1210a, Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism, Vedic Science, Nanda, 2004-2

8/13/2019 1210a, Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism, Vedic Science, Nanda, 2004-2

1/15

Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science'

MEERA NANDA The mixing up of the mythos of the Vedas with the logos of science must be of great concern not just to thescientific community but also to the religious people for it is a distortion of both science and spirituality! "The firstpart of a two-part article from# http#$$www!mu%to&mona!com$Articles$'edic(science(Mira!htm)

The Vedas as books of science

*N +,,- the Vishwa .indu /arishad "V./) of the 0nited 1ingdom "0!1!) produced a slic% loo%ingboo% with many well&produced pictures of colourfully dressed men and women performing .induceremonies accompanied with warm fu22y and completely sanitised description of the faith! The boo%Explaining Hindu Dharma: A Guide for Teachers offers 3teaching suggestions for introducing .induideas and topics in the classroom3 at the middle to high school le'el in the 4ritish schools system! Theauthors and editors are all card&carrying members of the V./! The boo% is now in its second edition andgoing by the glowing re'iews on the bac%&co'er it seems to ha'e established itself as a much&usededucational resource in the 4ritish school system!

5hat 3teaching suggestions3 does this Guideoffer6 *t ad'ises 4ritish teachers to introduce .indudharma as 3just another name3 for 3eternal laws of nature3 first disco'ered by Vedic seers andsubse7uently confirmed by modern physics and biological sciences! After gi'ing a false but incredibly

smug account of mathematics physics astronomy medicine and e'olutionary theory contained in theVedic texts the Guideinstructs the teachers to present the Vedic scriptures as 3not just old religiousboo%s but as boo%s which contain many true scientific facts!!! these ancient scriptures of the Hindus canbe treated as scientific texts3 "emphasis added)! All that modern science teaches us about the wor%ingsof nature can be found in the Vedas and all that the Vedas teach about the nature of matter god andhuman beings is affirmed by modern science! There is no conflict there are no contradictions! Modernscience and the Vedas are simply 3different names for the same truth3!

This is the image of .induism that the V./ and other .indut'a propagandists want to project aroundthe world! The 4ritish case is not an isolated example! 8imilar initiati'es to portray Vedic&Aryan *ndia asthe 3cradle3 of world ci'ilisation and science ha'e been launched in 9anada and the 0nited 8tates aswell! Many of these initiati'es are beneficiaries of the generous and politically correct policies of

multicultural education in these countries! 0nder the worthy cause of presenting the 3community:s3 own'iews about its culture many 5estern go'ernments are inad'ertently funding .indut'a:s propaganda!

1AMA; NARAN'er the last couple of decades a set of'ery fashionable supposedly 3radical3 criti7ues of modern science ha'e dominated the 5esternuni'ersities! These critical theories of science go under the label of 3postmodernism3 or 3social

constructi'ism3! These theories see modern science as an essentially 5estern masculine andimperialistic way of ac7uiring %nowledge! *ntellectuals of *ndian origin many of them li'ing and wor%ing inthe 5est ha'e played a lead role in de'elopment of postmodernist criti7ues of modern science as asource of colonial 3'iolence3 against non&5estern ways of %nowing!

*n this two&part essay * will examine how this postmodernist left has pro'ided philosophicalarguments for .indut'a:s claim that Vedas are 3just another name3 for modern science! As we will seepostmodernist attac%s on objecti'e and uni'ersal %nowledge ha'e played straight into .indu nationalistslogan of all perspecti'es being e7ually true & within their own context and at their own le'el! The resultis the loud & but false & claims of finding a tradition of empirical science in the spiritual teachings of theVedas and Vedanta! 8uch scientisation of the Vedas does nothing to actually promote an empirical andrational tradition in *ndia while it does an incalculable harm to the spiritual message of .induism:ssacred boo%s! The mixing up of the mythos of the Vedas with the logosof science must be of greatconcern not just to the scientific community but also to the religious people for it is a distortion of bothscience and spirituality!

*n order to understand how postmodern criti7ues of science con'erge with .indut'a:s celebration ofVedas&as&science let us follow the logic behind V./:s Guide for Teachers!

This Guideclaims that the ancient .indu scriptures contain 3many true scientific facts3 and therefore3can be treated as scientific texts3! ;et us see what these 3true scientific facts3 are! The prime exhibit isthe 3scientific affirmation3 of the theory of guna "8ans%rit for 7ualities or attributes)! ?ollowing theessential Vedantic idea that matter and spirit are not separate and distinct entities but rather the spiritualprinciple constitutes the 'ery fabric of the material world the theory of gunas teaches that matter exhibitsspiritual$moral 7ualities! There are three such 7ualities or gunas which are shared by all matter li'ing or

non&li'ing# the 7uality or gunaof purity and calmness see%ing higher %nowledge "sattvic) the 7uality orgunaof impurity dar%ness ignorance and inacti'ity "tamsic) and the 7uality or gunaof acti'ity curiosityworldly gain "raasic)! Modern atomic physics the V./:s Guideclaims has confirmed the presence ofthese 7ualities in nature! The e'idence6 /hysics shows that there are three atomic particles bearingpositi'e negati'e and neutral charges which correspond to the three gunas@ ?rom this 3scientific proof3of the existence of essentially spiritual$moral gunas in atoms the Guidegoes on to triumphantly deducethe 3scientific3 confirmation of the truths of all those Vedic sciences which use the concept of gunas "forexample Ayur'eda)! .a'ing 3demonstrated3 the scientific credentials of .induism the Guide boldlyad'ises 4ritish school teachers to instruct their students that there is 3no conflict3 between the eternallaws of dharmaand the laws disco'ered by modern science!


3/15

/ART. 8AN=A;

%n .olkata, astrolo$ers demonstratin$ a$ainst the /est Ben$al $o"ernment's decision not tointroduce astrolo$y as a subject in the &tate's uni"ersities- A file picture-

>ne of the most ludicrous mantras of .indut'a propaganda is that there is 3no conflict3 betweenmodern science and .induism! *n reality e'erything we %now about the wor%ings of nature through themethods of modern science radically disconfirms the presence of any morally significant gunas orsha!ti or any other form of consciousness in nature as taught by the Vedic cosmology which treatsnature as a manifestation of di'ine consciousness! ?ar from there being 3no conflict3 between scienceand .induism a scientific understanding of nature completely and radically negates the "eternal laws" ofHindu dharma which teach an identity between spirit and matter! That is precisely why the .indut'aapologists are so %een to tame modern science by reducing it to 3simply another name for the >neTruth3 & the 3one truth3 of Absolute 9onsciousness contained in .induism:s own classical texts!

*f .indu propagandists can go this far in 0!1! imagine their power in *ndia where they control the9entral go'ernment and its agencies for media education and research! This obsession for finding all%inds of science in all %inds of obscure .indu doctrines has been dictating the official educational policyof the 4haratiya Banata /arty e'er since it came to power nearly half a decade ago!

*ndeed the 4B/ go'ernment can teach a thing or two to the creation scientists in the 0!8!9reationists old and new are trying to smuggle in 9hristian dogma into secular schools in the 0!8! byredefining science in a way that allows


4/15

*n the rest of the culture miracles and superstitions of all %inds ha'e the blessings of influential publicfigures including elected Members of /arliament!

T.ERE are two %inds of claims that feed the notion that the 3Vedas are boo%s of science3! The first%ind declared the entire Vedic corpus as con'erging with modern science while the second concentrateson defending such esoteric practices as astrology vastu Ayur'eda transcendental meditation and so onas scientific within the Vedic paradigm! The first stream see%s to establish li%eness connections andcon'ergences between radically opposed ideas "gunatheory and atomic particles for example)! This

stream does not relati'ise science# it simply grabs whate'er theory of physics or biology may be popularwith 5estern scientists at any gi'en time and claims that .indu ideas are 3li%e that3 or 3mean the same3and 3therefore3 are perfectly modern and rational! The second stream is far more radical as it defendsthis 3method3 of drawing li%enesses and correspondences between unli%e entities as perfectly rationaland 3scientific3 within the non&dualistic Vedic world'iew! The second stream in other words relati'isesscientific method to dominant religious world'iews# it holds that the .indu style of thin%ing by analogiesand correspondences 3directly re'ealed to the mind:s eye3 is as scientific within the 3holistic3 world'iewof Vedic .induism as the analytical and experimental methodology of modern science is to the3reductionist3 world'iew of 8emitic religions! The relati'ist defence of eclecticism as a legitimate scientificmethod not only pro'ides a co'er for the first stream it also pro'ides a generic defence of suchemerging 3alternati'e sciences3 as 3Vedic physics3 and 3Vedic creationism3 as well as defending suchpseudo&sciences as Vedic astrology palmistry TM "transcendental meditation) and new&age Ayur'eda

"Deepa% 9hopra style)!*n what follows * will examine how postmodernist and social constructi'ist criti7ues of science ha'e

lent support to both streams of Vedas&as&science literature!

4ut first * must clarify what * mean by postmodernism!

/ostmodernism is a mood a disposition! The chief characteristic of the postmodernist disposition isthat it is opposed to the Enlightenment which is ta%en to be the core of modernism! >f course there isno simple characterisation of the Enlightenment any more than there is of postmodernism! A rough andready portrayal might go li%e this# Enlightenment is a general attitude fostered in the +th and +thcenturies on the heels of the 8cientific Re'olutionF it aims to replace superstition and authority oftraditions and established religions with critical reason represented abo'e all by the growth of modern

science! The Enlightenment project was based upon a hope that impro'ement in secular scientific%nowledge will lead to an impro'ement of the human condition not just materially but also ethically andculturally! 5hile the Enlightenment spirit flourished primarily in Europe and North America intellectualmo'ements in *ndia 9hina Bapan ;atin America Egypt and other parts of 5est Asia were alsoinfluenced by it! .owe'er the combined weight of colonialism and cultural nationalism thwarted theEnlightenment spirit in non&5estern societies!

/ostmodernists are disillusioned with this triumphalist 'iew of science dispelling ignorance andma%ing the world a better place! Their despair leads them to 7uestion the possibility of progress towardsome uni'ersal truth that e'eryone e'erywhere must accept! Against the Enlightenment:s faith in suchuni'ersal 3meta&narrati'es3 ad'ancing to truth postmodernists prefer local traditions which are notentirely led by rational and instrumental criteria but ma%e room for the sacred the non&instrumental ande'en the irrational! 8ocial constructi'ist theories of science nicely complement postmodernists: angst

against science! There are many schools of social constructi'ism including the 3strong programme3 ofthe Edinburgh "8cotland) school and the 3actor networ%3 programme associated with a school in /aris?rance! The many con'oluted and abstruse arguments of these programmes do not concern us here!4asically these programmes assert that modern science which we ta%e to be mo'ing closer to objecti'etruth about nature is actually just one culture&bound way to loo% at nature# no better or worse than allother sciences of other cultures! Not just the agenda but the content of all %nowledge is sociallyconstructed# the supposed 3facts3 of modern science are 35estern3 constructions reflecting dominantinterests and cultural biases of 5estern societies!

?ollowing this logic *ndian critics of science especially those led by the neo&ther well&%nown public intellectuals including such stalwarts as Rajni

1othari Veena Das 9laude Al'ares and 8hi' Vishwanathan ha'e thrown their considerable weightbehind this ci'ilisational 'iew of %nowledge! This perspecti'e also has numerous sympathisers among3patriotic science3 and the en'ironmentalist and feminist mo'ements! A defence of local %nowledgesagainst rationalisation and secularisation also underlies the fashionable theories of post&colonialism and

G


5/15

subaltern studies which ha'e found a worldwide following through the writings of /artha 9hatterjee


6/15

creationism which propose to replace Darwinian e'olution with 3de'olution3 from the original one&nesswith 4rahman are now being proposed with utmost seriousness by the .are 1rishnas who for all theirscandals and idiosyncrasies remain faithful to the spirit of Vaishna'a .induism!

Vi'e%ananda and Aurobindo lit the spar% that has continued to fire the nationalist imagination right tothe present time! The Neo&.indu literature of the +,th and early Hth centuries especially the writings ofDayanand 8araswati 8! Radha%rishnan and the many followers of Vi'e%ananda is replete withcelebration of .induism as a 3scientific3 religion! E'en secularists li%e Bawaharlal Nehru remained

capti'e of this idea that the original teachings of Vedic .induism were consonant with modern sciencebut only corrupted later by the gradual deposits of superstition! 9ountless gurus and swamis began toteach that the Vedas are simply 3another name for science3 and that all of science only affirms what theVedas ha'e taught! This scientistic 'ersion of .induism has found its way to the 5est through thenumerous ashrams and yoga retreats set up most prominently by Maharishi Mahesh =ogi and his manyclones!

A;; these numerous celebrations of 3Vedas as science3 follow a similar intellectual strategy offinding analogies and e7ui'alences! All in'o%e extremely speculati'e theories from modern cosmology7uantum mechanics 'italistic theories of biology and parapsychology and other fringe sciences! Theyread bac% these sciences into 8ans%rit texts chosen at will and their meaning decided by the whim ofthe interpreter and claim that the entities and processes mentioned in 8ans%rit texts are 3li%e3 3thesame thing as3 or 3another word for3 the ideas expressed in modern cosmology 7uantum physics orbiology! Thus there is a bit of a 4rahman here and a bit of 7uantum mechanics there the two treated asinterchangeableF there are references to 3energy3 a scientific term with a definite mathematicalformulation in physics which gets to mean 3consciousness3F references to Newton:s laws of action andreaction are made to stand for the laws of !armaand reincarnationF completely discredited 3e'idence3from parapsychology and 3secret life of plants3 are upheld as proofs of the presence of different degreesof soul in all matterF 3e'olution3 is taught as the self&manifestation of 4rahman and so on! The terms arescientific% but the content is religious! There is no regard for consistency either of scientific concepts orof religious ideas! 4oth wholes are bro%en apart random connections and correspondences areestablished and with great smugness the two modes of %nowing are declared to be e7ui'alent ande'en inter&changeable! The only dri'ing force the only idea that gi'es this whole mish&mash anycoherence is the great anxiety to preser'e and protect .induism from a rational criti7ue and

demystification! Vedic science is moti'ated by cultural chau'inism pure and simple!5hat does all this ha'e to do with postmodernism one may legitimately as%! Neo&.induism after all

has a history dating bac% at least two centuries and the analogical logic on which claims of Vedicscience are based goes bac% to times immemorial!

Neo&.induism did not start with postmodernism ob'iously! And neither does .indut'a share thepostmodernist urgency to 3o'ercome3 and 3go beyond3 the modernist fascination with progress andde'elopment! ?ar from it! Neo&.induism and .indut'a are reactionary modernistmo'ements intent onharnessing a mindless and e'en dangerous technological modernisation for the ad'ancement of atraditionalist deeply anti&secular and illiberal social agenda! Ne'ertheless they share a postmodernistphilosophy of science that celebrates the %ind of contradictory mish&mash of science spiritualitymysticism and pure superstition that that passes as 3Vedic science3!

?or those modernists who share the Enlightenment:s hope for o'ercoming ignorance andsuperstition the 'alue of modern science lies in its objecti'ity and uni'ersality! Modernists see modernscience as ha'ing de'eloped a critical tradition that insists upon subjecting our hypotheses about natureto the strictest most demanding empirical tests and rigorously rejecting those hypotheses whosepredictions fail to be 'erified! ?or the modernist the success of science in explaining the wor%ings ofnature mean that sciences in other cultures ha'e a rational obligation to re'ise their standards of what%ind of e'idence is admissible as science what %ind of logic is reasonable and how to distinguishjustified %nowledge from mere beliefs! ?or the modernists furthermore modern science has pro'ided away to explain the wor%ings of nature without any need to bring in supernatural and untestable causessuch as a creator


7/15

are e7ually 'alid for other cultures! Nature&in&itself cannot be %nown without imposing classifications andmeaning on it which are deri'ed from cultural metaphors and models! All ways of seeing nature are atpar because all are e7ually culture&bound! Modern science has no special claims to truth and to ourcon'ictions for it is as much of a cultural construct of the 5est as other sciences are of their owncultures!

This 'iew of science is deri'ed from a 'ariety of American and European philosophies of scienceassociated mostly with such well&%nown philosophers as Thomas 1uhn /aul ?eyerabend 5!> Juine

;udwig 5ittgenstein and Michel ?oucault! This 'iew of science has been gaining popularity among*ndian scholars of science since the infamous 3scientific temper3 debates in early +,Hs when AshisNandy Vandana 8hi'a and their sympathisers came out in defence of local %nowledges and traditionsincluding astrology goddess worship as cure for small&pox taboos against menstruation and "later on)e'en sati! >'er the next two decades it became a general practice in *ndian scholarly writing to treatmodern science as just one way to adjudicate belief no different from any other tradition of sorting outtruth from mere group belief! Rationalism became a dirty word and Enlightenment became a stand&in for3epistemic 'iolence3 of colonialism!

According to those who subscribe to this relati'ist philosophy the cross&cultural encounter betweenmodern science and traditional sciences is not a confrontation between more and less objecti'e%nowledge respecti'ely! Rather it is a confrontation between two different cultural ways of seeing theworld neither of which can claim to represent reality&in&itself! *ndeed many radical feminists and post&colonial critics go e'en further# they see modern science as ha'ing lost its way and turned into a powerof oppression and exploitation! They want non&5estern people not just to resist science but to reform itby confronting it with their holistic traditional sciences!

5hat happens when traditional cultures do need to adopt at least some elements of modern%nowledge6 *n such cases postmodernists recommend exactly the %ind of 3hybridity3 as we ha'e seenin the case of Vedic sciences in which for example sub&atomic particles are interpreted as referring togunas or where 7uantum energy is interpreted to be the 3same as3 sha!ti or where !armais interpretedto be a determinant of biology in a 3similar manner3 as the genetic code and so on! >n the postmodernaccount there is nothing irrational or unscientific about this 3method3 of drawing e7ui'alences andcorrespondences between entirely unli%e entities and ideas e'en when there may be seriouscontradictions between the two! >n this account allscience is based upon metaphors and analogies

that reinforce dominant cultures and social power and all 3facts3 of nature are really interpretations ofnature through the lens of dominant culture! *t is perfectly rational on this account for .indu nationaliststo want to reinterpret the 3facts3 of modern science by drawing analogies with the dominant culturalmodels supplied by .induism! 4ecause no system of %nowledge can claim to %now reality as it really isbecause our best confirmed science is ultimately a cultural construct all cultures are free to pic% andchoose and mix 'arious 3facts3 as long as they do not disrupt their own time&honoured world'iews!

This 'iew of reinterpretation of 35estern3 science to fit into the tradition&sanctioned local %nowledgesof 3the people3 has been ad'ocated by theories of 3critical traditionalism3 propounded by Ashis Nandyand 4hi%u /are%h in *ndia and by the numerous admirers of .omi 4habha:s obscure writings on3hybridity3 abroad! *n the 5est this 'iew has found great fa'our among feminists notably 8andra.arding and Donna .araway and among anthropologists of science including 4runo ;atour Da'id .ess

and their followers!To conclude one finds a con'ergence between the fashionable left:s position with the religious right:s

position on the science 7uestion! The extreme scepticism of postmodern intellectuals toward modernscience has landed them in a position where they cannot if they are to remain true to their beliefscriticise .indut'a:s eclectic ta%e&o'er of modern science for the glory of the Vedic tradition!

&eera 'anda is the author of /rophets ?acing 4ac%ward# /ostmodern 9riti7ues of 8cience and.indu Nationalism()utgers *niversity +ress% ,./0 An 1ndian edition of the boo! will be published by+ermanent 2lac! in early ,3!

444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444


8/15

The second and concludin$ part of the t)o1part article-

*N the first part of this essay * examined how .indut'a ideologues constructed the myth of 3Vedas asboo%s of science3 "5rontline Banuary )! * argued that the anti&science rhetoric of postmodernintellectuals has gi'en philosophical respectability to the eclectic patchwor% of science and .indumetaphysics that goes under the name of Vedic science! *n this part * will examine the philosophicalarguments for 3alternati'e sciences3 fa'oured by prominent feminists en'ironmentalists and postcolonialintellectuals and show how they con'erge with the right&wing:s claims of superiority of 3holistic3 and

3authentic3 sciences of .indus! * want to start by placing these debates in the historical context of .indu3renaissance3!

/ostcolonialism and the myth of .indu 3renaissance3

The roots of 3Vedic science3 can be traced to the so&called 4engal Renaissance which in turn wasdeeply influenced by the >rientalist constructions of Vedic anti7uity as the 3


9/15

o'ershadowed by the 9atholic 9hurch & the Renaissance humanists redisco'ered this&worldlyphilosophy of Aristotle and critical&realist 8ocrates o'er the other&worldly philosophy of /lato! The neo&.indu 3renaissance3 in contrast re&disco'ered the most mystical and anti&humanistic elements of theVedic inheritance & Ad'aita Vedanta & that had always o'ershadowed and silenced the naturalistic andscientific traditions in .induism and 4uddhism! Neo&.induism is no renaissance but a re'i'al!

There is no denying that the neo&.indu 3disco'ery3 of modern science in ancient teachings of Vedasand 0panishads had a limited usefulness! 8ince they had con'inced themsel'es that their religion was

the mother of all sciences conser'ati'e .indus did not feel threatened by scientific education! As longas science could be treated as 3just another name3 for Vedic truths they were e'en enthusiastic to learnit! The 4rahminical traditions of learning and speculati'e thought ser'ed the upper castes well as theytoo% to modern English education which included instruction in scientific subjects! Those who wouldexplicitly use scientific learning to challenge the traditional outloo% were either lower down on the castehierarchy or 3godless 9ommunists3 anyway and could be safely ignored! The great neo&.indu3renaissance3 succeeded in turning empirical sciences into the handmaiden of the Vedic tradition & therole reason has performed throughout *ndia:s history! This is the tradition that the 8angh /ari'ar isinstitutionalising in our schools uni'ersities and the public sphere!

;et us see what *ndia:s best&%nown contemporary public intellectuals ha'e to say on this matter! As ithappens the emergence of neo&.induism in +,th century 4engal has perhaps been the most writtenabout episode in modern *ndia:s intellectual history! All our best&%nown intellectuals whose names arepractically synonymous with postcolonial theory around the world & Ashis Nandy /artha 9hatterjee


10/15

4an%im 9handra 9hatterjee to the liberal secular&humanist Nehru & not for so falsely and so self&ser'ingly appropriating modern science in the ser'ice of propagating religious orthodoxy and not forconfusing myth and science in order to defend their mythology! No that %ind of criti7ue of nati'ism thatwould defend the distincti'eness of science and insist upon its potential for demystification of religiousreason was considered too passK too 3positi'ist3 by our a'ant&garde theorists! Rather Nandy9hatterjee and their followers condemned *ndian nationalists for e'en daring to apply alien colonialcategories of thought to *ndia:s own traditions and ways of %nowing!

?or these postmar%ed intellectuals the cardinal sin of .indu nationalists was not their defence of thehigh&.indu tradition & a tradition which has for centuries contributed to the worst %ind of ignorance andsocial ine7uality! Their cardinal sin was their capitulation to modern scientific thought itself which theytried to appropriate for .induism "as in the case of Vi'e%ananda 4an%im 9handra and e'en Nehru) orwhich they tried to use for secular Enlightenment "as in the case of Marxist and socialist humanists li%eNehru)! *ncidentally these two positions seem to exhaust the entire range of nationalism! The 'aliantattempts of Dalit and non&4rahmin intellectuals such as 4!R! Ambed%ar E!V! Ramaswamy /eriyarByotiba /hule and *yothee Thass to use the new %nowledge to liberate themsel'es from the shac%les oftradition are simply in'isible in the postmodernist literature which is %een on showing modern science asan agent of oppression and mental colonialism! As long as *ndian thought was being measured inmodern scientific terms whether to praise it or to demystify it the *ndian mind was being 3colonised3and it was denied the 3agency3 to define its own agenda and its own solutions! 4oth the .indu right and

the Nehru'ian left as long as they remained prisoners of modern scientific ways of thin%ing weree7ually 3deri'ati'es3 of their colonial masters!

Authentic national liberation on this account can only come with the redisco'ery of authentictraditions of *ndia which apparently were only understood by Mahatma ne could after all justly criticise the role ofscience and technology in furthering 5estern exploitation of the colonies and perpetuating patronising

+H


11/15

attitudes toward the nati'es! 8cience is not beyond criticism and critics of science do not automaticallydeser'e condemnation!

Vi"ekananda

The problem is that postmodernist intellectuals do not stop at criticising any specific political abuse ofscientific %nowledge! *nstead they attac% the 'ery idea of objecti'e %nowledge as a myth of the powerfulwho want to claim the status of truth for their own self&ser'ing social constructions of reality! ;i%ewisepostmodernist attac% on the 35estern&ness3 of science goes beyond pointing out any specific lin%agesbetween science and 5estern$imperialist interests! *nstead they attac% the claim of uni'ersalism ofscience as a co'er for 5estern dominance!

>nce they decry the 'ery idea of objecti'ity and uni'ersalism the critics open the gates wide to theidea of 3alternati'e sciences3! The idea is that modern science offers only one way to classify obser'eand understand the regularities of nature# there is nothing inherently objecti'e and scientific about it!>ther cultures the argument goes if they want to really 3decolonise their minds3 must de'elop their ownscientific methods which are in %eeping with their own religion and culture & 3different cultures differentsciences3 is the postmodern slogan! 8ince all %nowledge rests on the shifting sands of myths modelsand analogies "or 3paradigms3 as the more technical name goes) which scientists just pic% up throughtheir textboo%s there is no reason why sciences of non&5estern cultures cannot constitute new3alternati'e uni'ersals3 that can be taught in textboo%s and laboratories around the world!

These radical criti7ues of objecti'ity and uni'ersalism ha'e become so popular that they ha'eac7uired a ring of truth among social critics! 4ut all these arguments denigrating the rationality of scienceare based upon a flawed understanding of science that has been rejected many times by wor%ing

scientists and prominent philosophers of science! A complete debun%ing of post&modernmisunderstanding of how science actually wor%s and why objecti'ity is possible despite the deeply socialnature of science will re7uire a different set of articles! 8uffice it to say the radical denigration of sciencehas 'ery little following among the mainstream of scientific community and in the mainstream ofphilosophy and history of science!

* now examine three distinct arguments that ha'e emerged in the *ndian postmodernist literaturewhich con'erge almost exactly with the .indut'a:s defence of the superiority of Vedic sciences! Thesethree are the decolonisation argument the anti&dualism argument and the symmetry argument!

The decolonisation of science ar$ument

.indut'a ideologues see themsel'es as part and parcel of postcolonial studies! Decolonisation of the.indu mind the .indu Right claims re7uires understanding science through .indu categories! Echoingthe postcolonial criti7ues of epistemic 'iolence .indut'a ideologues such as Murli Manohar Boshi1onrad Elst


12/15

empirical claims made by the Vedic texts as a sign of mental colonialism and 5estern imperialism! Manyof these .indut'a ideologues cite the wor% of postcolonial scholars such as Edward 8aid Roland *ndenAshis Nandy 9laude Al'ares


13/15

This 'iew of superiority of .induism:s 3holism3 rests upon the strange and totally mista%enassumption that .indu chau'inists share with left&wing critics of science & that the fundamentalmethodology of modern science what is called 3reductionism3 is not just mista%en but politicallyoppressi'e! Reductionism in science simply means a bottom&up approach to understanding complexnatural phenomena by first isolating the lower&le'el constituents and studying their interactions undercontrolled conditions! Reductionism see%s the explanation of the whole by eliminating the need forpostulating any extra forces " that is consciousness 'ital force and so on) o'er and abo'e therelationships between the building bloc%s that can be experimentally tested! ?ar from being simple&

minded or sinister as critics assume nearly e'ery ad'ance in understanding complex systems & from theDNA replication at the cellular le'el to ecological systems & owes its success to a reductionist approachto the fundamental building bloc%s of nature!

>wing to a fundamental misunderstanding of how science actually wor%s coupled with a great dealof cynicism many left&wing critics among feminist en'ironmental and anti&imperialist mo'ements ha'ede'eloped a %nee&jer% condemnation of reductionism! Reductionist science is considered bad sciencewith politically oppressi'e implications! ?eminists including such world&renowned feminist icons as9arolyn Merchant 8andra .arding and Donna .araway see it as a masculine way of brea%ing the unitybetween the object and the subject! En'ironmentalists including *ndia:s own Vandana 8hi'a and li%e&mined eco&feminists see reductionism as opening the way to ruthless exploitation of nature by di'estingit of all sacred meanings! "Eco&romantics ignore all counter&examples where sacredness of nature

ser'es to control access o'er sacred gro'es ri'ers and other resources of the commons!) /ostcolonialcritics in their turn see reductionism as a result of 5estern and capitalist habit of thin%ing in terms ofopposed classes of Lus and them:!

These %inds of ill&understood and politically moti'ated challenges to a fundamental methodologicalnorm of modern science ha'e prepared the ground for .indut'a:s claims that .induism pro'ides a more3holistic3 more complete more ecological and e'en more feminist way of relating with nature! Most ofthe claims of superiority of 3holism3 are unsubstantiated! >n closer examination they end up affirmingpseudo&sciences in'ol'ing disembodied spirit acting on matter through entirely unspecified mechanisms!Most of the claims of greater ecological and feminist sensiti'ity in the .indu practice of treating all natureas a sacred and interconnected whole turn out to be empirically false! *n fact 7uite often the faith in thedi'ine powers of some ri'ers and plants ser'es as an excuse not to care for them ade7uately precisely

because they are considered to share


14/15

corresponds with the number of syllables in the Vedic 'erses! The conclusion# 3the Vedas are boo%s ofphysics!3

!r- B-- Ambedkar

?inding relati'ely ad'anced abstract physics in the Rig Veda the earliest of the four Vedas is ofcrucial importance to .indut'a! There is a concerted attempt to pro'e that the Rig Veda was composedat least around three millennia 4!9! and not around +IHH 4!9 as pre'iously thought! There is also amassi'e effort afoot in .indut'a circles that the Aryans who wrote the Rig Veda presumably in CHHH 4!9!were indigenous to the landmass of *ndia! 0nder these circumstances finding ad'anced physics in RigVeda will 3pro'e3 that *ndia was truly the mother of all ci'ilisations and produced all science %nown to the


15/15

presence of a spiritual element in all matter "which ta%es different forms thereby explaining the theory of3de'olution3)!

3-V- amas)amy Periyar

This remar%able compendium of pseudo&science is premised upon the assumption that modernscience is a prisoner of 5estern cultural and religious biases and as a result 5estern scientists ha'ecreated a 3%nowledge filter3 which %eeps out the e'idence that supports the Vedic cosmology! Their pointis that once you remo'e the 5estern assumptions the method of yoga can be treated as a legitimatesource of scientific hypotheses! These Vedic %nowledge&claims can be 'erified by the community ofother yogic %nowers who ha'e 3purified3 their sense through meditation to such an extent that they can3directly realise3 those signs from the spirit&world that are loo%ed down upon by 5estern&trainedscientists as 3paranormal3!

0tterly incredible though they are and utterly de'oid of any empirical support Vedic physics andVedic creationism are being touted as serious scholarship based upon the assumption that differentcultural assumptions sanction alternati'e methods as rational and scientific!

/>8TM>DERN intellectuals ha'e ta%en their disillusionment with the many shortcomings of themodern world into a radical denunciation of modern science itself! They ha'e denounced the status ofmodern science as a source of uni'ersally 'alid and objecti'e %nowledge as a sign of 5esternimperialism patriarchal biases and 9hristian dualist thin%ing! Many prominent public intellectuals in*ndia sympathetic to populist indigenist currents in left&inclined social mo'ements ha'e embraced thepostmodernist suspicion of science and called for 3alternati'e sciences3 which reflect the culturalpreferences of *ndia:s non&modern masses!

The 7uestion before the defenders of 3alternati'e sciences3 is this# 5hat do they ha'e to say to the

defenders of 3Vedic sciences36 ?or example what reasons can they gi'e against the supposedscientificity of Vedic astrology6 9an they hold on their relati'ist 'iew of all sciences as social constructsand yet challenge the scientisation of the Vedas that is going on in the theories of Vedic physics or Vediccreationism6

Any erosion of the di'iding line between science and myth between reasoned e'idence&basedpublic %nowledge and the spiritual %nowledge accessible to yogic adepts is bound to lead to a growth ofobscurantism dressed up as science! *t is time secular and self&proclaimed leftist intellectuals called offtheir romance with irrationalism and romanticism! *t is time to draw clear boundaries between scienceand myth and between the ;eft and the Right!

&eera 'anda is the author of/rophets ?acing 4ac%ward# /ostmodern 9riti7ues of 8cience and.indu Nationalism ()utgers *niversity +ress% ,./0 An 1ndian edition of the boo! will be published by

+ermanent 2lac! in early ,30 $he is also the author of4rea%ing the 8pell of Dharma and >therEssays (Three Essays 7ollective8 ,,/0

================================================

+I

Documents

1210a, Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism, Vedic Science, Nanda, 2004-2