While freedom of speech is a civil right accepted beyond question, it becomes problematic to have only one public opinion among an unfamiliar audience. AnjaliShankar'sop-ed "On Holi and the Color Run" (Oct. 29) is an opinion well expressed. I thank her for bringing this important issue to light. While her voice is certainly valid, we need to look at the counter-arguments too in order to ensure a balanced discussion on the topic. In this op-ed, I aim to nuance the terms Shankar uses and warn against certain unintended consequences of her article, which may have a great degree of collateral damage in days to come.
There are a few things I need to clarify before the argument. First, neither I or Shankar speak for any entity larger than ourselves. Secondly, the argument holds only in the Hindu context, and it will be wrong to fashion concerns of other minority communities "in general" by taking my argument. Context is the dictating factor in this case. Thirdly, this article voices concerns of nationalism applicable largely to the political context in India, where Hinduism is a majority, as opposed to a minority in America. We should be careful about the difference between Hinduism in a minority context and in a majority context.
The basic premise of Shankar's argument is that Holi is a festival rooted in Hinduism and Indian culture, which she feels has been misappropriated by the Color Run. Before going into the consequences of the argument, let us think of the terms "festival," "Hinduism" and "Indian culture." What is a festival? The color-playing parts of Holi, in essence, have few divine elements. In the GaudiyaVaishnava tradition, Holi is a celebration of Krishna's play with his consorts in the divine garden. It is described in countless Vaishnava poems of medieval Bengal (see "In Praise of Krishna" by Edward C. Dimock). It often has an aesthetic value more than a theological one. Why don't we think of festivals as aesthetic and enjoyable in essence? Is Hinduism a "religion" - in the Western, Protestant sense of the term, one barely 200 years old? Given the pluralism of practices and diversity of actions involved, we may think of not one, but many Hinduisms, each having beliefs and practices of its own. In terms of "Indian culture," the most important idea will be to visualize culture as a historical process, rather than a static thing. Yoga, for example, was certainly a school of philosophy in ancient India, but ancient Yoga texts have little to do with the Yoga that is practised in the United States and in modern India. We think of the process as the demeaning of Yoga only when we think of the ancient Yoga as an absolutely finite one. Can we instead see the journey of Yoga as a fluid process, changing meanings as it crosses boundaries and creates new meanings?
The importance of Holi is as a social festival. On that day, gender and often class lines are removed, and people get to mingle and play freely. Certain sections of Indian society allow women to play with men freely at that moment, an excellent example of social mobility and fluidity. Is the Color Run too not a wonderful way of showing cultural fluidity? We may as well celebrate the moment of cultural confluences while celebrating the Color Run. At the same time, I warn you against viewing America as a monolithic block, an entity whose members think in the same way about Hinduism. Maybe the Color Run just borrowed a beautiful practice, just like we absorb the fragrance of a rose. The rose does not lose anything, but the scent remains with the person who smells it.
Festivals do not belong to us, but exist only because they are shared. This is where I think Shankar's article has the potential of some dangerous collateral damage. I am sure Shankar is not a cultural nationalist and is someone who is simply sharing her feelings. To think that something is being "taken away," however, one must presuppose that it belongs to one. This is where the problem lies. Shankar mentions that Hindu students should have a say in the Color Run. Her good intention is beyond question, but the idea that there exists a guardianship of culture can have a dangerous meaning, especially in majority contexts like in India. This is where I disagree: I do not think anybody needs to be consulted for appropriating festivals. Culture is not an intellectual property; it exists because it is learnt and shared.
The reason I disagree so strongly with this point of Shankar's is that the idea of seeking permission for cultures may lead to the growth of institutions uncalled for. Shankar seeks to voice her opinions as a minority - a necessary right. But what if this idea gives birth to an institutional practice of consulting a select group of people before any cultural appropriation of Hinduism? Institutionalization of Hinduism in India has led to extreme violence against minority communities for the past century. Hindu nationalism is a horrible dream India is trying to wake up from, as it has caused enough damage already. This is what I mean by a "collateral damage." Shankar's apparently harmless argument can therefore have a serious consequence in India, something to be wary of.
The geographic location where cultures originate from is not really so important. Then we begin to fumble with questions like what is India, and what is Indian culture - and enter an infinite regress without any positive production of knowledge. Indeed, a lot of "Indian" culture is Arabic, Chinese or even European by origin. It is necessary to see cultures located in time rather than confined to space. Can we try to visualize cultural spaces irrespective of national boundaries? In 2013, America may well be Indian in many ways, just as India may be American in number of ways. If the Color Run persists for 100 years, people then may even forget that it was born out of Holi. Do we try then to reiterate the practice as a plagiarized one? Or can we think of it as a practice that has spread from India - just like chess or the number zero - so globally that it has renounced a parochial identity? Instead of visualizing cultures as being taken away, why don't we see them as gifts? Nobody loses anything in this cultural appropriation: This is the beauty of the idea.
I see the Color Run as a triumph of Hindu pluralism and as an example of crossing boundaries. I am, however, strongly against the idea of consultation of a representative body before cultural appropriation of Hinduism. The location of culture better not be in institutions, as institutions have the capacity to enforce in reverse the very discourses we try to negotiate: racism and nationalism, for example. Instead of envisioning an ancient tradition, let us see Holi as a dynamic, ever-changing festival that has crossed geographical boundaries and influenced many cultures instead of just one.
