Orientalism’s Hinduism, Orientalism’s Islam, and the Twilight of the Subcontinental Imagination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are many fascinating and intriguing points in this paper. At times, though, there are so many different threads of research and analysis from disparate sources quickly summarized that the overall thrust of this paper's argument is unclear; it's as if some parts of the paper are summaries of notes rather than carefully selected synopses of relevant scholarship to support the specific argument. Or perhaps there are really two papers here--one on the genealogy of "religion" in the subcontinent and its trajectory within Hindu nationalism, and one on literary/filmic explorations of religion and ethnicity.

The abstract does not reflect what the paper explores in broad strokes, or the several "themes" that are highlighted throughout. 

The discussion of the whole history of the concept of religion, and the ways that this concept is constructed with respect to both Hinduism and Islam as well as Orientalism is too dense. This is readable only to someone already very familiar with this complex history, and at times the level of detail seems unnecessary for this article.

One way of revising and strengthening this paper would be to focus on the examples of portrayals of Pathans, and let that frame the analysis. This is turn would support the notion of a "subcontinental imagination" and the idea of "akhand Bharat." 

The theme of Orientalist discourse, constructions of religion, the development of a particular notion of Islam different from actual subcontinental Islam--all this is fascinating, but seems too much for a single paper. 

Please clarify that the image of the Pathan refers specifically to a Pathan male. Indeed exploring this dimension of the Pathan figure could be worthwhile, particularly with respect to the gendered aspects of Hindu nationalism, notions of "mother India," and the Hindu woman as repository of family and national honor.

At about p. 23 one section of the paper seems to be repeated. 

English language quality is fine

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I have revised the essay extensively, reducing it by around 3500 words and making the language simpler. I think it is much clearer and focused than before. Thank you for your comments. I have also revised the abstract a bit. Please let me know if it is okay now. 

Best,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I found the article interesting, informative and convincing. Some careful line editing is needed. One glaring fault in the manuscript I received is that section 4 is repeated in its entirety. 

I would have appreciated a bit of elaboration on the point (near the end) about hypocrisy: might one or two examples be provided on just how this dynamic functions. 

I believe there may be one bibliographic entry of the author's own work mentioned in the text missing from the bibliography.

The quality of English is fine, just that, as mentioned, careful line editing is needed, as there are occasional typos etc. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I have revised the essay extensively, reducing it by around 3500 words and making the language simpler. I think it is much clearer and focused than before. Thank you for your comments. I have taken care of the lose ends you have mentioned. 

Unfortunately, I have not had the space to elaborate further on 'hypocrisy' but I will keep that in mind in my future work. 

Best,

 

Unfortunately 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a fascinating foray into Indian cinema, Orientalism, Hindu Nationalism, the constitution of Islam...and more. The writing throughout is clear, and abounds with turns of phrase that not only reflect the author's expertise in these matters, but pack far more meaning into a few words than one usually sees in academic writing. There are a few minor issues. Section 4 appears twice, and I noticed a few colloquial spellings alongside standard spellings (e.g., "Bhagwad Gita"). But these matters are easily repaired. More substantially, I found Section 5 ("Historical Islam...") to be somewhat less compelling than other sections of the essay. I understand that the author is seeking to create a parallel model to that established regarding Hinduism, from an earlier section of the essay. However, whereas the latter (the Hinduism/Orientalism) discussion is multi-faceted and has a complex back-story, the Islam section builds on a single work and pales somewhat in comparison to the Hinduism/Orientalism discussion. However, rather than add to the section, it might be better to simply shorten it, and emphasize that there are parallel structures to be found through Orientalist discourse regarding Hinduism and Islam. And, last, but not least, while I wholly agree with the author's contentions about European Orientalism leading to modern day Hindutva ideology, I want to point out that (1) many of the ancient kingdoms of India did much what the author accuses the Orientalists of doing--namely, construct a state religion (whether Shaivite, Vaishnavite, even Buddhist, etc), and reifying that religion through their programs of building temples and creating a literature--that established a version of "Hinduism" that simply did not capture the variety of India's traditions (but did serve a political end); and (2) I would argue that Hindutva politics in India --though it was a possible outcome of Orientalist European discourse re: India--it was not the necessary result of this discourse. If this were the case (a direct and unavoidable line from from Orientalism to Hindutva), then we would expect the same of modern day Germany--that its fascist, Aryan past would lead ineluctably to an ongoing fascist state. But, it did not happen. Hindutva may capture the current spirit of the Indian people, but it was not inevitable--certainly, it was not a predicted outcome of the Gandhi-Nehru political philosophy, which, had it held, would have yielded a much different India today. I offer this comment not as criticism of the author's thesis (with which I agree), but rather to add to its texture; indeed why this path of Hindutva was chosen, seen in this light (other choices could have been made), makes the author's argument that much more interesting when thinking about modern India, and what it could have been. Last, I want to register my high praise for this essay. In my estimation, it contributes mightily to our understanding of how the colonial past (though I would argue not ineluctably, as the author suggests) informs Hindutva politics, and how its legacy continues to haunt India today.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

I have revised the essay extensively, reducing it by around 3500 words and making the language simpler. I think it is much clearer and focused than before. Thank you for your very helpful comments. I have shortened and simplified section 5 as you have suggested apart from taking care of other matters. Here are my responses to your other points. 

1. I disagree with this view in the sense that these patronized faiths were 'sampradayas' rather than 'religions' (my whole point). Yes, some were prioritized over others, but usually multiple ones had to be, rather than only one (as you know, even the Guptas did that). I agree that royal patronage also went into codification, doxography etc. But again, without a pan-Indian 'national' imperative and a framework that can be called some sort of religious anthropology. Patronage could change from generation to generation. Even Akbar could not make Din-i-ilahi 'state religion.' Here I could not find a moment to clarify that without a major digression, but I will surely address this in my next essay.
2. I completely agree. Hindutva did not emerge as an ineluctable outcome of a wider modernization process, but certainly emerged from the fault lines of that wider process. I had written that in the original draft, but perhaps it was not clear. Hopefully this version has a more forceful clarification to that effect. 

Again, I am grateful to you for taking so much time and effort. Your comments were invaluable, not just for this essay. 

Best,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised article is a fascinating, thought-provoking, and somewhat frustrating read all at once. Overall, the paper reads more clearly, though it still seems to traverse too much territory at the expense of a clear narrative/argumentative structure.

The Pathan trope is now stronger, but still not quite a consistent narrative thread throughout the paper. Ultimately, the paper's conclusion seems to focus more on what a secular imagination might look like, and how it might possibly recover some of the "subcontinental imagination" that has been displaced by the political monotheism of Hindutva. 

 

 

There are some spelling errors throughout--a solid final proofreading is needed. (e.g. Locke, not Lock)