{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028559935639581657, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.52755905511811, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Authors’ response to Book Review of The Nay Science. A History of German Indology

We thank Eli Franco for his review of The Nay Science. Our response does not address technical errors and misrepresentations. Rather, it raises an urgent issue that tests the very principles of open discourse and intellectual freedom in academia: the use of ‘nationalism’ and ‘Hindutva’ to poison discourse and exclude critical voices from debate. We understand the danger nationalism poses. We recognise that religious fundamentalism harbours tremendous potential for violence. Exclusivist conceptions of deity, intolerance for alternative lifestyles, and the imposition of universal norms, whether divinely inspired or secularly legitimated, threaten pluralistic societies everywhere. But Hindutva is too serious an issue to reduce it to name calling. When used indiscriminately, it loses its diagnostic value. It becomes a slur instead of a serious topic deserving of academic attention. The Nay Science presented a careful critique of an episteme that contributed to the most grotesque nationalisms of the twentieth century. It undertook an inquiry into German Indology, a discipline associated with the application of the ‘text-historical method’. In place of scientific criteria, we found Protestant, fundamentalist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Judaic, anti-Brahmanic, nationalistic, and racist prejudices masquerading as scholarship under the banner of ‘Wissenschaft’ (science). In the humanities, discussions of profound issues, which affect the very possibility of open, democratic societies, should not encounter resistance. Yet Franco accuses us: ‘I am not sure whether the authors realise that what they recommend amounts to an open invitation of reading and using a text like the Gı t a as a justification of the abominable concepts and practices of caste distinction, Hindu nationalism, Brahmin supremacy, Right-wing militarism and fascism’. Crying Hindutva to discipline non-conforming scholars is hardly new. What is more disturbing is that questioning Indologists’ criteria, arguments, and application of methods (especially their identification of textual layers) now suffices to be accused of directly or indirectly espousing Hindutva causes. No evidence for such a serious accusation is required. Apparently, the most beloved scripture of the world’s third largest religion so directly contributes to extremism that as scholars we must suborn, even against our better judgment,