Since the early 1990s quite a few Indian and Western scholars have written about the rise of religious nationalism including excellent books by Christopher Jeffrelot, Arvind Rajagopal, Partha Chatterjee, Chetan Bhatt, Thomas Hansen, Sikata Banerjee, Yogendra Malik to name a few. This is not a lightweight list though these scholars are not household names like Nussbaum. Nussbaum, unfortunately, lumps these politically and philosophically diverse works into one footnote and barely refers to them in building her own arguments.

In one chapter, she examines the ideas and legacies of Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Rabindranath Tagore. Primarily using second-hand exegeses, Nussbaum paints a facile picture of the three men, writing more at a level of a graduate student term paper than a scholar of international reputation. She briefly interviews BJP and RSS leaders (40 minutes in the case of Arun Shourie whom she harshly criticises) and then provides pages of what reads like psychological insights. There lies the danger of moving from ancient Greek philosophy, a scholarly area in which Nussbaum specialises, to writing about contemporary politics in India.

Nussbaum asks, at the end of the book, what can be done to change the course of the virulent nationalism that has gripped India and in fostering liberal democracy. She herself has little in answers except to encourage the teaching of Arts in India’s educational system. While Arts and Humanities have been treated as ‘second class’ in our schools, the solution Nussbaum presents is hardly adequate. Germany and Italy’s rise to fascism was also coupled with an equal zealotry for European arts. United States has some of the most expansive museums in the world (and some of the biggest patrons of Arts) but it hasn’t stopped the militarisation of that nation.

All this is not to say that the book has no merits. Nussbaum provides a scathing critique of Narendra Modi’s policies in Gujarat and describes how Indian voters, angered by the BJP’s pro-rich economic policies and anti-Muslim violence, voted it out of power in 2004 elections. The chapter on the Indian diaspora which pours millions of dollars into funding the Hindutva movement is particularly thought-provoking. The book is at its strongest when Nussbaum tackles issues of gender including an analysis of the Shah Bano case, a Uniform Civil Code, and the fear of emasculation among upper-caste Hindu men.

The Clash Within could be worth a read for someone who is completely unfamiliar with the vast literature on Indian nationalism but for those who are looking for a more historically nuanced reading or a new interpretation, the book has little to offer.

This is just a stereotype of science. In reality, controversies do arise in science. The controversies die only when enough experimental evidence is collected.

There is no analog of experimental evidence in the humanities. So controversies in history never die out.

Another disadvantage that humantities’ researchers have is that their publications can be used to form political ideologies. Nussbaum’s views are helpful to left-of-center parties. So she comes across as a left-of-center ideologue. Here is another way of looking at it: What is the dividing line between a professor of history publishing a thesis and a newspaper columnist writing an left-wing op-ed article?

I think Nussbaum’s project is rooted in a similar desire–to root out the absurdities that people believe. I’m surprised at the ignorance that passes for knowledge on this discussion board. I’ve been following the posts pretty carefully and thought I’d put my $0.02 after the furor had died away. I am bothered by the personal attacks that are usually leveled against anyone who tries to offer a nuanced understanding of the situation.

A real discussion of this article would center around:

The real “clash of civilizations” is not between “Islam” and “the West,” but instead within virtually all modern nations — between people who are prepared to live on terms of equal respect with others who are different, and those who seek the protection of homogeneity and the domination of a single “pure” religious and ethnic tradition.

Hardly anyone referenced this paragraph, which is the real crux of her argument. This is the lesson which Nussbaum feels America needs to learn from the Indian example. And really, it’s not just about these two countries. As indicated in the quote from her article, this is a problem being experienced by many countries in the world.

When I was an undergrad, I had a professor Ron Takaki who wrote a history of America called “A Different Mirror”. It was his attempt to offer a version of American history that took into consideration contributions made by immigrants and minorities. And he’s laughed off by religious conservatives… why? Because he offers a nuanced understanding which goes against their vision of America being founded in Christianity.

So, while many of you would consider yourselves liberals and fully support Takaki in the face of religious extremism in America… you deride Nussbaum with insults like ‘western-trained’ and call her unknowledgable about India. Do you get my point? She’s doing the exact same thing over there that Takaki is doing here.

You can’t be for minority rights here and then turn around and say that “Muslims get too much” in India, esp. in the face of a mountain of evidence that shows that Muslims are disadvantaged minority in India.

Although I am Indian, I grew up in Fiji. In the country of my birth, Indians are victims of a right-wing ideology which tells followers that God has bestowed the land to the indigenous of Fiji, that it is only their right to govern, etc. etc. A simplified history has been constructed which doesn’t reflect reality and only confirms one thing in the minds of indigenous believers: the Indian is an outsider.

I knew a guy named Vivek in undergrad (sounds a great deal like the Vivek who posted above). Great guy… excellent researcher in the biological sciences… med school at UCSF… blah blah blah. But, the ignorance he spewed when he started talking about the history of India was amazing. Every introductory or survey history course he took, he battled the professors saying they were biased westerners. What I don’t get is how such smart people could believe such COMPLETE falsities? The answer is quite simple: Education.

While most of you out there have mastered education in the sciences and engineering, your exposure to a humanities curriculum has been minimal. This is another point Nussbaum was stressing. Why does education matter so much? I think an education in the sciences leads to an understanding of a certain kind of world-view, filled with certainties: the hypothesis is either true or false. There are binaries, the circuit is either I or O. Exposure to humanities lets people understand that there are not always answers and that to get answers sometimes, a nuanced understanding is in order.

This is usually where right-wing types have jumped all over me and accused me of denying all sorts of unpleasantries in the history of India. This is another absurity that people believe. There is no conspiracy out there to discredit Hinduism (I think our ignorance brings enough shame to our faith).

I’m sorry. I will always fight for a nuanced version of Indian history (what’s been referred to as ‘western propoganda’ on this site). If you guys had bothered to sit in on these classes while you were in undergrad, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.

These histories so important? Otherwise, people will believe all sorts of absurdities.