out their history, will affect the understanding conveyed in them (Silverstein and
Urban 1996: 1–3).
These methodological considerations about the notion of the text are central
to our inquiry into South Asian history and are concerns shared by many con-
tributors to this volume. Both philology and its critique are centered on text and
many of the essays here are surveys of South Asian “literatures.” While archae-
ology and art history are important for our understanding of the past and the
“materialization” of tradition is important, text remains the primary source
of cultural meaning. Along with the emphasis on text there are accounts from
contemporary fieldwork (Freeman, Pintchman, Quigley) and readings of
tradition through the lens of gender studies (Narayanan), postcolonial studies
(Ramaswamy, Viswanathan), and political studies (Ram Prasad). Indeed,
implicit in the essays of Viswanathan, Ramaswamy, and Narayanan is the need
for a corrective reading of tradition, a corrective reading that can come from the
development of critiques in other contexts, such as feminism and Foucaultian
studies of power. It is the general contention of the volume that anthropologi-
cal study and critical reading of tradition in South Asia needs to understand the
textual tradition established, however tentatively, through philology, and con-
versely that the living traditions accessed through anthropology can throw
light upon textual history. The meanings of the Kerala tantric manual, the
Tantrasamuccayafor example, can be made clear with reference to contemporary
Nambudri practice, which in turn is based on textual injunction.
An Overview of Contents
The volume is divided into four main parts, theoretical issues, text and tradition,
systematic thought, and society, politics, and nation. Each of these either
surveys a general area within the wider field, provides a discussion of specific
tradition or region, or approaches material from a fresh perspective.
- Theoretical issues
The first part, “Theoretical Issues,” contains two very different essays. Gauri
Viswanathan opens the inquiry by examining the relation of British colonialism
to Hinduism and how the inability to perceive Hinduism in its own terms led to
a distortion within comparative religion. She also unravels the limitations within
the theory of the construction of Hinduism itself. David Smith, by contrast, in
a somewhat controversial essay argues against recent postcolonial critique
and defends the study of Indian languages and systems of thought by Western
scholars in the last two centuries, critically examining the arguments of Inden
and Said. Through these two essays we form a picture of some of the major
issues that have dominated discussions about the nature of Hinduism and its
study and very different understandings of them.
introduction: establishing the boundaries 13