Some of our Indian students have difficulty with how certain Sanskrit texts are taught. They are frustrated that we treat, e.g., the Rāmayāṇa as literature, and the Bhagavad Gītā as philosophy, and feel that this does not show respect to the texts. Our instructors have tried to challenge everyone to consider their definitions of what texts count as religious, whether from ancient Greece, China, or India, but some students still find these approaches to be disrespectful. I wonder if you have any thoughts about how to engage with students coming from (I’m guessing) relatively conservative Hindu contexts who are being taught their favorite religious texts in a non-religious way. Do you have any strategies for helping them feel less alienated? Or for demonstrating respect for the texts even while applying critical reading strategies?

It is an interesting question and one that regards not only Hindu students, I think. I, for one, tend to stress a few things:

1. I explain at the beginning of the classes that I am not going to just deliver knowledge contents (encyclopedias and other books are there for this purpose). Rather, I use classes to help myself and my students to do some exercise in critical thinking. If they dislike this, and prefer to remain in the cosy world of their unshaken prejudices about India (and I tell some “Orientalist” examples), they should skip my class.
2. I also mention Th. Adorno’s “„Das Halbverstandene und Halberfahrene ist nicht die Vorstufe der Bildung, sondern ihr Todfeind“ and the Dunning-Kruger effect. I then substantiate it by giving to the students a set of ten easy questions (such as “Which texts are included in the Vedas?”), which they usually fail to answer correctly, so that they can see how much they don’t know, which enables them to be open for new challenges.
3. I constantly try to question my own background while discussing Indian materials. The discussion of Vedic rituals and their dehi me dadāmi te (TS) approach is a good chance to engage with ex voto offerings and their do ut des mechanism. Yesterday, for instance, I mentioned the belief of some of our parents and grandparents who offer something to S. Anthony of Padua in order to find a missing set of keys or some missing glasses. In this way, I hope that students understand that “critical thinking” does not mean “I am the superior one and can criticise someone else”. I also try to stress how seemingly descriptive terms are in fact normative judgements (e.g. “Indian religions are polytheistic”) and to warn students about mistaking what is normal for them as what is “the normal” for everyone and “the right” for everyone.
4. Yesterday we were discussing the Bhagavadgītā and someone asked whether it can really be the work of a single person. I explained briefly that there are different theories and that since we were at this point dealing with the Bhagavadgītā as a theological text and its commentaries we would not need to deal with the problem of its origins, since Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhva all regarded it as a single-authored work. In other words, I try to distinguish the precincts of discourse.

This being said, it is also true that students of South Asian origin are always less than 30% in my classes and that some of them come from different backgrounds (last year I had a student of Sikh origin, this year a student of Parsi origin, a few Buddhist ones are also often present).

What worked for readers, both as students and as teachers?