Editing Russia and the Soviet Union (section)

== Soviet Indology and Its Indian Connections ==

Russian engagement with Buddhism was not confined to the Buryats and Kalmyks. Imperial and Soviet scholars also built a school of Buddhist studies that drew visitors from British India, among them two figures treated elsewhere in this project, [[Dharmanand Kosambi]] and [[Rahul Sankrityayan]]. This section describes that school, the Indian connections that the sources document, and a Soviet critique of colonial philology that Craig Brandist has read alongside Indian anti-caste thought. It concerns scholarship and travel more than Buddhist political practice; the renovationist movement described above remains the Russian case of the latter.

=== The Leningrad school ===

Two academicians of the late imperial period, Sergei Ol'denburg (1863–1934) and Fyodor Stcherbatsky (Fedor Shcherbatskoi, 1866–1942), came from the "Rozen School" of Russian Orientalism and pioneered a Soviet school of Buddhology.<ref>Brandist, Craig (2022). "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology: the work of Aleksei Barannikov in the light of Dalit studies". ''Language & History'' 65.3: 201–219, p. 204.</ref> Brandist reports that they regarded Buddhism as "an egalitarian and rigorous philosophy of reason," a view that contrasted with most European opinion of the time, and that they drew on living [[Tibet]]an and [[Mongolia]]n traditions as well as on Sanskrit texts.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology", p. 204.</ref> They were founding editors of the series ''Bibliotheca Buddhica'' (established 1897) and, together with [[Agvan Dorzhiev]], helped to establish the first Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg, built around 1909. After the Revolution they organized Buddhist exhibitions, including one in Petrograd in 1917, as well as conferences and museums that promoted the compatibility of Buddhism and Bolshevism.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology", p. 204.</ref> Brandist treats the renovationist current in Siberia, described above, as the immediate attraction that drew [[India]]n visitors to Leningrad.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology", p. 204.</ref> The center of the school was the Institute for the Study of Buddhist Culture in Leningrad, founded in 1927 under Stcherbatsky.

The favorable climate did not last. Stcherbatsky's work on Buddhist logic was denounced as part of an ideological struggle against Leninism, ''Bibliotheca Buddhica'' was closed as a mouthpiece of the Buddhist-Lamaist religion, and six of his closest colleagues were arrested as counter-revolutionaries, one of whom was executed.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> Stalin's public ridicule of the supposed identity of Communist and Buddhist doctrines, in January 1929, is described above. Among the victims was Mikhail Tubianskii (1895–1937), who had tried to bridge classical Buddhology and modern Marxist thought, moved to Mongolia in 1927, and was executed ten years later.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref>

=== Indian visitors ===

[[Dharmanand Kosambi]] worked at the Leningrad institute in 1929–30 and again in 1932 or 1933, and he was among those who studied with Stcherbatsky.<ref>Ober, Douglas (2023). ''Dust on the Throne: The Search for Buddhism in Modern India''. Stanford University Press, pp. 235–236 and n. 66 (p. 305).</ref> In the account summarized in Meera Kosambi's introduction to his writings, he returned to India in early 1930 and passed through the Soviet Union again in 1932, partly to see the "new social system," whereas Geetha places his Soviet stay in the 1920s.<ref>Kosambi, Meera (Ed.) (2010). ''Dharmanand Kosambi: The Essential Writings''. Permanent Black, Introduction; Geetha, V. (2021). ''Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the Question of Socialism in India''. Palgrave Macmillan, n. 46 (pp. 290–291).</ref> [[Rahul Sankrityayan]] made his first journey to the Soviet Union in 1935 and stayed in Leningrad in 1937–38, working with Stcherbatsky. Ober reports that Soviet attitudes toward Buddhism had by then turned to condemnation, and has him leave the country in 1939 after marrying Ellena Narvertovna Kozerovskaya, described as a student of Stcherbatsky.<ref>Ober (2023), ''Dust on the Throne'', p. 244 and n. 19 (p. 331). The dates of Sankrityayan's Soviet stays are reported differently by Joshi, Maya (2009). "Rahul Sankrityayan's Journeys of the Self: Nation, Culture, Identity". ''Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences'' 16(1&2): 119–147, who gives 1935, 1937, 1944, and 1962, and the 1939 departure is treated as unsettled on his own page.</ref> Kosambi thus arrived as Soviet policy toward Buddhism was hardening, and Sankrityayan during the repression of the late 1930s, when scholars of the Leningrad school were being arrested. For their Marxist readings of Buddhism, see [[Marxist Interpretations of Buddhism in India]].

=== Barannikov and the critique of colonial philology ===

Aleksei Petrovich Barannikov (1890–1952), who had studied Sanskrit in Kiev and moved to Petrograd in 1924, worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies from 1934 and developed a critique of Indo-European philology that Brandist reads alongside Indian anti-caste thought.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> Barannikov argued that Brahman philologists, defending their caste interests, had constructed Sanskrit as the single unitary literary language of India and dismissed the Prakrits and vernaculars as corruptions; that European Indology was indebted to this construction; and that British and German colonial scholars drew racist conclusions from the Indo-European theory in order to present British rule as the restoration of an "Aryan" order. He wrote of the vernacular poets Kabir and Tukaram as persecuted for denouncing Brahman privilege, and he produced critical studies or translations of ''Prem Sagar'' (1937) and the ''Ramcharitmanas'' (1948).<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> Brandist sets this critique beside the independent critiques of Phule, [[Iyothee Thass]], and [[BR Ambedkar|B.R. Ambedkar]], while regarding any direct influence in either direction as uncertain.

The link with the Indian visitors is one of parallel and shared milieu. Barannikov is not recorded as having met or corresponded with Kosambi or Sankrityayan, and he worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies, which was administratively distinct from Stcherbatsky's institute.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref> His work was later eclipsed in Soviet Indology, which in the Cold War favored the view of Sanskrit as the great unifying force of India, and Brandist reports that Dalit thinkers, including those of Navayana Buddhism, became the subject of sustained Russian research only after 1991.<ref>Brandist (2022), "Soviet Indology and the critique of colonial philology".</ref>

=== Periyar's visit of 1932 ===

A different kind of Indian visitor was E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar), the leader of the Self-Respect movement, who toured the Soviet Union in 1932 with S. Ramanathan as a guest of the atheists' association and was registered as an honorary member. On his return he published Lenin's views on religion in translation in his journal ''Kudi Arasu''. Debi Chatterjee writes that his admiration rested less on the economics of the Soviet program than on its experiments in abolishing religion.<ref>Chatterjee, Debi (2022). "Periyar E.V. Ramasamy". In: Malik, Suratha Kumar & Ankit Tomar (Eds.), ''Revisiting Modern Indian Thought: Themes and Perspectives'': [pages]. Routledge; Murugesan, K., & C.S. Subramanyam (1975). ''Singaravelu: First Communist in South India''. People's Publishing House, p. 67.</ref> Periyar was not a Buddhist. He was a guest at the 1928 conference of the South Indian Buddhist Association, and Geetha and Rajadurai describe his relationship with Buddhism as largely symbolic, while Chatterjee's chapter does not mention Buddhism at all; the visit belongs to the history of the Indian anti-caste left and not to that of Buddhism.<ref>See [[Tamil Buddhist Movement]]. Aloysius, G. (1998). ''Religion as Emancipatory Identity: A Buddhist Movement among the Tamils under Colonialism''. New Age International, p. 97; Geetha, V., & S.V. Rajadurai (1998). ''Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar''. Samya.</ref>