Courtright's Depiction of Shri Ganesha - Authentic Scholarship or Bigotry

Courtright's Depiction of Shri Ganesha - Authentic Scholarship or Bigotry

by Shree S. Vinekar, MD, DFAPA, FAACAP, MACP

Prof. Courtright's use of psychoanalytic theory is a veneer to his bigotry. The issue highlighted by the protesting concerned citizens in U.S., who are knowledgeable of Hindu culture, is not an attack on Prof. Courtright's freedom of speech or academic freedom. The Hindu scholars are not oblivious of the lofty democratic principles. The crucial issue is Prof. Courtright's scholarly responsibility to the arcane fields of Hindu Philosophy and Mythology, as well as the appropriate use of Applied Psychoanalysis. The limitations of his knowledge of both of these subjects makes his book on "Ganesa" comparable to the pseudoscientific arguments, used in the disciplines of Humanities, to justify racism and eugenics in the 1960's. Such fallacious “logic” was designed to gain academic respectability. Such ploy or subterfuge is likely to mislead and misinform other honest but gullible academicians in the U.S. Prof. Courtright has distracted them into believing that his work published under the banner of Emory has authentic scholastic merit. He would view any attack on his blatant "cross-cultural vandalism" as an encroachment on his academic freedom. Such defense and other arguments used by Prof. Courtright are nothing but smoke and mirrors. His counteraccusations against his critics further demean and discredit the Hindu scholars who have taken a serious exception to the contents of his book. His scholastic sounding exterior is a cover up for the deliberate and malicious maligning of a respectable culture. The defensive response of Prof. Courtright is a gross misuse of the concept of academic freedom. It is clearly a form of “anal sadistic” attack on another respectable society under the disguise of authentic scholarship. In short, Prof. Courtright has ulterior motives in attempting to publish his book from New Delhi, India. The considered action of the Parliament of India taken against his book and the recall of his book by its Indian publisher must not be viewed as a disregard of the democratic principle of freedom of expression. Simply speaking, the liberty to act cannot be translated as a freedom to urinate on the pole on which a national flag is hoisted. These views are respectfully submitted for consideration by the Emory University authorities that may have been unwittingly but sincerely defending Prof. Courtright, previously losing sight of the above-mentioned implications.