority identities, such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Jewish, Arab, Muslim, etc.

Challenge #8: Understand the sepoys' conflicts-of-interests:

Washington Post must become savvy about understanding the large number of neocolonized Indian writers, and must not confuse these Uncle Toms as being authentic voices of Indian culture.

Uncle Toms (or “sepoys”) play to the galleries to impress their fellow-sepoys and sepoys-in-training at organizations such as SAJA. They do not produce writings at Washington Post's standard of journalism.

The Post should be wary of Indian writers who are in the habit of dishing out the negative stereotypes which are easy to sell in the American market. It should not assume that an ethnic name implies competence in that culture. To become aware of the sepoy syndrome, a good starting point would be Richard Crasta's courageous book explaining this phenomenon. [2]"

The history and dynamics behind this inferiority complex is a major untold story in its own right.

Challenge #9: Educate the journalists and readers about Hinduphobia:

Although Hindus form the bulwark of American professionals in healthcare, information technology and other critical fields, far greater in proportion to their numbers, governmental or ceremonial recognition of America's religious pluralism seldom includes Hinduism positively on par with other minority religions. Furthermore, the little information that makes it to the general public is often reworked distortions of Hindu beliefs and practices.

Given the seriousness of America's growing Hinduphobia, Washington Post must review the research data available on the prevailing stigmas against Hinduism in America, and should also conduct further surveys amongst its own readers (and its journalists and editors) to gain a better insight into the level of misinformation that exists even amongst well-educated Americans.

This would enable it to better strategize its own portrayal of Hindu American culture, and to avoid inadvertently fueling more hate crimes similar to the Dotbusters.

Given the emerging global role of India, Washington Post should also bear in mind that Hinduphobic journalism could mis-educate Washington's policymakers.

Challenge #10: Give dissenters equal coverage in the Post: Washington Post should avoid deflecting the outrage by printing letters only from Indians who have had no involvement or familiarity with the dispute over the past many months. Rather, it should provide adequate coverage to the opposing points of view, such as those represented in this column.

The Post should stop ignoring emails and letters it has received from me and others who have specific counter positions to Mr. Vedantam's depictions.

ENDNOTES:

[1] “Wrath Over a Hindu God: U.S. Scholars' Writings Draw Threats From Faithful,” by Shankar Vedantam (April 10, 2004).
[2] “Impressing the Whites: The New International Slavery, by Richard Crasta.