Talk:Rupa Viswanath

By Sachi Anjunkar

Rupa Viswanath is Professor of Indian Religions at the Centre for Modern Indian Studies at the University of Göttingen. She is also a Fellow of Lucy Cavendish College at the University of Cambridge as of October 2022. According to her university profile, her research concerns secular regimes, histories of slavery in colonial South Asia, the political economy of caste, and the historical dynamics of religious authorities and institutions.

In 2021, she 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. Viswanath, Rupa. The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion and the Social in Modern India. Columbia UP, Cultures of History Series, 2014.
2. Viswanath, Rupa. In Their Own Voices: Teenage Refugees and Immigrants from India Speak Out. Rosen Publishing Group, 1997.

Peer-reviewed articles

1. Viswanath, Rupa. "The Commission as Form: The Mishra Report and Representative Governance in Modern India." South Asia, Special Issue: Revisiting Publics in South Asia after 25 Years, 2015.
2. Viswanath, Rupa. "'Labour,' the 'Depressed Classes' and the Politics of Distinctions, Madras 1918-1924." International Review of Social History, 2014.
3. Viswanath, Rupa. "The Emergence of Authenticity and the Giving of Accounts: Conversion in Madras, c. 1900." Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2013.
4. Viswanath, Rupa. "Spiritual Slavery, Material Malaise: Missionaries, 'Untouchables' and Religious Neutrality in Colonial South India." Historical Research, vol. 83, no. 219, 2010, pp. 124-45.

Book sections

1. Viswanath, Rupa, and Joel Lee. "Privilege, Power and Dissent: Two Millennia of Debating Caste." Sources of Indian Tradition, edited by Rachel McDermott, Vidya Dehejia and Indira Peterson, Columbia UP, 2019.
2. Viswanath, Rupa. "Caste and Untouchability." Hinduism in the Modern World, edited by Brian Hatcher, Routledge, 2015.
3. Viswanath, Rupa. "Silent Minority: Celebrated Difference, Caste Difference, and the Hinduization of Independent India." Routledge International Handbook of Diversity Studies, edited by Steven Vertovec, Routledge, 2015.

   In reviewing Rupa Viswanath's work, it becomes evident that the author consistently approaches Hindu Dharma with a reductive lens that distorts its multifaceted traditions into a singular narrative of political manipulation and social oppression. While claiming to offer an analysis of caste and religious dynamics in postcolonial India, Viswanath's work is riddled with factual inaccuracies, exaggerated claims, and an evident bias against Sanatana Dharma. This approach severely undermines the integrity of her scholarship and calls into question the objectivity of her conclusions.

   A key example of this is Viswanath’s invention of the term "Hinduzenization" to describe the alleged process by which the Indian state manipulates Hindu identity to serve political ends. This term, devoid of scholarly basis, appears to serve no purpose other than to stigmatize Dharma as an inherently oppressive force, thus undermining its millennia-old cultural and spiritual depth. Viswanath's work ignores the fact that Sanatana Dharma, in its true essence, is not a monolithic entity but a diverse and pluralistic tradition that has historically accommodated various beliefs and practices, including those of marginalized communities.

   Moreover, Viswanath's attempt to conflate religion and caste in order to argue that the Indian state has intentionally crafted a "Hindu majority" is both misleading and unfounded. The claim that caste and religion are "inseparably linked" in this process demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misrepresentation—of Sanatana Dharma's complex socio-spiritual framework. The varna system is a dynamic and fluid concept, not the rigid, oppressive structure that Viswanath depicts. This kind of portrayal ignores the vast body of philosophical thought that transcends caste and promotes spiritual equality.

   The author also presents the creation of Sanatana Dharma as a majority religion in India as a political project spearheaded by Hindu nationalists and supported by the Congress party, particularly Gandhi. This historical revisionism overlooks the fact that Sanatana Dharma was not an invention of the 19th century but rather an ancient and organically evolving tradition. To frame it as a mere tool of political power reflects a profound ignorance of its historical continuity and spiritual ethos.

   Viswanath goes further in claiming that the post-independence Indian state's promotion of cultural diversity was nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to enforce political unity and suppress minority identities. In doing so, she diminishes the genuine efforts by Indian leaders to promote pluralism in a country deeply rooted in its diversity. Her assertion that Indian Muslims’ decline is a result of "dominant caste Hindu political culture" is not only baseless but also dangerously simplistic, as it ignores the socio-economic and geopolitical factors that have affected the entire subcontinent.

   The author's treatment of Dalits within the society reflects yet another instance of oversimplification. She alleges that Dalits were "forcefully labeled" as Hindus to maintain a numerical majority, ignoring the fact that Dalits have long been part of India's diverse spiritual landscape, with many voluntarily engaging in Hindu religious practices. By presenting Dalits solely as victims of Hinduism, Viswanath distorts historical and contemporary realities, reducing them to pawns in a larger political game rather than recognizing their agency and the rich spiritual traditions they have cultivated within the Hindu framework.

   Perhaps one of the most egregious aspects of Viswanath’s argument is her suggestion that the Indian government, even under secular leadership, has continuously promoted Hindu culture at the expense of minorities. Such statements are not only inaccurate but also serve to perpetuate the harmful narrative that Hinduism is a hegemonic force in Indian politics. In fact, Indian secularism has been uniquely accommodating of all religions, a point that Viswanath conveniently overlooks.

   Finally, Viswanath’s sweeping claim that the state has "officially defined Hinduism as the default religion of all Indians" is patently false and misleading. While administrative systems may have their shortcomings, to claim that the Indian state deliberately assimilates Adivasis and Dalits into Hinduism without their consent is a gross misrepresentation of the country's legal and social frameworks. This kind of narrative not only distorts the relationship between the state and its citizens but also fuels the misconception that Sanatana Dharma is inherently exclusionary.

   In conclusion, Rupa Viswanath’s work suffers from a persistent bias against Sanatana Dharma, consistently portraying it as a tool of political oppression rather than recognizing its profound spiritual and cultural contributions. Her selective use of evidence, exaggerated claims, and misleading narratives reflect an agenda that seeks to vilify Dharma , rather than engage with it in an academically rigorous or balanced manner. While she stops short of overtly labeling Hinduism as such, the subtext of her work is unmistakable: Hinduism is portrayed as a political invention designed to suppress minorities, a portrayal that is as historically inaccurate as it is harmful.

4. Viswanath, Rupa. "Understanding Collector J. H. A. Tremenheere's 'Note on the Pariahs of Chingleput'." Tremenheere's 'Note on the Pariahs of Chingleput', edited by V. Alex, Madurai: Veliyidu, 2010.

Encyclopedia articles

1. Viswanath, Rupa. "Dalits." Brill Encyclopedia of Hinduism, edited by Knut Jacobsen, 2012.
2. Viswanath, Rupa. Articles on "Ayyappan," "Shirdi Sai Baba," "Brahmakumaris," and "Sathya Sai Baba." Encyclopedia of World Religions, edited by Wendy Doniger, Merriam Webster, 1999.

Paper presentations

1. Viswanath, Rupa. "The Making of the People and the Event of Atrocity: Violence and Democracy in Postcolonial Tamil Nadu." Paper presented at the Colloquium of the Ethnologie Department, University of Göttingen, Nov. 13, 2014.
2. Viswanath, Rupa. "Land, Labour and Unfreedom: Problems in the Historiography of Slavery in India." Paper presented at the Colloquium of the Extra-European and Global History Department, ETH Zürich, 2014.
3. Viswanath, Rupa. "The Commission as Form: The Mishra Report and Representative Governance in Modern India." Workshop on "Imagining Publics in India," Northwestern University, May 16-17, 2014.