Talk:Brian K. Pennington

By Sachi Anjunkar

Brian K. Pennington is a Professor of Religious Studies and Director for the Center for the Study of Religion, Culture and Society (CSRCS) at Elon University in Elon, N.C , as of November 2022.

In 2021, he along with Hibatullah Akhundzada, the supreme leader of the Taliban, co-signed a letter supporting "Dismantling Global Hindutva" Conference, as an academic and scholar and made the allegation

"the current government of India [in 2021] has instituted discriminatory policies including beef bans, restrictions on religious conversion and interfaith weddings, and the introduction of religious discrimination into India’s citizenship laws. The result has been a horrifying rise in religious and caste-based violence, including hate crimes, lynchings, and rapes directed against Muslims, non-conforming Dalits, Sikhs, Christians, adivasis and other dissident Hindus. Women of these communities are especially targeted. Meanwhile, the government has used every tool of harassment and intimidation to muzzle dissent. Dozens of student activists and human rights defenders are currently languishing in jail indefinitely without due process under repressive anti-terrorism laws."

Publications related to India

Books

1. Pennington, Brian K., editor. Teaching Religion and Violence. Oxford University Press, 2012.
2. Pennington, Brian K., and Amy Allocco. Ritual Innovation: Strategic Interventions in South Asian Religion. SUNY Press, 2018.
3. Pennington, Brian K. Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the Colonial Construction of Religion. New York, Oxford Academic, 2005.

Journal Articles

1. Pennington, Brian K. "The Haunt of Authenticity." Modern Asian Studies, 2021.
2. Viswanath, Rupa, et al. "Roundtable on Rupa Viswanath's The Pariah Problem." Modern Asian Studies, 2021.
3. Pennington, Brian K. "The Pitfalls of Trying to Be Different." Digital Commons at Butler University, 2013.
4. Pennington, Brian K. "Hindu Heritage and Tradition." Encyclopedia of Religion in America, edited by Charles H. Lippy and Peter W. Williams, CQ Press, 2010.
5. Pennington, Brian K. "Nine More- or Less-related Observations on Historical Approaches to Hindu-Christian Studies." Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, vol. 21, 2008.
6. Pennington, Brian K. "Introduction: A Critical Evaluation of the Work of Bruce Lincoln." Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 2005.
7. Pennington, Brian K. "Constructing Colonial Dharma: A Chronicle of Emergent Hinduism, 1830-1831." Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 69, no. 3, 2001, pp. 559-592.
8. Pennington, Brian K. "William Ward of Serampore and his Legacy for the Christian (Mis)perception of Hinduism." Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, 2000.
9. Pennington, Brian K. "Christianity and Hinduism: An Annotated Bibliography." Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets, 2000.

Book Chapters

1. Pennington, Brian K. "Striking the Delicate Balance: Teaching Hinduism and Violence." In (Neo-) Liberal Challenges to Interreligious Studies: Dispatches from an Emerging Field, 2020.

   Brian Pennington’s work in "Genealogies of the Dalit Political: The Transformation of Achhut from 'Untouched' to 'Untouchable'" displays several serious shortcomings in its analysis of Dharma, resulting in mischaracterizations that do not reflect a balanced or scholarly approach. The article reveals a lack of engagement with traditional Hindu scholarship and over-reliance on politicized narratives that distort key aspects of Dharma and the caste system. Furthermore, Pennington’s failure to conduct a comprehensive literature review severely undermines the credibility of his conclusions.

   • Distorted View of Vedic Literature: Pennington claims that the oldest texts of the Hindu tradition, the Vedas, reflect an uneasiness about violence and sacrificial rites they inherited, stating, "The oldest texts of the Hindu tradition, the Vedas, already indicate a certain uneasiness about the violent sacrificial rites they appear to have inherited.". This interpretation is overly simplistic and lacks engagement with traditional commentaries, which offer a more nuanced view of these rituals. The Vedas, far from promoting violence, are fundamentally concerned with maintaining cosmic order (ṛta) and spiritual harmony. By omitting the philosophical and symbolic nature of these rites, Pennington reduces complex spiritual practices to acts of violence without adequate contextual analysis.
   • Misattribution of Ahimsa to Buddhism and Jainism: Pennington argues that principles such as non-violence (ahimsa) were derived from the influence of Buddhism and Jainism, stating that these traditions "each elevated the ideal of ahimsa to a primary moral principle.". However, ahimsa has deep roots within the Vedic tradition, as seen in texts like the Mahabharata and the Chandogya Upanishad. Pennington's failure to engage with the rich body of traditional Hindu commentaries on these texts leads to a skewed understanding of the historical development of ethical principles in Dharma. Traditional Hindu literature had long established the value of non-violence before the rise of Buddhism and Jainism.
   • Selective and Inaccurate Use of Hindu Epics: Pennington’s interpretation of the Mahabharata and Ramayana as evidence of Hinduism's ambivalence toward violence lacks a comprehensive understanding of these epics. He writes that Arjuna’s hesitation in the Bhagavad Gita and Rama’s penance for killing Ravana indicate an ethical contradiction within Hindu thinking about violence. However, these epics are deeply philosophical texts that address the complexities of dharma (duty) and righteousness, not simply questions of violence. Arjuna’s internal conflict reflects the tension between personal ethics and cosmic duty, while Rama’s penance underscores the moral responsibility that comes with leadership, not a rejection of dharma.
   • Politically Biased Claims Regarding the 2002 Gujarat Riots: Pennington makes unsubstantiated claims regarding the 2002 Gujarat riots, suggesting that Narendra Modi justified the violence as a "natural reaction" to Muslim offenses. This assertion is factually incorrect, as Modi has been acquitted of any wrongdoing by the Supreme Court of India. Pennington’s reliance on politically charged narratives without corroborating judicial sources exposes a clear bias in his analysis of contemporary Indian politics. Such statements serve only to advance a predetermined political agenda, rather than providing a balanced and evidence-based account.
   • Failure to Include Traditional Scholarship in the Literature Review: Perhaps one of the most glaring omissions in Pennington’s work is his failure to engage with traditional Hindu scholarship. He ignores centuries of commentaries by revered Hindu scholars, opting instead to focus on colonial interpretations and modern political narratives. This lack of engagement with traditional sources severely limits the scope and accuracy of his conclusions. A comprehensive review of traditional Hindu texts would have provided a more balanced and informed understanding of the issues Pennington addresses, particularly in relation to caste and violence.

   Brian Pennington’s article suffers from a pervasive bias against Sanatana Dharma, consistently portraying it as a tool of social and political oppression. His selective use of evidence, failure to engage with traditional scholarship, and reliance on politically motivated claims result in a distorted portrayal of Dharma. By presenting Hinduism as inherently violent and exclusionary, Pennington not only misrepresents its core teachings but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes. His work lacks the academic rigor necessary for a balanced and nuanced understanding of the topics he addresses.

2. Pennington, Brian K., and Amy Allocco. "Ritual Innovation Chapter 9: Village Widow/Town Priestess." In Ritual Innovation, SUNY Press, 2018.
3. Pennington, Brian K., and Amy Allocco. "Introduction." In Ritual Innovation, SUNY Press, 2018.
4. Pennington, Brian K. "Constructing Interreligious Studies: Thinking Critically about Interfaith Studies and the Interfaith Movement." In Interfaith/Interreligious Studies: Defining a New Field, edited by Eboo Patel and Jennifer Howe Peace, Beacon Press, 2018.