Hello, and welcome back to Chittheads. My name is Khalid and I am
one of the learning navigators that embodied philosophy. We have a subversive episode today
with Bahani Sakhar, who is a Calcutta born Oxford educated scholar of classical Sanskrit
literature and pre modern Indian history and religious traditions. Bahani is a historian of
early Indian politics, religions, and literature between the second and fifteenth century CE.
She is a lecturer and comparative non Western Thought at Lancaster University and formerly
a departmental lecturer in Sanskrit at Oriental Institute, University of Oxford. Bahani has
researched and taught in universities in the UK and in Europe. Her teaching goal
is to enable everyone access to early Indian Sanskrit texts and traditions in the original
language, regardless of ability or prior knowledge, and to think about them in
critical, modern, and exciting ways. She has authored the book Classical Sanskrit
Tragedy, The Concept of Suffering and Pathos in Medieval India. In this episode,
Mahani and Jacob discussed the study of Sanskrit unmotivated by any kind of political
ideology, marginalized voices in the study of Sanskrit and Shakhta as a homegrown feminist
tradition, inspiring and emancipating Indian woman. We hope you enjoy. Tell me
about Lancaster. How has it been, How has it been different from your
experience at Oxford. I'm sure it's a different vibe. Tell me a little
bit about how things are going. Yeah, so well, thank you Jacob
for kind of asking me to the podcast, and it's so nice to see
you again after gosh, it's been more than a year now, it's been
a year. Yeah. For those that are listening, this is a special
interview because it's with Bahani Sarker, who was actually my teacher at Oxford,
one of the lecturers there while I was studying to do my infil on the
first year in Classical Indian Religion, which was also a program you did many
years ago. Indeed I did, yet not really so many in the grand
scheme of things, because we're actually the same age I discovered when we were
in When you're studying, which is always an interesting experience when you go to
university again and then suddenly your teachers or your age through your peers in some
sense, maybe not academically, but certainly in sort of stage of life.
So yeah, So I was mentioning to Bahani before we started that this is
the first personal, you know, academic teacher I've had who I've interviewed on
chitheads. So it's a special experience for me. And Behani was an amazing
kind of shepherdess of the program. You really were the heart of the NFL
program that year, and many of us talked about how how how necessary you
were to really give us some direction and make us feel supported and otherwise in
a program that can feel a little bit cold perhaps and not super warm and
nurturing, and you really brought a nurturing quality to it. So I'm i
still have very fond memories of you, and I'm really excited to chat.
Thank you so much, Jacob. That's so nice. Thanks. I mean,
you know, Jacob, you was certainly I'm not exaggerating here, you
were certainly one of the nicest, that the nicest students that I was teaching,
and it was just so nice to have you come round to the readings
and the tutorials because I think those sessions landed up being a bit like what
I think, I think this podcast would become like just a rich conversation,
a rich and deep conversation. Yeah, but it wasn't always like that,
was it. What do you think were the limits to get into that place?
Yeah? I mean, of course, there were different types of classes
that we had. There. There were classes that were focused specifically on reading
texts, in which there was very much this is an incorrect sentence you've interpreted
or you've translated this sentence incorrectly. In this is the right sentence, there's
very much something that's a bit strict and yes and no kind of a class
like that. And then there were other types of classes where we would just
sit and talk and you'd bring over your essays and we talk through the essays,
and I remember even during the readings you bringing up some really pertinent questions,
which I think took the readings to a totally different level. And I
also remember very very fondly the practice sessions that we had before the exams,
and I think those were special because we really bonded over vulnerabilities, because you
were coming to me from a position of needing help with something, and that
reminded me of how I was for much of my time as a student needing
help with my Sanskrit. And when you come with that openness and vulnerability,
you bond in a different way because that just I think, my little mommy
vibe just goes off. I can't resist that you need my help. I
will help you. Well, I think that stands out for everybody as a
unique quality that you have, and I'm sure you're continuing to bring that to
Lancaster as well. So how has Lancaster been How has it been different from
what you've been experiencing as a teacher so far? I mean, I don't
even know where to start. I joined Lancaster last year, but it feels
like, gosh, I've lived a lifetime in this one year. In terms
of teaching, it's very different. It's not Sanskrit text anymore. It's more
religious and philosophical and historical modules. The course is designed around religious and historical
topics. I'm teaching two modules currently that I designed, one which is called
the Religion and Politics of South Asia the Power of the Past, and the
other which is called Wild Asian Goddesses, Transgression and Transgression and Power in South
and Southeast Asia. The first one, which is what I'm teaching right now,
which is religion and politics the power of the past. We look at
how religion and politics overlaps in South Asia. How it's kind of not very
helpful to think of religion and politics sometimes as two differentiated domains. So topics
like sacred kingship both in Islam and in Hinduism, topics like ritual and power.
I think maybe we did that topic. I'm not quite sure if we
did that topic, but ritual and power is something which looks at how ritual
is the domain in which sovereign power is created and the power of the rulers
performed. So those kinds of topics, and we also going to look at
post colonial identity and how heritage and what role heritage can play in defining post
colonial identity. So that's very different from what I taught in Sanskrit and the
Wild Asian Goddesses really looks at goddess is from South and Southeast Asia and studies
them in relation to a feminist theory, particularly feminist theory from black and Islamic
feminisms. In fact, there's a whole separate teaching element which will focus on
comparative feminisms. And I'm really excited about that, because I'm thinking about feminism
and heroines and Sanskrit literature a lot these days. I'm going to be writing
about it as well. So that's where I am at. Now you've quote
me at an exciting place. Yeah, much much more exciting, I would
say than sometimes what's happening in Oxford, which I feel like is a more
limited theoretical framework. It sounds like you're really kind of expanding a bit more
into you know, drawing on greater other theoretical frameworks like feminism in order to
situate your work in Sanskrit. So it's sort of less this, less this
kind of classical philological approach, you know, you know, whatever that is,
with all of its more or less limitations, and broadening it to sort
of a more multidisciplinary kind of mode. Yes, but certainly the reading the
primary sources always anchors that for me. Yeah, because I think being able
to confront the historical sources without without the filter of translation is something that is
empowering because I don't have other voices interpreting those sources. To me, I
am the first witness in a way of it, without any intermediary So I
always bring that forward in my classes that you know, it's direct access to
the language. And a lot of this I'm thinking now in relation to a
very powerful post colonial thinker called Angoogi Wa Thiongo, who's black philosopher, and
he argues in his uh Decolonizing the Mind, that really reclaiming post colonial identity,
and this is in relation to African identity, is to go back to
African languages which have been systematically expunged and decimated by the brutality of colonialism.
So going back to your primary voice, your mother tongue, is actually clawing
back that identity which you've lost. So in a way, for me,
my journey into Sanskrit was coming back or understanding the source of my language and
my mother tongue more. And of course I'm sure there are problems with this
which you're going to raise as well. But because you know, as you
said, I think you mentioned in your email that there is this reactive trend
in academic amongst academic thinkers that say that well, you're going native, quote
unquote, but by going native, you're also somehow endorsing a very right wing,
fundamentalist, non liberal idea and ideology. Now I mean again, the
way I think about it is going back to heritage. Sorry, I'm kind
of chattering on without No, it's very no, it's very interesting. Yeah,
No, I mean why don't I I'll situate your question a little bit
and kind of give some a little further backdrop, just to add to what
you're saying. Yeah, the this the the the point I was sort of
interested in talking to you about. And You've said a lot of interesting things
that I feel like I have some questions about so well, but one of
one of the things will just go straight into it, even though I usually
save the politics towards the end, but why not discuss it at the beginning.
It'll keep people listening. Is that what you know there is On the
one hand, what's interesting about what you're saying is that there is this sense
in which to study soundscrit and to go to the source text of soundscret is
in a way coming home, like you're saying, for yourself as a as
a South Asian person, And in that sense, there's a decolonialist element to
that right to go to your mother tongue, as you say. And then
there is this kind of other argument which is pointing out that actually the emphasis
on sanscrit is in a way perpetuating Braminical orthodoxy and supremacy in the region.
And what we you know, what these these more polemical thinkers say we should
be doing, is we should be in some sense focusing more on elevator or
platforming Dravidian languages, other Indian languages that are not Dravidian or sense critic because
by focusing on Sanskrit is sort of the primary original language of India, we
in a sense marginalize some of these, you know, other cultures, other
people who lived in the region. So I guess you know, with that,
with those two kind of perspectives in mind, how would you you know,
situate your own perspective in relation to that? And also do you think,
I'm curious, do you think that that the point about the other languages
of India is a bit overstated when we look at because it seems like to
me, there are tons of there's so much work to do in Sanskrit alone,
right, there's so much literature, And yes, there's literature in these
other languages. But when we do proportionally, when we look at the literature
and the philosophy that has yet to be translated, it's there is no comparison
in terms of what is left un worked on, untranslated, undiscovered, is
it? Would you would you say that that's true? Yeah, So I'll
take the tooth aspects of the questions, oh for it. One was,
I guess one was about the whether whether whether learning sends through or whether studying
sounds with furthers Braminical discourses and Brahminical Orthodox thinkings. So that was the first
one, and the second one was about regional languages and marginalization of regional languages,
uh in favor of Sanskrit. So I'll take the first one. So
yes. So there is a bigger political context that's very important to draw out,
which is that in the past few years and particularly now, India has
been governed by a right wing Hindu nationalist party and they endorse a particular kind
of ideology, a political ideology that claims to interpret true Hinduism and I and
I used and I put true within quotation marks, which is basically their interpretation
of what Hinduism should be like. And within this agenda they also appropriate Sanskrit.
So because Sanskrit is the language of all the ancient scriptures, they see
any kind of study of Sansrith, or they take up the study of Sansrith
as part of the Hinduta agenda. So that's what's going on right now.
And regardless to say, I'm me like another like a lot of contemporary Indians
are very frightened by that because the India that I grew up was diverse.
There are many, many different voices, there are many different religious traditions.
India is kaleidoscopic culturally and religiously, and that's how I've always known India.
So the perpetuation of a monolithic identity that claims to be authentic to me is
full it's patently false. So you can understand that in the context of Sanscrit
being appropriated by right wing agendas, you can understand the reactive trend in academia
that somehow views study of Sanscrit with suspicion because they see in any kind of
study of Sanscrit that fundamentalist Brahminical agenda at work. Now that's why I found
it so easy to study. I mean, I found it easier to study
Sanscrit far away in rural Lancaster, where you know, I study sans with
as a scholar does purely for the love of the language and actually purely out
of curiosity. I'm not studying sanscrit out of any political agenda. The only
agenda that I think it serves is a romantic one for myself, which you
know, which is to to understand a different world and to inhabit a different
world. So so that's the context in which the reactive trend is coming up.
Now, studying Sanskrit or studying some Sanskrit literature maybe a furthering of Brahminical
discourse, because say you're studying things like or reading or elaborating on things like
the Harma Shastra, which, given that they're Hindu legal works, do further
a Brahminical agenda. So say, if you study really hardline things like that,
maybe maybe you are furthering an Orthodox agenda. But say, like me,
you study literature from marginal tradition, like goddess traditions, traditions which incorporate
a lot of subversive acts that defy Brahminical orthodox thinking concerning purity, then how
can you say I'm furthering Brahminical Brahminical orthodoxy. Goddess traditions actually defy Brahminical orthodoxy.
So that's my answer to to your The first part of the question is
that Sansrith can Sanskrit texts and sanscrit can cover a whole lot of things,
not just brahmanical discourse. And also if you love poetry and literature, which
is really my first love, the study of literature, I mean, are
you furthering elitist discourse by studying poetry? Is you know, then then you'd
say that, you know, studying Latin poet with further some kind of Latin
discourse. I mean I study poetry because I love poetry, I love literature.
So Sansrith is a broad umbrella. Lots of things can be covered in
it. Yea with the second part, which is regional languages. So my
first love is really not Sansrith. It's Bengali, which is my mother tongue.
And in a way, my whole journey into Sansyrit was through Bengali.
It was by reading a very important Bengali writer called bonquin Chandro, who writes
a very rich Sanskritic Bengali prose. It was that that was my first window
into the richness of the Sanscrit language. It was Bonkim's use of these beautiful
long compounds which are padded with description that was so Sanskritic. That excited my
interest in Sanskrit prose, which was where Bonkin was drawing his his style from.
So my journey into Sanskrit was through Bengali, and in I hope that
in doing Sanskrit, at some point in my life, I will come back
to my mother tongue, Bengali, because one day, I hope I'm able
to write beautiful pieces of Bengali literature. Hm hmm, that's beautiful. I
see that happening for you, definitely. So so I guess my my next
question with regards to this, and I hear what you're saying in terms of
what the and maybe maybe I'm just ignorant of the real of the kind of
libraries specific to you know, the possible libraries, possible texts that are within
these different regional languages. But is it also the case that we have a
proportionally larger library of literature or possibilities, you know, to be translated in
the textual tradition of Sanskrit then in these other other regional languages, such that
there is an argument that we you know, that that that that the that
the emphasis on Sanskrit over these regional languages makes some sort of proportional sense.
Does that make sense as a question. Yeah, I think it does make
sense as a question. But you're not sure that's true. Well, I
I mean, I don't think that one should study a language because or one
should study expressions in a language, or the literature or the the the religious
texts of a particular language because over and above another uh language, because there
is more unstudied texts in this and less less in that. I don't think
that's that's a very utilitarian argument. Who are studying a subject. I think
you should study a language and a literature and a culture because it fires your
imagination, because you're curious. It should be pure love and it should be
pure interest, not anything else. There is a vast amount of literature in
the regional languages in Tamil, in Bengali, and there will always be writing
in that. But that doesn't mean that we should not study Sanskrit and just
study those languages, those vernaculars. I'm interested in Bengali and Sanskrit is my
mother tongue, and I approach Sanskrit through the mother tongue. I think it's
okay if I want to read in both, and if I want to study
in both, if the passion is there, if the passion is there,
if the passion is there, Yes, what do you going back to the
question about you know, being able to go to the source text, why
do you think that that's so particularly important because it seems like there is less
and less of that, right, I mean, that's one of the things
you notice when you get to the program that that I studied with you in
and also just seeing the amount of students. There are very few students studying
sonscrit There are very few people, you know, like proportionally to the rest
of the academic community, really trying to get to a place where they actually
can interact with these texts. So I guess the question is sort of one
of how we even cultivate that passion to begin with, right, Because the
passion for languages you could say, socially had a height right there, because
it was emphasized, it was it was prioritized in sort of the academic culture
to learn other languages. And yeah, you could make an argument that that
was for some sort of imperialist agenda, colonialist agenda, But there was also
just, you know, in the background of that, a serious curiosity,
a passion like the one you're describing that you have for Bengali and for Sanskrit.
But in a state of our culture where we actually don't, you know,
less and less people have any passion whatsoever because they've never been introduced to
something that would actually ignite that passion. How do you, pedagogically, as
a teacher, inspire that in your students. Yeah, so, I think
one of the ways I do it, and I'm trying to do it now
is use the political argument in that Right now, Sanskri is being seen as
an rs A right wing Hindu fundamentalist thing. You know, this is the
right time, actually, this is the time when someone who's not right wing,
someone who's not well, who doesn't have that kind of political agenda,
should be studying Sanskrit to show that you can study Sanskrit unmotivated by any kind
of political ideology. This is the time to do it and ask difficult questions
that comes from reading, from studying the language that should be asked. I
mean, so, yes, So there is that argument that this is the
time really to study Sanskrit in the context of this rising intolerant attitude in in
India. This is the time to be studying Sanskrit in a way that isn't
constrained by that intolerant attitude, in a way that's free. So it's important
to be able to do let's say, subversive Sanskrit studies, Sanskrit studies that
does not toll a right wing politically politically a politically right wing constrained mode.
It should be a kind of study now that is well, that is courageous
to ask questions that come up in a free mind. And that's what I
tell students, and this is what gets them excited. So yeah, I
don't know if I answered that. No, you did. And I think
I just found the title of this podcast, Subversive Sanskrit Studies with Behani.
I love that and I'm gonna it brings up a question for me that's going
to go to another one of our kind of political slightly political or social.
Me should create this thing here, actually, Jacob, we should create subversive
Let's do it, a workshop for subversive Sanskrit studies. Yes, if you're
interested, listeners, email Jacob and Body philosophy dot com. Tell them you
want to be a part of this Subversive sanscrit studies workshop. We'll see if
there's some interest in that. So, okay, one of the other criticisms
sounds great, and I love talking about this with those with with people who
study soundscrit and obviously I do. But there's a there is a sense in
which the field is dominated by white men, straight white men. So I
mean, I have one, i have one marginalized ticking box, but I'm
still a white man in this field. So whether or not that makes me
a part of the problem or not, who knows. But how does it?
So? I have two questions regarding this, Like, first of all,
how has it been for you, as a South Asian woman to be
in an in you know, in a field dominated by white men. Has
it been something that you've actively reflected upon that you felt alienated by or affected
by in some way? And and in the and then in the name of
this sort of subversive Sanskrit cities, does a part of that also involve bringing
other marginalized voices into this field? Yeah, thank you. That is a
brilliant question. And I think I have been thinking about this for consciously and
unconsciously for the entirety of my Sanskrit journey. The first thing to say about
this field is that it's very male dominated. Yeah. First, there are
few way men in the field, and it's not just in Western academia.
Traditionally, Sanskrit is a subject I mean, the study of sanscrit has been
the privilege of men, although of course there are there are some women who
studied studied sanscrit and who wrote Sanskrit texts, and you have examples of women
philosophers in Upanishavik writings. You have citations of women poets in compendia of Sanskrit
poetry, but these are few. On the whole, the study of sansrith
has historically been the privilege of men. So going into sansric, that was
very conscious of the fact that I'm a woman stepping into a field of men,
white men, and brown men men in general. And I was very
conscious that the reason I was doing so was because throughout my life the arbiters
of authority, uh the arbiters of cultural authority while I was growing up were
all men. I didn't have the freedom to interpret tradition without it being interpreted
to me and for me by a man, or by a woman who echoed
a man's a man's viewpoint. So when I was going into study Sands with
I was very conscious of the fact that I was interpreting this literature and thought
world that was largely produced by men as a woman, and I'm taking I'm
making this radical choice. It was a choice of that empowered me because I
didn't want to be dependent on those male voices of authority. So that was
one aspect. As I went further in the field, I began to notice
that yes, it was not just male dominated, but it was also dominated
white by white men, and I think there is a particular way that white
men view non white women, especially non white women from the East. There
is a general stereotype, and it's not just in Sanskrit studies. I think
it might be in academia, might be more widely outside academia as well.
There's a general stereotype that women from the East are docile, a polite,
are quiet, are submissive, and because of those characteristics they are overlooked.
I felt overlooked and marginalized as a South Asian woman in a field dominated by
white male academics for a very long time, and so that forms a kind
of I guess an anger that I'm gradually coming to terms with, and I'm
fighting back against against that viewpoint intellectually these days as well, because I'm working
on a book on women in sensor of poetry and largely conceptions of wild women
and female transgression in this body of traditional literature that actually that actually argues that
instead of seeing a lot of these women in the way that they have and
they are by the white male Sanskritist, which is that they are passive,
unimportant, pretty nique uh non entities, that they're actually powerful, passionate,
active, defiant women. And it is possible to read these women against that
particular hegemonic, white male academic view. And an example I used to fight
back against that view is the example of poverty in the Kumara stuff that I
love that I can't wait to read that book. Well, I mean,
I'm curious, then, does because when you're talking about images of powerful women,
of course, the first thing that sort of emerges for me is our
images that one finds, iconographic images one finds in the Shakta tradition. And
you know, I feel like a lot of what we're talking about sort of
comes back, at least in terms of the religious study to shockedism, which
has been a big formative field of study for you and seems to motivate a
lot of what you do, because not only was your heroic Shockedism your first
book on obviously that very topic, but also interestingly for me, because I
took it up as well as you started the shockdism track at at Oxford in
the in the classic the m filin Classical Indian Religion, which was the program
that I that I did, that that I studied with you in. And
although it's sort of after you left because for those that are listening, so
the story went, she got a job at Lancaster and then left us after
the first year. We didn't we didn't judge you for it. It was
a totally valid decision, but we missed you back to me, come to
me in lancas to come back to become join me. I would love to.
I'm a subversive, yes exactly. So yeah, I'm just I'm just
curious how I I suppose I want. I'm trying to segue us into a
little bit of of that that passion and that pursuit of of the study of
shackedism, and and and I'm curious why because with with what is what is
important about studying Shackedism independently of Shivism? Right? Because a lot of times
I think Shockedism gets sort of absorbed into a study of Shaivism because it's considered
this sort of esoteric evolution or escalation of Shiva, of Shiva philosophy or soteriology.
But you really have, you know, are among you know, many
obviously academics and practitioners who really highlight and allowed to stand as independent from that
the shakta tradition. So can you talk a little bit about that. It's
sort of a broad ranging question, but it seems like a perfect time to
talk about it since we're sort of discussing marginalized voices and Shacdhism seems like it's
been a marginalized tradition until relatively recently. Yes, so within the subcontinent there
has always been independent veneration of a goddess or many goddesses identified as a single
supreme goddess. Areas of the subcontinents, such as Bengal, Nepal, South
India, Rajasthan are home to vibrant traditions of sharkta or goddess worship, in
which it's the goddess in her singularity who is worshiped. So the entire idea
that shark the traditions are somehow only adjuncts to Shaivism or Veraishnavism does not tally
with the lived reality of worship in the subcontinent presently as well as historically.
As well as historically, if you look at Sharkta inscriptions, they're more than
two hundred and forty inscriptions evincing devotion to a goddess and a goddess who is
exalted as a supreme, all powerful deity, going back to the second century
a d. So I think that we although it has although Indians have known
it for a very long time, it seems somehow within academia and within the
Western Western acaddemic discourse, it seems that it's important to show that Sharkhism was
a stand alone tradition because so much of the study of philosophical and conceptual sources
has been from the Shiva and the Vershnava areas. So that's my answer that
I think Sharkhism as an independent tradition has always been recognized by South Asians within
South Asia, and also inscriptions can can show it. I mean, one
of the reasons that Shakhism became ever more popular was that goddess worship was incorporated
into these other patriarchal traditions within Shaivism, within Vashnavism, even within China traditions,
and of course the Buddhistthantric traditions, there are strong shark that is to
say, goddess worshiping traditions that were incorporated. So Shakhism is not alone,
not only a stand alone tradition, but it also permeates and pervades other,
uh other classical traditions as well. So what was the second question, Jacob,
I don't even remember, but that's okay, I have more that's something,
but Shaktism and feminism was it? Or yeah, I mean, I
think, I guess, I guess the the yeah, the the question was
related to this idea of how the I don't know, not even resuscitation,
because right, like you're saying, it's always already been a part of the
lived experiences of people, you know, worshiping within these traditions in both both
contemporarily and and and anciently over centuries, and it's only within the academic study
that it's been sort of subsumed within these other within these other agendas, research
agendas. So it seems that there is a kind of feminist argument to be
made over focusing obviously on the elevation of the Shakta traditions. And there's a
feminist reasoning behind why the Shocta Shakta traditions may have been not highlighted as the
important traditions or as central to you know, the religious life of India.
Absolutely, I do think there's a feminist argument to be made in studying these
traditions in their own right rather than being as you know, quote unquote the
sexier versions of Shaivism and Vashonavism. And there is a further point about feminism
that I actually wanted to make, and this is, uh, this is
from my perspective as an Indian woman that for Salvasian women, shock the traditions,
the concepts, and the tales about the goddess and practices about the goddess
have been our homegrown native feminist traditions for centuries. Within these shark the tales,
we have models of female autonomy that Indian girls have found inspiring for centuries.
So it's a kind of homegrown feminist tradition which kind of which in you
know, which which formed templates of inspiring, uh emancipating Indian women. So
that's something that I've been kind of thinking about Lakey as well, that Shaktism
could even be thought of for the way I experienced it really is that it
was the local feminist tradition. Mm hmm. That's a really unique way to
think about it. I really love that. Actually, like the idea of
the Shakta traditions as a homegrown feminist today, I feel like that's a rich
area of research that hasn't really been explored so much. It seems that I
think it's important to think about it this way because lately, of course,
global feminisms are, you know, becoming very very important within feminist scholarship.
Writers from Islamic feminism, from Black feminism are really contributing with perspectives that challenge
assumptions within Western white feminism. And I think, I mean, I certainly
find the writings of Islamic feminists very very inspiring, writings of say Saba Mehmood
and Lailah Abulagoth, who argue that actually forms of piety, forms of women
expressing and relishing their religious life were in fact forms of self expression and empowerment
in many contexts. And I think that these kinds of alternative perspectives in feminism
that bring in the viewpoint of non Western cultures is really helpful now in for
us to consider Sharkhism has as a kind of feminist, as a kind of
kind of kind of feminist in its ideology that here you have here you have
as central a notion of autonomous female and an image of autonomous female, of
an autonomous female ness that is both maternal and at the same time that is
violent. So it's a really rich conception of female subjectivity that we find articulated
here. And when I have that in mind and I read tales and legends
of the Goddess, I actually see narratives about women's experiences lurking in the background.
For example, in legends about the goddess Kali leaping out from Parvati's rejected
black skin, the skin that she sloughed off her body because she wanted to
be fair and white, I find in it a reflection of unwanted basically a
tale about unwanted daughters. That the unwanted daughter is rejected from the mother's womb
and this unwanted daughter who is Carli grows up or becomes this ferocious and angry
goddess. So if you look deeply within Shark the narratives, you will find
feminist tales or tales about women's experiences. Yeah, I'm going to yeah,
almost like they're codified in some in these in these mythologies and these stories.
And I really like what you're pointing out about the way in which they chowlenge
the you know, obviously the notion of the maternal has a particular set of
features and in violence certainly isn't included within it. So you know, it
challenges these this binary thinking about what these concepts mean that our part and parcel
of, like you said, kind of a white Western approach to feminism,
wherein something like the maternal might be otherwise, you know, characterized differently.
So it offers a different picture of these things in a way that is really
fruitful. So that's really interesting. Yeah, I mean this is something this
is actually thinking about tales of women or tales of goddesses as narratives of women's
experience and narratives of that tell us about female subjectivity is something that I am
occupied with a lot these days, and I'm beginning to see that these tales
express so much more sisterhood. For example, I mean, I was,
you know, looking at the description of Barvadi's asceticism in chapter five of the
great epic poem the Kumara Sambaba. And in that description, Barvadi is not
alone. She's with her friends, and her friends accompany her on this journey
of self transformation. The and in this this narrative, Barvati's using piety to
express herself and to transform herself, to to make herself independent of family,
UH, to make herself into a new UH and strong woman. So and
in that journey, her friends are an important part, play an important part.
They're not hidden, They're there. And a lot of people have asked
me when I'm reading this text, why isn't she alone? And I'm like,
no, I mean, you know, she's she can't be alone.
She's with her sisters, with her friends. They are multiple voices. All
of these are voices of women, and poverty somehow stands for women in collectivity.
So this this idea of a collective female self, a self that is
in numbers, a self that is formed of different female experience which all echo
I feel that that emerges from a lot of this literature as well. That's
so interesting. So I'm going to ask you then, I wanted to ask
you a question about the style of historic shockedism, or rather the kind of
methodological approach which you know, as you've already mentioned, you talked at the
beginning about the relationship between religion and kingship, religion and kind of the state
apparatus for lack of a better term, which is a really important dimension of
understanding. I think that when you know, a lot of people who listen
to this podcast are practitioners of various sorts. They're yoga practitioners, they're meditators,
and in so far as they're interested in Indian philosophy or Indian religions,
they're interested from in some sense a devotional standpoint. So in that world,
there's a lot of people who have a lack of historical view, right and
and sometimes and there's a lot of I think criticism of this dehistoricization that happens,
you know, within certain contemporary spiritual communities, where whereby if they had
actually engaged at a historical in a historical way, there would be different insights
and and one could kind of tease out a little bit of some of historical
reasons for why some of these things emerged. So that's one dimension of thinking,
right, the historical view. But there's also this and I think actually
you we discussed this when you were teaching at Oxford, but because the book
is so historical and in some ways it feels a little bit like you know,
Sheldon Pollock is also a very historical thinker, and really, you know,
very much focuses on kind of the relationship between these these forms of these
different rules, patronages and connections with different state actors or governmental actors or imperial
actors. But then there is this competing view that suggests that if we over
historicize, then we actually disempower the lived, because these religious traditions are always
both contextual and also reaching beyond the contextual in their own self understanding, right,
They're reaching beyond towards a state of transcendent fulfillment that you know, takes
on a particular historical tonality in different context but is sort of reaching towards something
that it believes is perennial, right, that is, reaching towards some kind
of religious experience that then takes on these different characteristics depending on the different context.
So and so there is I think a critical response to the historical mode,
which I know you don't share this view purely and completely, but it's
just something that I think comes up when you're for somebody that might be reading
this text. It's sort of like, well, how when I'm when I'm
over, when I'm historicizing something in a particular way, I end I end
up feeling like it's no longer mine right in a sense, because it becomes
something that has been taken out of sort of the lived voice of perennial spiritual
experience and sort of almost a sense, I think Nietzsche made this point of
like of the way in which historicization can actually deaden the life of a of
a kind of spiritual trajectory. Or I mean, he wouldn't have put it
that way, but that's the way I'm putting it. So I don't know,
I've just went kind of on a tangent with all these things, but
I get you. There is this extreme secularized off aspects of South Asian culture
in which like for example, Karvia sanscrit poetry is sometimes by some scholars read
as something purely secular, but it's also the expression of religious piety. They
are passionate, devotional hymns which are written in ornate sansrit, so called secular
sandscript. So I think this division into secular and religious is the result of
a rather kind of Western liberal attitude that sees religion, politics, literature all
as separate little boxes and divided up, whereas in some parts of the world
it wasn't they really bounded together. For example, political rituals the as the
Rajasuya, the Navaratra, they were worship acts of worship in which there was
a genuine connection between the self and the transcendent, but there were also aspects
that empowered the ruler, empowered the entire state. So these two dimensions,
the political and the sacred, the mundane and the sacred overlapped, so you
can't divide the two up really in considering some certain aspects of heritage. So
that's my take on reading traditions historically is that you've got to be mindful and
conscious of their real genuine importance to practitioners as practices of faith, while at
the same time being aware of the various factors over time that have changed the
form of worship. So You've got to be both. You've got to be
aware of both aspects. You've got to take into account the fact that these
rituals are deeply important for some even today. And at the same time you've
got to take into account that these rituals also, like any other thing,
any other part of culture, has a history and a background. Yes,
I should also say that I am someone from South Asia. I am from
a traditional Hindu house. I am from grown up seeing and witnessing these traditions
firsthand and in a very authentic way. I therefore feel that given that I'm
an insider through and through, I have the right to study these traditions historically
as well, which have been studied historically by others who were not part of
the tradition. So for centuries they have been rituals have been studied as curiosities
historical curiosities by mainly non Western academic scholars, or they are appropriated as practice
by sorry by Western academic scholars, or they're appropriated by as practiced by Westerners
who are not part of the tradition. And as someone who comes from a
family that that's a freedom fight, a family of freedom fighters who fought against
colonial oppression. I see it as as a way of taking back control of
the narrative of my identity. So I feel that I do have a right
to be historical about these things, and I feel that I know about these
things, and I feel that I can be historical about these things because I
know about these things as an insider. Yeah, so you're bringing up a
really interesting point, and I didn't even know that we would go here,
but I'm glad that we are because what I'm what I hear you saying is,
you know, sometimes the sort of the emic understanding, or the insider
view is often within religious studies defined as someone who is internal to the tradition,
not necessarily by means of culture, but by means of practice and engagement.
You know, one who one who sort of imbibes and and feels internal
to the worldview and the philosophy of that tradition and has adopted sort of the
the so the let's say, the epistemologies that one does, whether it's ritual
or meditation, or some form of practice or ritual to actually I don't know
embody that tradition, and so what I what I hear you may be suggesting,
and I kind of want to hear what you think about this is that
and this is another thing that's been criticized, of course by some academics that
or you know, just people those who are in that that that that this
is that to be an insider of the tradition, one must be of the
culture like that that and that because you were from India, you're from Bengali
and you were internal to these traditions. Like when I hear you say,
you're an in that seems defined by this cultural specificy, this cultural location,
right and culture and the kind of immersion that you were and the way in
which you embody, but my means of being raised in it? So I
guess my question is do you think that it's not possible, you know,
like Christianity, other religions, you people convert to these traditions. How do
you see Hinduism with regards to that. Can someone become an insider by means
of their own adoption of these worldview and practices or does one have to be
a person raised within these traditions in order to be an insider. Oh my
god, that is such a difficult question and it's such a minefield because while
you say that I'm very much aware that part of the thing, part of
the arguments that being blue nationalists use is that you know, knows of the
tradition are simply born into the tradition, So you've got that kind of that
kind of view. But on the other hand, I'm also thinking of say
African philosophers like Ungogi Watjongo, who who really does make this argument in decolonizing
the mind and in a very radical way, that it's only someone who is
who is born Black African who has the right and the power to express a
viewpoint about their traditions because they know the traditions the best, and that argument
is made as a kind of reclamation of lost identity. So you've got two
things going on here on either side, and I don't know what the right
answer is. I think a strong part of me, which is I mean
a large part of me, which is powerfully influenced by black decolonization philosophy,
is by black decolonialist thinkers, does think that you need to be from inside
the tradition to really understand it, you need to be from the culture to
really understand it. But another part of me also is critical, self critical
and says that no actually you're thinking like an RSS a hind nationalist person to
say that if you can only understand the culture best if you're born into it.
So I'm actually not quite sure, I think for the time being,
because we are in a moment in history where post colonial societies such as India
are still finding their identity and still reclaiming that lost identity which has been which
has which has basically been taken away, and there's trauma that we have to
go through generational trauma. That part of me says, though, at this
point and moment of time, I need to make a commitment to the political
stance that one needs to be from within the culture to understand it well so
that one can evaluate it, re evaluate it, and thereby come up with
a new post colonial a post colonial identity, a South Asian identity. But
at the same time, I'm not a Hindu fundamentalist. Yeah, no,
I really appreciate the honesty about this because I think it's Islamic kingship today and
you know, the joys and wonders of the esthetic marvels of South Asian Islam
was the topic of the day to day in the classroom. So so yeah,
I'm not quite sure where I stand on that, Jacob. I think
it's a really difficult question, and we can go on and on talking about
it. Yeah, I mean, I really appreciate your your honesty about it,
and I think I think it just is one of those those questions that
to be honest with yourself, if you're a careful thinker, you end up
in a little bit of a paradox because because it you know, on the
one hand, I mean, I, you know, I it's I'm honest
about the fact that I practice within a meditative tradition that derives from Shakhta Shaiva
tantra and I and I and I feel I feel connected, and that I
would say that I'm an insider to that tradition insofar as I am engaged with
like I I am, I am an insider to the worldview in which those
the soteriological technologies make sense, right I am, you know. And but
at the same time, I did not was not raised in India. I
do not come, you know, from a background where I was immersed in
that. And I fully acknowledge that there is an argument to the fact that
by privileging too many voices within the conversation, who were not raised in India
and then having that take on like this is what shaivism is or this is
what shocksm is and those people did not have the experience of being raised within
the cultural framework of of India that that it's a will it will be kind
of painting a picture of that tradition that is of a different flavor. And
so that's the key thing that you mentioned, that it's a different flavor.
As long as it's like, you know, it's like the kind of shakshakha
that I make at home. I've got it up from some recipe book.
It's not really the traditional wonderful blo orias shukshuaka that someone from a deep a
Turkish household will cook for me. I'm aware of it. I'm aware of
it as long as I think one is aware that there is there are roots
and origins. That's where history is important, because it tells you about the
roots and origins of that particular cultural practice that we are aware of that journey.
And it's like sometimes you know, when you forget the roots, you
forget the kind of the trauma that was. Sometimes there are histories of colonialism
and slavery and things like that and all these practices that have gone from one
culture to another that people forget. I think the key thing here is to
be aware of the story and history of that tradition, where it comes from.
It's very important to know where it comes from, because the danger is
that when this when memory of where it comes from is lost, that's when
you take away the voice of the original tradition. Yeah, and the power
of the original tradition. That's where you're appropriating. That's where that that's what
we call cultural appropriation, where you don't recognize, you don't value the place
where that tradition started and the reasons why it started and the people amongst whom
it started. So knowledge, it comes down to knowledge and awareness, being
mindful and respectful, and valuing the place where something comes from. M h
yeah, absolutely, yeah, No, that's really well said. So speaking
of kind of the the formative experiences that are sort of part and parcel of
how you relate to sunscrit and also to the traditions of shockedism that you feel
internal to. One of the things that I just loved about you from the
beginning was your chanting You're singing during your book release, which I thought speaking
of radical, you know, subversive sunscript practices. I'm like, you know,
this is not subversive, right, This is this is quite a traditional
way of engaging with sanscrit as. You know. Anybody who knows any even
a little bit about sunscript knows that there is an incredible vibratory tradition of tradition
of oral recitation. And and and when I I one of the things that
I'm kind of very passionate about is the notion of and the position of the
scholar practitioner, and and that my approach to it has to do more of
the kind of embodied pistemologies that I feel are particular to studying something like any
yoga tradition. Right, You're not going to be able to understand the sort
of concepts of yoga experience if you are not engaging with the pistology embodied to
pistemologies. So like, to me, it's almost That's another way I feel
like this cultural appropriation argument can go that I feel particularly passionate about is that
you know that what is happening, you know, particularly in academia, but
also to a certain extent, you know, they take on different they do.
It happens in different ways in the modern yoga community and then academia.
In academia, they are they're engaged from this quote unquote objective standpoint, and
the sort of embodied practices or rituals that would help one to kind of concept
in a non discursive way, the teachings or the concepts of those traditions they're
not engaged with, you know, they don't you know, academics aren't meditating
generally, they're not chanting, right, They're not doing these things that are
sort of perhaps one way we can understand a dimension of understanding these traditions,
of course. And then in the yoga tradition, they are you know,
I mean from a popular standpoint, they are anesthetizing the yoga practice from its
soteriological component, right, they are kind of extracting the hot to yoga,
right, the physical practices from the spiritual context from which they derive, and
therefore not actually giving the yoga an opportunity to do what it's designed to do,
which is to help you experience some sort of you know, various forms
of transcendent states depending on which tradition you're looking at. So, then coming
back to your approach, I sort of saw you as being a kind of
kindred spirit in this way. I'm because the fact that you chose to,
you know, to go a little further in what would have in an academic
environment where people are most of those academics in that room are not going to
go and release their book and chant or sing. And I loved that you
did that because it just showed a kind of sensitivity and a vulnerability and creativity
at your core as an academic. But also you're you know, a subversive
way that actually is quite traditional of presenting sanscrit to an academic audience while also
staying connected to the practice of the recitation of Sunscrit. So that's a lot
of talking. Uh So, Yeah, I'm just curious what you think about
that and how you see your relationship with sanscrit from a musical. I don't
know if you see it as devote perspective, how you see that playing into
all the things that we've been talking about in terms of your relationship with Sanskrit
as an academic and as a as a thinker. Well, before I give
my answer, I should mention to your audience that I don't know if your
audience knows that Jacob, you are a trained dancer and singer as well.
I wouldn't call myself a trained dancer, but I mean I was. I
was originally in musical theater, so I had to do all of that,
and and singing was kind of my first love. So that's also, yes,
you're right the back. The context of this is also that hearing you
sing also of course captures my own and I think maybe that was also what
appealed to me, is that I was like, ah, someone who can
combine the interest, the passions to sing and to focus on on this path
of study and integrated in such a beautiful way. And yeah, that was
also what appealed to me as well, was kind of that that those two
things being brought together, so you understand the joy of art, the joy
of performance, the joy and nerves a performance, just just the that that
energy that happens when you're performing, that moment where you feel you're lifted out
of this space and there's something magical that's happening right now, almost like witchcraft.
I think you understand that. And you're speaking to someone who is a
frustrated singer. I trained in Indian classical music for a very very long time.
In fact, My first memory is of my mother singing. She has
a beautiful voice and she was trained in the songs of Tagore. I am
from a Bengali household, and it's almost durger for any goalie child to be
trained in the songs of Tagore. My mum not just trained in it,
she loves singing it and she's a beautiful voice. So my first memory is
lying on her lap, looking up at her face and her singing accompanied by
the thanpura. And from that time on, music has been very close to
my heart. It runs in the family. I've grown up surrounded by people
who love music, family friends who are musicians. Music was the topic of
the day, So I think, deep down I am first a singer and
then an academic. I think I'm an accidental academic. And oh, I
mean so much of the natural power of music, which which is instinctive.
I just feel. I feel like Sanskrit. I learned it and I had
to struggle with it, but I was just born with music. It was
a gift. And if one once talking about transcendence, well that's I'm blessed
that in my otherwise mundane life, that's a touch of transcendence and I'm grateful
for it that there is that that music is the touch of transcendence in my
life. And in a way, singing Sanskrit poetry in Indian ragas is a
way to reconnect with that transcendence. Really, I don't think of it as
doing something traditional. In fact, I'm probably not chanting it according to the
traditional way. I I compose uh melodies to particular that also keeps up my
practice and knowledge of the ragas. And I take particular pieces of sensor with
poetry that I feel will just be totally different if it was experienced as music
and I set it to music and I sing it, and hopefully that gives
a different a better experience of of the of the poem. So yeah,
I h It's a way for me to keep in touch with a powerful spiritual
dimension in me that I cannot explain that I was blessed with and I'm grateful
that I was blessed with it. And when whenever I die, I want
to die with the song on my lips. That's so beautiful. What an
incredible note to end on as well. Just I'm so glad we ended up
here. I really, I'm so glad. I asked you that because I
really do feel I mean, I'm actually in this place of a lot of
shifts have happened recently for me, and one of I started studying with a
voice teacher again, and I was I was kind of kicked out of a
musical theater program, which is an early adult trauma that is basically set me
on the path that I'm on now. And I feel like I'm also an
accidental academic, or I'm on that path of becoming an accidental academic, and
it's I'm always there's always kind of music in the background that pulls me toward
it, and and I feel like there is this sort of, you know,
journey in which I'm trying to integrate these two aspects of myself. And
I love that you mentioned music as a reaching towards a transcendent or as a
spiritual practic is because I I really feel that, you know, just making
a kind of perhaps polemical or philosophical point that music is is already spiritual and
the only reason that we experience it is mundane is because we've forgotten, right,
It's sort of this prettia bishina, like if we could just recognize that
it is already a spiritual practice. Then you know, it's only in our
culture that we have kind of put it in this category of entertainment. So
I'm really glad that you mentioned that, because you know, it's I think
music is an easy way into the spiritual for so many because it's sort of
that last, that last kind of universal thing that we all share. I
mean, it's hard to find people it built like musical music. Yeah,
it's art, it's creativity, it's it's shakti, isn't it. Yeah?
Yeah? Wow, Well this has been s a lovely conversation, Behani,
and I'm so glad that we went on for a little more than longer than
I usually do, but it felt really lovely. I hope your view is
not bored. What's up? I hope your viewers were not bored. Oh
no, no, we went into so many interesting areas and I didn't even
touch on classical Sanskrit tragedy. But maybe next time you'll have to come when
you're in in London next time, let me know, and we should.
We should have a coffee and and catch up. I would love to see
you in person after so long. You've got to tell me about your voice,
coach. I will do yes. So is there anything you know?
Just again, I've been speaking to Behani Souker and she is the author of
two books right just to Heroic Shockedism. I have both of them here.
Heroic Shockedism The Cult of Durga An Ancient Indian Kingship, which is just as
it sounds, an investigation of the culture of Durga in ancient Indian kingship.
A very interesting historical perspective and I definitely recommend it if you are a student
or an interested reader of Shaktism. And then the second book, which I
was at the book release party four and I'm very happy to say what we
were speaking of Behani when Bhani was singing at the book release. It was
for the book Classical Sunscrit Tragedy the concept of suffering and pathos in Medieval India.
And this was actually the first one I read. Really super interesting because
I love the kind of cross cultural emphasis of it, the discussion of kind
of I mean, obviously you were focused on sunscrit, but the concept of
tragedy being sort of monopolized in some sense by the Western tradition, thinking that
it has some sort of exclusive right over that term and from what I understand.
The point of the book really was to illustrate the way in which we
find tragedy represented in Sanskrit literature. So those two books, get them at
your local bookstore or on Amazon. I believe you can find them there.
And is there anything else that you're working on behind in terms of book products
projects you want to share so that when people listen to this, if it's
in the future, they can look for that as well. Well. I'm
working on a book called Wild Women and Goddesses in Ancient Sanskrit Poetry and Mythology,
So a lot of wild women there. I'm sure there's lots of people
who relate to that, so cheke that I'll be getting with that book myself.
So yeah, look for Wild Women if it's if it's in November of
twenty twenty three, when this is being interviewed, when is when do you
have a d around when it might be coming out twenty twenty five? Okay,
so it's a little ways away. I'm still right they're working on it,
all right. Well, if you're listening to this in twenty twenty five,
look for Wild Women by Behneysucker And otherwise it's been fantastic and I have
to see you very soon. It's been such a pleasure, and I'm sending
you a big, warm hug from my end and hope you flourish and sing