Forum member's experience as a Hindu professor in a Christian college in TN

A newly inducted member to the discussion group had a very heart breaking story to relate regarding her experiences as a Hindu professor of English in a Christian college in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.

We reproduce here her exact words.

1. As a Prof of English in a Catholic College experienced innumerable verbal attacks, gestures of disapproval and arrogant remarks from colleagues: a. Human Rights class open attack on Brahmins - "Brahmins only used to molest Dalits."

2. When I had a chat on Whats app with my student - a journalist currently with Indian Express - I criticized her for using the term "saffron bulls" and I told her not to denigrate that noble term which symbolizes sacrifice. I referred to noble works of Swami Vivekananda. From an unknown activist I had wordy dual who condemned Swami Vivekananda as Castetist and he said he too had done nothing for the Dalits. I had to argue through the night. I showed him how DMK has done only ethnic cleansing of the Brahmins and not improved the situation of the Dalits. But he was not convinced. 

 
3. I had an opportunity to get a Dalit girl married in my own house (to avoid a critical situation about 8 months back.) I had priest in my house (a Catholic priest who was not happy about the turn of events for my gesture broke their myth of Brahmin brutality against the Dalits) But openly he abused the Hindu gods and our faith. (Whom are you going to see when you reach Heaven. Your religion confuses you with so many Gods).

4. I happened to wear the label Brahmin and though I achieved a great deal in college there was always a step motherly treatment. I was denied FIP . ( I had to pursue my Ph.D without any leave benefits. I had to exhaust all my personal leave.)

5. I have received threat calls in college. When I mentioned the term Taliban (an announcement in the The Hindu- about 25 years back) I had an anonymous call threatening me. (At that time the nuns had to awareness- I am still waiting to talk to that nun - for recently 60 odd Christians were killed in Pakistan during Easter by Taliban.)

6. Conversion into Christianity is rampant as Sri Rajivji has pointed out now it is the Pentecosts. My own Prof. of Tamil has been hounding a Brahmin Prof (both retired) with constant e mailing saying that she would not reach Heaven if does not become a Christian.

7. I read the Scriptures daily. so they have branded that I am R.S.S. and a Hindutva. Only a Christian and a Muslim has the right in India to be religious. If I defend Hinduism I have always been under attack.

I saved my maid a refugee from Sri Lanka from being converted.Her family went through horrible pressure from a local Christian group.

8. I hear that they woo the people with newer and newer techniques. Especially lower class in the villages. Vegetables are given on Sundays.

I can go on. I used to be so badly treated that in 2006 I had a psychological and neurological disorder. I did not wish to continue there. But when they sensed that my leaving the institution would lead to criticism (for I am a popular teacher a favourite among students) they begged me to come back.

I have medical records and service records to prove that one whole year I was going through depression. I could not go to any Human rights org. 

 
The funniest thing is they would easily advice me to forgive. The tactics is they would bring the Bible and say forgive.

I am an African American and American studies scholar. I know all about AF/Am litt. Now there is a huge attempt to create a non existent Dalit literature, The voice is Ms. Meena Kandasamy. She has declared that she has embraced "Dalit" ism I wonder what she means by it. The African Americans have been pouring out their misery ever since they set foot on American soil in the 17 the century. I do not understand how on earth they can achieve a manufactured literature in a short period. I read Kanch Illiya's poem attacking the Brahmins.

I feel a systematic, serious confrontation of all these charges with facts must be done soon enough.

Almost all the U.G.C. sponsored conferences have been pro - Dalit and Brahmin bashing only I have been attending many.

Thanks for your time. If I need to elaborate on any of the experiences I am willing to.

I tried introducing Yoga in the campus about five years back with the help of a Hindu called Yoga master Subramanian.

But last year "Mindful Meditation" was introduced by a Priest much to the disappointment of Christians themselves and they laughed at it calling Mindless meditation. The first thing the students were asked to buy was a pillow.

Last year 2015 I was forced to organize a National Conference on Human Rights Issues in Literature and Sociology. Please follow the activities of a person called Dr. Balakrishnan of Roots - a NGO - I am sure a Christian group is supporting him.

During the Key note address he attacked Hindu belief systems and mocked at the idea of going to temples. As I am heading the Dept. I could not openly accuse him. But I boycotted the publication of papers. He calls himself Academic Event manager. Conducts a lot of programmes for the youth. He is a vocal Anti Brahmin advocate and so he along with five members including the so called Brahmin principal called Dr. Murali were chucked out of the local college called The Madura College. You could verify info.

More specifically He is part of the Brahmin versus Dalit Narrative -- Breaking India force.

But Roots is doing academic programme focusing on Dalits and I am sure it a Breaking India racket. You could probe. This org. is in Madurai. It is a one man army with support from a Christian called Periera. (Not sure of the spelling.) They have a press called Shanlax. Almost all the papers are eulogizing the works by Bama a Dalit writer who is compared with African American Writers. I get angry by these comparative studies. But I am always at a loss.

I have guided Ph.D scholars in this area and still have about 9 students. I can never support the argument that Dalits suffered like the African American slaves. By the way I have been part of the U.S. State sponsored International Visitor's Program.. Met writers like James Alan Mc Pherson.

I live in an area called Vel Murugan Nagar. There is a priest called Dudley Thangiah in this area who is well known for conversion. Now it is all a stealthy deal. He does not rechristen them. They believers have Hindu names but attend church. What he does is one influential member in the family is converted and the rest are swept in.

I see a New Prayer Tower in Nehru Nagar an adjacent colony. I shall get more details. Madurai is full of prayer houses not formal churches where Dalit conversions are rampant.
The caste politics is another reason for conversion.

My Nadar friend tells me her entire family is broken to pieces because of conversion. They are owners of Flour mill called Mayil Brand. Excepting the eldest son's family all are converted. Conversion and breaking of Hindu families in Virudhunagar has been going on for 3 to 4 decades now.

Now Southern Tamil Nadu - Ramnad belt is fully Muslim area. Illaiangudi and surrounding areas mini Pakistan. Tanjore Kumbakonam Muslim concentration. Kanyakumari Thirunelvelli are all Christian belts. Now Madurai is infested with Evangelical movements.

There is British priest working near Nagamalai Pudhukptai doing conversion. Pentecosts openly declare that they can make a living doing Evangelical work. Money is pumped in from the West for sure.

There are open attacks on Ramayan in colleges like Lady Doak where priest come and give lectures on these Scriptures mocking them.

There is Church called First Assemble of God and there is more recent one on Vaigai river bed near Fatima college (Dindigul Road) an org. from Ceylon doing a lot of Conversions.

Please appoint someone to enter into these churches and record their sermons.

In Dhargas there is an open order that none should stop with a single child. Must have 5 or 4 children. But Shakshi Maharaj of U.P. was heavily criticized by the media NDTV is vocal in supporting Muslims and Christians. That one channel is enough to Break India.

All their programs are attacking Modi. Similarly The Hindu is another Anti Hindu paper which exaggerates anything against the Minorities and no violence against Majority community ever gets reported.

There must be a Ban on Conversion soon. And derecognize all those who got converted in the last ten years.

Four tier model of purvapaksha and how framing RM as kshatriya and Ganesh as brahmin is wrong

By Rajiv Malhotra

The four tier model of purvapaksha

The relevant works of scholarship that critique western Indology in connection with Pollock may be organized as follows. From top tier (most superficial, general) to bottom tier (most narrow, specific):

Tier 1: Wide sweeping critique of western Indology. Cover lots of old scholars, from christian to aesthetic,clubbing all of them under a simplistic profile. Our team's responses are also bombastic, emotional, politicized. We have lots of this material from numerous writers over many decades. I wont spend time on this material except to write a history of western Indology. But this genre of ideology is not what we face today, They have moved on and other more sophisticated works have superseded.

Tier 2: Present ecosystem of Western Indology in specific details, and where the Pollock School fits in. Which institutions, ideologies, agendas, distribution channels, etc are now operative. Not only western scholars but their Indian collaborators and sepoys. Their strategies at work. Requires expertise in industry analysis.

Tier 3: Deconstruction of Pollock school's specific lens. Their meta-theories, narratives, key vocabulary, plans.What are the implications to dharma being seen in this way? How this knowledge has spread over the past 30+ years. Who is who in their army? Requires multi-disciplinary approach, knowledge of heavy English, Western thought and ability to decode multilayered (i.e. sly/deceptive) writing style typical of western scholars who are politically correct.

Tier 4: Analysis of specific verses of Indian texts as per Pollock school and as per our tradition. This supports our uttara-paksha. Requires serious knowledge of Sanskrit and also of texts in detail.

My interest is in tiers 2 & 3. I saw this huge gap in our home team's work thus far. Most of them regurgitate tier 1 repeatedly. But that writing is too superficial to make any impact.

Team spirit:

Tier 4 is not my strength. Traditional scholars must do this.

But they cannot do it properly until tiers 2 & 3 get done and explained to them in a way they can understand. Hence my focus on tiers 2 & 3, as that is the heavy lifting nobody did and that is important to do.
This is called identifying a market gap and filing it. Nothing wrong with this approach.
I can point out many other gaps out there, which our scholars must pursue, so there is no reason to get jealous. There is plenty of innovative work to be done still.

We must work in collaboration and leverage different kinds of strengths. One kind of specialist should not be jealous of other kinds of specialists. Such narrow thinking individuals make poor leaders or even team players.

My response to "issue-specific criticism" of TBFS: One man has made a lot of noise claiming that traditionalists already did what TBFS does, and hence I ought to have highlighted this in TBFS. He lists about 40 scholars under his claim. He calls this issue-specific criticism.

Below is (once again) my issue-specific response:

• Many eminent traditional Sanskrit scholars praised TBFS saying explicitly that traditional scholars have never done this. A few such powerful statements are in the book's preliminary pages. Many more such letters are on file.
• Videos of my talks (including one at Karnataka Sanskrit University) show eminent scholars saying there has not been such purva-paksha of the Pollock school.
• I went around many Sanskrit centers in India asking for help during my research work for this book, but nobody said they knew of any prior work of this specific kind. Some supporters of mine even paid and hired traditional scholars to help me, but these scholars concluded that the study of Pollock that was required was too intensive. It would take at least a couple of years after the availability of his works and supporting western works many of which are simply not available in India.
• Pollock himself told me he was unaware of anyone having done a rigorous analysis of his work from a critical point of view, especially from a Hindu point for view.
• The persons claiming that at least 40 scholars they named have done this cannot come up with a bibliography of such works. If they make the claim with so much authority they ought to be able to produce evidence.
• These critics of mine also claim that they personally already knew Pollock's works. But can they produce any shred of evidence of such knowledge in published form?
• If they knew what he has been writing for the past 30+ years, why did they not blow the whistle on the Murty Classics Library prior to my exposing this issue?
• Why did they never bother to complain about Sringeri's impending hijacking?
• Why did they never write anything about Pollock being Jaipur Lit Fest's number one celebrated Indologist for 8 years prior to 2016?

What is wrong in framing the debate as RM=kshatriya while Ganesh=brahmin.

My 4-tier model on how to do purva-paksha of Pollock is explained above. Please read it in order to follow my points below. I will refer to it. I have explained in this model that without the critical tiers 2 and 3, no sensible purva-paksha of Pollock is possible.

The significance of this is that R. Ganesh and his list of 40 “experts” (who he claims already did purva-paksha of Pollock) simply did not do tiers 2 or 3. I have challenged him (or any spokesperson of his) to post a bibliography of any such works if they exist at all. Note that purva-paksha is not done in secret, but “in the face” of the opponent; this allows the opponent to respond if he wants to. My critiques of Pollock are very public, open and direct. Why is Ganesh claiming to have seen such purva-pakshas by others without being able to produce a single published example?

Unless and until such a bibliography is produced, I stand by my statement that R. Ganesh does not understand the significance of tiers 2 and 3 in my 4-tier model. Therefore, he is limited to producing tier-4 isolated/localized factoids criticizing Pollock, and then he is trying to contextualize them under tier-1. But the critical tiers 2 and 3 are missing. As a result, many of his criticisms of Pollock are out of context, as he fails to fully understand Pollock’s siddhanta/theoretical lens.

The next prerequisite to follow my argument below is that you must please read my article, “The challenge of understanding Sheldon Pollock”, posted at: http://rajivmalhotra.com/books/the-battle-for-sanskrit/challenge-understanding-sheldon-pollock-part-1-make-sense-sheldon-pollock/

The 4-tier model tells you why tiers 2 and 3 are critical, and this article explains in a few pages what the main ingredients of these tiers 2 and 3 are.

With this background, I will now address what is drastically wrong with many well-intended posts, which say that RM is the kshatriya and Ganesh is the brahmin, and on this basis they must work together.

I find this too limiting and pejorative. I am not trying to be personally defensive. Rather, my goal is to point out a common fallacy in such thinking which is being applied to several instances. Below are my problems with this thinking.

• By framing in this very abstract and high-level kshatriya/brahmin dichotomy, the person avoids dealing with the tiers 2 and 3 issue. Our folks remain unread, ignorant and superficial about the serious knowledge in tiers 2 and 3 which they better take time to learn. They feel the matter has been resolved with some politically correct appeal to kshatriya-brahmin unity. We can go home, nothing more to do.
• This is why I complain that most of our folks are emotionally and psychologically weak and unfit to be intellectual kshatriyas. A very common way our folks avoid tapasya and facing challenges is by over-abstracting the situation to such an extent that no action is needed or even possible. “Sir, your atman cannot be harmed, so please do not worry about anything” – this is another example of similar escapism from a real situation by over-abstracting, rather than by dealing with it.
• The approach of X = kshatriya and Y = brahmin is also divisive. It encourages people to say, “my hero is larger than yours”. The subject matter is lost, and it turns into a personality cult issue. Let us avoid turning the serious debate (which must be based on tiers 2 and 3) into a clash of personality cults, please.
• I do not see birth-based criteria for determining varna applicable today. Is Dr. Subramanian Swamy a brahmin or kshatriya? Why can’t he be both? Is Bill Gates brahmin (intellectual), or vaishya (businessman) or kshatriya (politically engaged), or all three? In my own career, I started out as a very serious intellectual pursuing theoretical physics and philosophy, and then computer science. Then I became a successful corporate/entrepreneur (vaishya). Lately, I am more like a kshatriya trying to give my tradition a good political representation. But this is actually a hybrid role. Furthermore, I have always been very hands-on – a shudra quality. People who work with me closely are surprised how much I do personally which they feel ought to be tasked to other persons. So why do we wish to pigeonhole individuals like me? Why don’t we encourage individuals to become multi-varna today? It is the age of multi-disciplinary competences. Sri Aurobindo’s theory of planes and parts of being is all about broadening and deepening one’s consciousness.
• I see varnas as core competences that one might regard as innate potentials. 
• By the same token, just because your parents were accomplished in competence X does not give you the right to claim that you are by birthright an expert in X. I know idiots who come from great family backgrounds. I also know (and love to work with) individuals with unfortunate personal circumstances who do so much tapasya as to overcome their limits and become highly accomplished.
• Once we reject bogus claims based on family heritage, we will begin to see just how much nepotism there is in people claiming to be brahmins. How many of them comply with the required lifestyle, the competence in their work, tapasya, accomplishments? Most so-called brahmins I know today are mixed up in vaishya (material pursuits of profession, business, etc.). The same is also true of most kshatriyas by birth. Most politicians (performing what was traditionally a kshatriya role) are corrupt, mixed up in vaishya (business), etc.

Where am I heading in my response to Ganesh? I am trying to clean from the table this nonsensical kshatriya/brahmin framework.

I am trying to refocus the debate back to discuss whether Ganesh and his 40-named scholars have done anything in tiers 2 and 3. These tiers are where all of you must spend serious time and energy pursuing.

I am looking forward to Prof Kannan producing a team of experienced purva-paksha scholars through his conference series. They will know tiers 2 and 3. These will be individuals with whom I will relish discussing for mutual learning. Those with great reputations in some other skills, but with little to bring to the table of Pollock purva-paksha, will get silenced even more, once Kannan has produced a few dozen solid scholars capable of responding to Pollock at the standard required.

Meanwhile, the noisemaker, hecklers, bombastic claimants are simply part of the background wanting the limelight without the required tapasya; they should not be allowed to hijack the serious work that a few persons are engaged in doing.

Reproducing a collection of reviews of TBFS from the Amazon site

Below is a chosen collection of reviews of The Battle for Sanskrit taken from the Amazon site where the book is being sold. We present here 4 elaborate reviews from 44. It is noteworthy that of the 44 reviews, 43 have rated the book with 5 stars and one review has rated it 4 stars. This is a phenomenal achievement. All the reviews can be read on the Amazon site.

Shyam, a top 500 reviewer has this to say.

Much needed detox. Having been fed the narrative of 'sanskrit is a oppressive language' used by brahmins to oppress others, it was refreshing to read this book. Not many know that (even I didn't 5 years ago) that ~80% of all literature in Sanskrit pertains to non-religious topics like science, technology, medicine, arts, social commentary and poetry. Very little is religious. Yet the leftists in India who had monopolized the discourse (still have) in academia and media have demonized anything of indian origin - just as would a conquering power. One key learning for me is the phrase Rajiv uses 'aestheticization of power' - a way to make power palatable. its used a powerful construct to demonize sanskrit in the guise of praising it as in 'such a great language yet it oppressed so many' that is so prevalent among many modern Indologists - sadly many of them naive Indian students of such Indologists like Sheldon Pollock. I think, rather hope, Rohan Murthy has the right intentions in hiring Sheldon Pollock but wish he had done some due diligence as he would do with any investments on behalf of Infosys. Not sure he is qualified to do that so he should have hired traditional sanskrit scholars to vet the output produced. Hope its not linked to Ford foundation as with his father and if his intention at least is pure, there is a chance he can learn and change - as I and others did.

The postmodernist Western worldview which has been blindly and lazily aped by indian academia and used as a lens to look at Indian history and culture is to blame for the sorry state of affairs that anything Indian has to be fought for - even to get a seat at the table where its being critiqued! Accused guilty without proof and spend all the time defensively to prove innocence.

This blind copying of paradigms is prevalent in other spheres too such as activism as naive and lazy Indian activists just pick what the West thinks as 'cool and feel 'global'. LGBT rights is not as important as food, water, shelter and security - as much as I run the risk of being called 'bigoted' or 'insensitive' for saying it. Such issues can be top priority for Western countries as they have solved these basic problems and have a pretty decent life for all. Sure, go ahead and take up a cause close to your heart but if you were genuinely trying to impact society there are larger issues - thats my point and its become 'cool' to take up such 'global' issues. Its sad to see Indians bashing their own culture to be certified 'intellectual'. Indian Indologists and social 'scientists' remind me of the story of a black kid who was adopted by a White slave owner family and turned out to be a more brutal slave owner when he grew up.

Lets use this detox from Rajiv and pledge to make sanskrit 'cool' as it once was. Suggest you read Michel Danino and Koenraad Elst too. Perhaps being non-Indian they will appeal to our conditioned minds than a Dharampal. Sad but true. its not easy to discard our inferiority complex overnight, I'm happy at least I'm aware I have an affliction and working to fix it.

How deep the 'brahmin, Hindu, Sanskrit' bashing ecosystem is has to be experienced to be believed. I recall an anecdote on UVS (UV Swaminatha Iyer, who is fondly called Thamizh Thatha - 'grandfather of Tamil') who used to spread Tamil village to village. Appreciating his efforts, it used to be written in tamil literature books 'though he was a brahmin, he was a good man' and it never roused anything in me when i read it in school. Such was my conditioning.

Rajiv, grateful for the knowledge. Pranaams.

An Amazon customer, on his "Reflections on The Battle for Sanskrit":

Ever since the superimposition of Westphalia concept of nation state on a formerly colonized state or newly liberated territory (i.e., India) from colonial subjugation, the debate whether this land is a single nation state or a state of many nations was kept alive by some forces. Such questions have always helped entrench the alien rule in India primarily by pitting one Indian against the other in the past. These false notions were cleverly constructed by the invaders and were spread systematically through their proxies.

A nation, whose populace is psychologically weak and is a victim of inferiority complex can be enslaved easily. Islamic & Christian subjugation of other cultures was done with relative ease, but when it came to India the foreigners could not apply the same methods with this civilizational state which they have applied elsewhere successfully. Hence, the Christian invaders systematically studied Indian civilization to manufacture perverted interpretations of sacred traditions and prove that Hindus were/are a bunch of barbarians and such barbarianism is inbuilt in their tradition.

The sacred tradition has been a single focus of attack for both the invading Abrahamic faiths since their arrival though the means employed by both of them is different. Leftists have joined the forces only recently and are doing a good job indeed. Islamic invaders employed a more violent method, mainly converting the local population through threat & coercion, or simply eliminate them if they resisted conversion to Islam. Swami Chinmayananda in one of his interviews to a group from Australia said that, “for 400 years Muslims have been demolishing temples in their attempt to destroy Hinduism but they have only grown their biceps and could not destroy Hinduism”.

But the missionaries developed sophisticated methods specific to Indian scenario. Missionaries have realized that if they ever have to destroy this tradition they first have to appropriate its important language which is central to their civilization, i.e., Sanskrit. Hence, a large group of scholars were sponsored by British to understand India’s culture through learning Sanskrit.

Even though the foreign colonial masters are no more in effective political control, their manufactured histories and vulgar interpretations have been continuously used by anti-national forces to disrupt India’s growth and unity. Among such groups, the political left is a peculiar one. Ever since the death of soviet empire their focus has been to divide India on some pretension or the other to make sure that their broader ideological goals are met. It is these communists who have helped Muslim league in partition of India in 1947. They have learnt from the erstwhile colonizers that to destabilize a healthy civilization it is required to understand the central components of its culture and tradition, only then it is possible to attack it.

Shelden Pollock is considered as a pioneer of a peculiar type of leftist school in which India’s so called liberals are active members. This school’s main task is to prove through their interpretations of Sanskrit texts that Hindu Civilization is inherently backward & primitive which encourages barbarism. So, they prescribe a special type of cleansing and claim that only they can do it.

It is in these trying times, Shri. Rajiv Malhotra – Indian-American researcher & scholar has mounted a formidable defense through his well-researched new book – The Battle for Sanskrit countering the arguments of a powerful leftist lobby. I have just finished reading it and cannot explain the sunshine I have experienced in words. Thanks to him, we now have a clarity on the subject.

Shri. Malhotra sets his agenda by posing a list of questions he is going to address in this work as a part of the title itself. So, reader has a clear idea and proper motivation to read it further.

Is Sanskrit:

Political or Sacred?

Oppressive or liberating?

Dead or Alive?

While outsiders like Shelden Pollock want to prove that it is political, oppressive and Dead, insiders are not doing enough to respond that it is sacred, liberating and alive. This work is primarily to awaken traditionalists (or Insiders) to rise up to the situation and provide intellectual responses to questions raised by the opposite side and highlight inconsistencies in Pollock’s scholarship.

Before delving deeper it is fundamental to understand the difference between term/s insider and outsider. In my reading it is clear that whoever believes Sanskrit is Sacred, liberating and Alive shall be considered as Insiders. It is entirely possible that the insiders can be foreigners and outsiders Indians. Outsiders share some other common characteristics, they are predominantly atheists, secularists and Communists (actually hardcore believers of Marxism). If we have to assess their commitment to the ideology, i.e., Marxism or communism they are no less than Jihadists or ISIS (Islamic State), just that Jihadists employ murderous violence whereas leftists employ subtlety and obfuscate their ulterior intentions behind liberal notions like democracy, human rights etc., when not in power. But don’t hesitate to indulge in violence when they command absolute power, China (Cultural Revolution) & Stalinist Russia are couple of examples of the recent past.

Shri. Rajiv Malhotra has done a great service by coming up with this work at a crucial time to provoke traditionalists to take up the task of doing Purva-Paksha, in which they were once experts. Though author identifies some 18 issues at the end of the book on which traditionalists ought to focus, I have picked a set of points that shall be of a great interest to all. All positions of outsiders on these items shall be intellectually challenged. Here they are:

The insistence to fit Indian civilization in to European experience: Scholars who are trained in western political thought superficially apply it to Indian civilization. Hence they are forced to uncritically use modernity, medieval, post-enlightenment & secularism and other irrelevant terms to explain historical events occurred in this civilization, which often leads to wrong interpretations.

Pitting Buddhists against Hindus: It is a lie which British colonialists manufactured to pit one group of Indians against others, to deepen their rule. Often Ambedkar is quoted as an authority and his experience & scholarship is cited as example to say that Hindu civilization encourages violence against Shudras. The million dollar question is why Ambedkar chose Buddhism instead of Islam & Christianity? Leftists feign ignorance on this topic.

Aryan-Invasion theory: Among a bunch of lies East India Company perpetuated to create a conflict between North and south Indians, this had a lasting effect, especially in the politics of Tamil Nadu. As a result of which a hate campaign was carried out by some political parties against a group of citizens. This theory has been scientifically debunked by many mainstream scholars, the foremost among them in my opinion is Shrikant G. Talageri who nails it completely, point by point. Pollock school continues to harp on this false theory for its convenience. The Word Dravida is used in Soundaryalahiri. Adi-shankara described himself as Dravida-shishu when he visited North, i.e., child of the land that is surrounded by water on three sides. No literature of India of thousands of years in any vernacular talks about this Aryan-Invasion theory. There is no corroboration from any other sources outside India to this effect. The argument that Aryans came from Central Asia and driven out Dravidians from north to south is a blatant lie.

Discounting the violent impact of Christianity and Islam on Hindu civilization: The genocide which Christian missionaries committed in Goa and a systematic elimination of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh in recent times offers us a glimpse of impact Christianity and Islam had on our civilization. When Pollock says that Muslim or Islamic invaders should not be blamed for India’s cultural degradation, it only highlights his prejudice against Hindus and selective blindness among other things.

Recklessly determined to discover barbarism in Sanskrit texts: This is an important plane on which our Home team has to engage outsiders thoroughly. Socialization of these outsiders in a different setup or simply because of being a victim of some ideological dogmas they could not or they don’t want to see the residual sacredness in Sanskrit texts. Let’s consider an example to understand what I am saying. How the death of Karna in Mahabharata can be interpreted by two groups? One could use it to inculcate values to all, this is a sacred approach whereas the others, i.e., outsiders would say that it encourages violence against Dalits and shudras. Sri. Saibaba of Puttaparthi describing the importance and values of good company says that “ it is only with good company you will come in contact with good qualities not with a bad company” he further says that “bad company is deadliest than a venomous snake, a snake would only bite when you step on it accidently or try to tame it, but a bad person injects venom every time you come in to contact with him, look what happened to Karna – The MahaYoddhha who is more powerful than mighty Arjuna, it is just because of his bad company ie., Duryodhana and sakuni he met a tragic end” (This is a loose translation of his speech that is published by Sanathana Sarathi monthly, Hindi edition, December 2015) But the same event will be interpreted by outsiders to say that since Karna was from chariot riders class Arjuna and Krishna killed him due to prejudice again lower class or castes. Hence, Mahabharata encourages violence against lower castes and Dalits etc. It is against lopsided interpretations such as these the insiders have to mount a collective defense. After all in a globalized world, how others think about us also matters.

Labeling the efforts to revive Sanskrit as Hindu revisionism: It is incorrect to say that Sanskrit encourages violence against minorities. There is a very big hypocrisy here. If we have to accept the arguments of Pollock school that any attempts to underscore the violence carried out by Islamic rulers for centuries against Hindus, it might turn Hindus against Muslims in the current day, because Muslims of the day have got nothing to do with those who have actually committed violence, then is it also not the case that the leftists effort to unearth atrocities of the past or blowing certain events out proportion will turn Dalits against Brahmins and other social groups within Hindu fold? If this is not hypocrisy then what else is?
It is important to show that Politics & sacredness are intertwined in Sanskrit and samskriti: The emphasis of sacredness is only to highlight the importance of morality & probity in conducting politics. If Gandhi says that he cannot imagine politics without religion he is essentially referring to sacred aspects of our Samskriti that is embedded in Sanskrit. It is important to note that barring few bare minimum things there is no insistence on following instructions, it is left to the choice of follower or seeker. Shri. Rajiv Malhotra says in Hindu civilization there is no central authority like Pope in Christianity and Caliph or Mullah in Ummah to enforce religious dogmas. Such an independence only proves that our Samskriti is not only sacred but also politically progressive and liberal.

It is important for the insiders to realize that they need not fear English language: It can be self-taught through focused study in short period. It is an underdeveloped language and relatively weak in vocabulary. Forget Sanskrit, it is not even qualified to be compared against some of the vernaculars of India which are highly evolved and rich when it comes to vocabulary and literary strength. For eg: Tamil and Bengali are such powerful languages, if learnt fully the beauty of expression by using them would put Shakespeares of the world to shame.

I totally support the author’s view that we should engage outsiders with all the respect they deserve, which is true to our tradition. It is only through a sustained dialogue we shall be able to fight the powerful cartel of outsiders who occupy a significant space in academia, media and other outlets that controls means of expression and act as gatekeepers of Indian knowledge.

Finally, insiders should learn to read between the lines, and understand true intentions of outsiders. If Pollock refines his responses to a specific audience and praises Sanskrit we should be able to comprehend as to what he really means. In the age of Kali, the fight between Dharma & Adharma is a constant one. Like a relay race if one has completed his lap the other followers of Dharma should pick up the mantle and do their bit. My concern is who will uphold the legacy of Shri. Malhotra and continue with the tradition of Purva-Paksha after him? This is a question all insiders should ponder over. The fact that insiders have not risen to such a standard so far is a matter of serious concern. The hope is that at least now insiders will heed to the clarion call of Shri. Rajiv Malhotra.

Pingali Gopal says:

Rajiv Malhotra has written a path defining book called ‘The Battle for Sanskrit.’ The book is important and disturbing at the same time, but is a must read for the Indian youth in search of their identities. The attempts of Western academia to separate the secular aspects from Sanskrit from the embedded spiritual aspects is plain wrong and unjustified. It is a very important book with regards to Hinduism. Almost all his books are like that. I feel that the Indian students need to study the books of Rajiv Malhotra, Swami Vivekananda, Arun Shourie, Ramana Maharishi to truly equip themselves with information to fight the inimical forces trying to undermine the integrity and strength of the country. He gives a very lucid response from the Hindu side with regards to Varna or the caste system, the single point of criticism of our great religion by everyone.

• Varna is a non-translatable term and attempts to translate it and put it in some rigid frameworks has caused confusion.

• It is a dynamic term and has been constantly negotiated and renegotiated in Indian history.

• A similar analogy is the concept of ‘rights’ in Western history with civil, economic and moral dimensions to that word, and has been repeatedly undergone changes in its meaning.

• Varna cannot be translated into caste, race, or privilege in simple terms.

• There are six levels of differences in the way Varna has been seen by tradition: 1. Historical changes have seen differing interpretations 2. Different texts have differed on the varna view 3. In the same text, varna definition has changed as per the context 4. In the same text, different people have interpreted varna differently as per the context 5. There have been gaps in actual theory and practice 6. There have been many social challenges and reformations throughout history.

• Varna is not a static classification system

• Shudras have built temples in which Hindus of all categories have worshipped.

• Shudras have been rulers and leaders of armies.

• Varna has been repeatedly redefined well within the Indian systems and today does not require foreign intervention to solve its social problems related to the caste system.

• The characterization of Western Indologists and Orientalists of Varna as something rigid, static, canonical, and homogenous is done using inappropriate theories because of their need to digest our civilization.

• MANUSMRITI is the text that has been over quoted and much maligned to make the case of support for discrimination.

• The above text places more emphasis on the duties of various varna rather than their rights and privileges. Duties or professions are used to classify the professions. A Brahmin was required to live simply, receive gifts from worthy donors only, had to be learned enough to receive those gifts, and was supposed to be a non-drinker of alcohol. He was also not supposed to rule. The Brahmins were not supposed to collect taxes on behalf of the ruler much in contrast to the practices in other religions where a priestly and a divine sanction was given to rulers to own the conquered far off lands . Shudras were assigned very distinct benefits. They could pursue any profession except those of Brahmins and Kshatriyas. He was not compelled on any specific rituals, food, and wine consumption. There was no requirement of penances for lapses in following the rules of Shastra.

• Furthermore, one can learn paradharma or the highest dharma even from a Shudra and hence, a Shudra can be a guru too. Adi Shankara in fact learns some highest wisdom from a Chandala. The punishments as per the text were not actually carried out. The punishment of the lapses in fact increases with the varna of the person, with the Brahmins getting the maximum punishment. The higher status was supposed to shoulder greater responsibility. Finally, the text advocates flexibility in its implementation. It allowed giving up dharma if it is denounced by the public. This implies that if the public denounce caste discrimination as is being done today, it should be given up. This implies a fluidity and context importance in the application of varna.

• Mahabharata dissociated itself from birth based varna. Yudhishtra says in the Mahabharata that there is always a confusion of ‘varna by birth’ because of birth from mixing of all Varnas. So, varna can only be from the view of profession and occupation rather than birth.

• There is evidence which shows that the shudras did have access to the Vedas and that the restrictions were contested and not absolute.

Panini did not create the rules of Sanskrit grammar, but only formulated the way Sanskrit was being spoken. There is now a very important and a powerful American Indologist who goes by the name of Sheldon Pollock, who is training an army of people both Indian and foreigners to capture the discourse on Sanskrit language. By posing as an insider and spending more three decades in the study of Sanskrit, he has been able to impress the Indian governments and various funding agencies to get huge grants. But, beneath the surface of superficial praise, there is a strong message undermining the entire culture and tradition of the country. He is using the language interpretations in a bizarre manner to create a sense of negativity amongst us.

Pollock says that Sanskrit grammar was oppressive. The oppression to Dalits, women, and Muslims is embedded in the language structures, he says. He also makes a theory which places Sanskrit as a dead language fit only to be studied. Sanskrit was spoken only by a few royals with the Brahmin followers and was not the language of the common people. Pollock’s theories are speculative and dangerous. He puts forward a theory that Sanskrit was used as a tool of oppression of the Dalits, women, and the lower classes by the kings and the priests. The expansion of Hinduism to far East countries was this strategy using Sanskrit as a major tool. Sanskrit ideology also was supposed to have given rise to Nazism because the roots of Sanskrit is exploitation and racism.

Hitler was influenced by a guy who had no clue about Sanskrit. All these are highly speculative coming from an American Leftist who probably hates the country, does not believe God, but loves the language itself. The love for the language is only for study purposes but is not accepted as a carrier of cultural tradition and spirituality for thousands of years. Ramayana and other poems are seen through his interpretation as a tool of exploitation by the kings and the priests and to rouse the people against the Muslims. The theories are so bizarre, but I am sure, would be loved by our own Left who do not seem to show any love for the country the country and do not know Sanskrit. They now have an English speaking elite American who provides them with all the ammunition to fire at the country. Intolerance seems to have suddenly make a mark in the country in a reverse manner strangely in the minorities and the leftists too. Pollock hates the BJP, RSS, and VHP combine, and in this regard, he makes his stand amply clear. No wonder, he is a darling of the Left in the country.

Sanskrit has been seen as a tool of exploitation by Pollock and blames the forward castes in hastening its demise. He also goes to claim that the British and the Muslim rulers actually helped to revive the Sanskrit language but was firmly opposed by the forward castes. Then, he makes the extraordinary statement that the language is dead and is fit for being studied as a classical language, something like Latin and Greek. Any language develops in the scheme of listening, speaking, reading, and then writing and in that particular order. The grammar comes last. One does not start to learn a language by first learning to write it. It then becomes a burden and cumbersome. By focussing on the grammar first, the natural spoken component of the language with the spontaneity simply collapses in the society. That is what was done by the British colonial rule and the Mughals in the process of ‘helping’ Sanskrit. That was the strategy of the post-Independence education policy thoroughly controlled by the Left wing forces of the country. In such a situation, Sanskrit became more and more separated from mainstream and became relegated to specialised studies. It could not become a language of popular conversation. The people were scared off the language as they were boggled with grammar rules and constructions of sentences. In such a situation, an artificiality creeps in and we have lost five decades in the process. Now, it is an uphill task of the country to get Sanskrit back into circulation and I am certainly glad that the students are eager to learn the language as a direct consequence of the book.

Sheldon Pollock seems to be a hate filled Leftist as seen in the analysis of Rajiv Malhotra. Rajiv Malhotra is like Arun Shourie while taking on the left wing forces. Most of his statements are backed by some real and hard core evidence.

The book is shocking beyond beyond belief and it is indeed a wake-up call to our intelligentsia and the students of the country. The Western forces in the garb of Indology are systematically undermining the cultural and the spiritual traditions of Sanskrit, which should be fought back in no uncertain terms. Buddhism was supposed to have galvanised the beginning of written Sanskrit and the its literature. Before Buddhism, Sanskrit consisted of only mindless rituals and mantras recited orally as per Pollock’s construction of a dim past. The entire evidence of written inscriptions associated with the Harappan and Mohenjo-Daro excavations, and the Saraswati archaeological evidence makes his claims about written Sanskrit as after the Buddhist era completely hollow and baseless. But, Pollock apparently ignores all such evidence.

The Jataka tales are attempted to be placed before the Ramayana, and in fact, the latter was inspired by the former. The rejection of Sanskrit by Buddha in favour of Pali; and by Jains in favour of Magadhi is constructed as being rejection of the Vedas. Buddhist teaching of the four and eight- fold path say nothing against the Vedas, and it is in fact, very Upanishidic in nature. A Ramana Maharishi never taught in Sanskrit, but he is a master. The language undertaken by a holy person is no proof of a rejection of previous systems. But, that is what is the suggestion of Sheldon Pollock and his ilk. Buddhism is constructed to be in stress with the Hindu thought, traditions and the Vedas.          

Later on, the Kushana and the Saka kings, supposed to have migrated from Central Asia, were more open to Sanskrit despite being Buddhists, and hence there was a blooming of Sanskrit literature in the early part of the common era. The theories are fantastic and weird to say the least but happen to be mainstream academic thoughts and opinions. These kind of ideas which also posits Ramayana as an example of atrocity literature against women and the lower castes, and later as a galvanizing force against the Muslims are exceptionally detrimental and brutal to the ethos of the country and its culture. The same idea when repeated by the influential coterie in various papers, literature, and academic meets become embedded as a truth in the minds of people. That is what is happening as the secular left liberals are gleefully accepting what is being churned out by such academicians.

Rajiv Malhotra’s book finished with the mind wanting more. Most of the book has been underlined, so now I am seeing prominently the pen and pencil marks, which is a bit unfortunate for future readings. The only criticism I can offer that it is centred only around Sheldon Pollock. The other anti-Sanskrit forces are hardly spoken off. A single man is probably not relevant in the scheme of things, but if indeed he is the main troublemaker preparing hundreds of people like him, then he becomes so. Rajiv is preparing hundreds of Indian and NRI youth in a similar way and hence, the battle lines are drawn.

Nobody has caused more damage to the Indian culture, tradition, and heritage than the Left liberal ideology. It is an ideology which has allowed our generation to grow with a sense of shame regarding ourselves. The Britishers and the Americans and for that matter, the Russians too grow up with a strong sense of pride despite the atrocities and the blunders in their landscape of human dealings. But, Indian history makers peculiarly concentrated only on the warts and always in the process of giving an extremely negative image of our culture, our traditions, language, literature, religion, scriptures, holy books. At every point, the Indians grow with a negative perception about all the above things despite we being the strongest in all of the above. The youth of the country are being led astray by such pernicious attempts. It is thankfully in such a scenario that some authors are coming up, who are taking up the cause of undoing the damage in a balanced manner without losing their cool. Every culture has its flaws and we are the oldest living civilization running continuously for 5000 years. Most of the older cultures have simply wound up. It is important for the present generation to aim for the future rooted in the present with the correct idea about our past and its richness without going into jingoism.

It is a remarkable book which would allow a person to grow proud of his culture and tradition bereft of jingoismand more importantly, without wanting to hate any opposing ideas or cultures This is the book's most wonderful achievement.

Another Amazon customer writes:

The book ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ informs us about modern Kurukshetra between American Orientalists like Mr. Sheldon Pollock, his team and our Sanskriti. This is about hijacking our Sanskrit and sanskriti. Many eminent Indian scholars, business tycoons are in awe of Mr.Pollock and ready to elevate their social status, prestige by offering millions of dollar for his work. Even our own Sringeri Math was going towards same direction. Shri Rajiv Malhotra intervened the matter and till decision is on hold. In the meantime, The Battle for Sanskrit has been published and we know how deep is the nexus to destabilize India through giving political twist to our own Shastras and Kavyas. Outsiders i.e. American Orientalists are injecting venom of Dalit oppression, hegemony of Brahmin and King over population of India, mainly Shudras by inventing a new concept ‘Aestheticization of Power’.

According to outsiders, Vedas are equivalent to mumbo jumbo and Kavyas like Ramayan, Mahabharata etc were written by Brahmins to aestheticize the king so that king could hypnotize common people and in turn Brahmins continued to live under king’s grace. This was the way Sanskrit propagated throughout Asia. There is nothing sacred in Sanskrit. It is already dead and it should be kept in museum only to analyse like Greek and Latin. Surprisingly, they are silent about Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, which are also very old language.

Shri Rajiv Malhotra refutes all these propaganda with his razor sharp intellect and provides numerous scopes to do ‘Purva Paksh’ on American Orientalists. Rajivji makes difficult concept of western thinkers like Benjamin, Vico etc very lucid so that we can understand the Kurukshetra. The writing of these scholars is very tricky as they could not be understood easily as it often contains double meaning. By superficial reading one can feel good that they are praising our Sanskrit and sanskriti, but in deeper they are blaming Sanskrit as a weapon of Indian Kings and Brahmins. Rajivji painstakingly explains all these in understandable way.

J.N University, New Delhi event proves the penetration of Breaking India forces. Books of Rajivji expose how from US, Indians could be controlled by colouring our Shastras, Kavyas. Mr.Noam Chomsky writes to VC of JNU, New Delhi asking why VC allowed police inside campus. Many eminent scholars, including Mr.Sheldon Pollock, from various US universities protest against Govt. of India and support JNU students for anti-Indian slogan.
Now this is our turn to reverse the gaze and decide who has the ‘Adhikar’ to control Sanskrit.

All the reviews can be read on the Amazon site.

Dr. Naveen Chandra's letter to Ananya Vajpeyi in response to her comments on TBFS

Dear Ananya Vajpeyi  Ph. D.

I looked at your letter making three points.

1.       You request support to JNU in its present predicament.

2.       You allude to Rajiv Malhotra’s plagiarism.

3.       You praise Sheldon Pollock’s scholarship.

While I expected a more profound analysis of The Battle For Sanskrit from a Ph. D. degree holder  like you or at least a rebuttal  of the statements attributed to Sheldon Pollock on Sanskrit and Brahmins,  especially considering that you are his student, I will settle down for the mediocre emission, and  I take it then that TBFS represents your guru’s stance on the crucial subjects of Sanskrit and Brahmins, let me proceed  with my own, a physicist’s,  consideration of what lurches in the minds of the hate mongers. I also include a Sanskrit poem at the end which your guru can get translated into English by one of the Indian slaves he employs. Stop stereotyping people, a despicable exercise of the West, and be original true to your sampradaya.

1.  56 Professors of Madras IIT said "We support intellectual freedom, and alternative views are a must for democracy and creativity. However, there is a deep distortion of the meaning of academic freedom.”

They have requested the President to take steps for saving educational institutions from the "scholarship of abuse, hate and discord" and restoring the atmosphere of sobriety, reflection and harmony necessary for genuine scholarship, Shreepad Karmalkar, a professor and one of the signatories, said in a statement.  In view of this statement I can’t support JNU as requested by you.

 2.  I have thoroughly examined the evidence on Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism, and have written three articles on the subject.  Please read them.

3.  Sheldon Pollock’s Scholarship:  All scholars make evidence based statements. Contrarily, if any person makes statements and does not provide evidence, that person cannot claim to be a scholar.

·         Pollock says a king patronized Valmiki. Can he provide the name of that king? Does Valmiki say in Ramayana anything about a patron king? How was the first Hindu poem written? One morning on the banks of Ganga Valmiki saw a couple of cranes mating, but the very next instant the male bird died, hit by an arrow.  He became angry and was overcome with grief.  He looked around to find out who had shot the bird. He saw a hunter with a bow and arrows, nearby. Valmiki became very angry.  His lips opened and he cried out,

मां निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः।

यत्क्रौंचमिथुनादेकम् अवधीः काममोहितम्॥'

mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṁ tvamagamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ

yat krauñcamithunādekam avadhīḥ kāmamohitam

You will find no rest for the long years of Eternity

For you killed a bird in love and unsuspecting.

This was the first Hindu verse, and the first Sanskrit verse. The natural chandassu was Anustup which he used for Ramayana rachana inspired by Brahma and getting the story from Narada. Do you see a king here? Why is Sheldon Pollock distorting history saying there was one, without providing a name?

·         Mauryan Emperor Ashoka sent his daughter Sangamitra and son  Mahendra to Sri Lanka to propagate Budhdhism.  Muslim hordes invaded India to propagate their religion and culture. Christians from Europe came and occupied India.  Name one Hindu king who sent Armies or led an invasion on a foreign country to spread Sanskrit and Hinduism.

·         Muslims killed 18 million Hindus, majority of them Brahmins and the Christians killed 7 million in Bengal famine alone under Winston Churchill in 1943 in a manmade Holocaust. Can you name a Hindu king who did anything closely resembling these massacres of Hindus by Muslims and Christians?

·         Sheldon Pollock says all Hindu art and literature developed under kings. Let me mention three great poets in Telugu language who refused any patronage from kings - Potana, Tyagayya and Shyam Sastri.  Potana (1450-1510) wrote Mahabhagavata inspired by Rama and dedicated it to Rama even though he was a Shaivite. He wrote:

ఇమ్మనుజేశ్వరాధములకిచ్చి పురంబులు వాహనంబులున్

సొమ్ములు కొన్ని పుచ్చుకుని సొక్కి శరీరము  వాసి కాలుచే

సమ్మెట వేటులంబడక సన్మతి శ్రీహరి కిచ్చిచెప్పె ఈ

బమ్మెర పోతరాజొకండు భాగవతంబు జగధ్ధితంబుగన్.

Refusing to give in to the lowly king, this Bammera Potaraaju dedicated his Bhaagavatam to Sreehari.  Look at the word Potana (Potaraju) uses to describe the kings “LOWLY”. He went on to become one of the greatest Telugu Poets.

·         Tikkana the greatest Telugu poet dedicated his magnum opus Mahabharatam to Hariharanatha a deity he created from the words Hari (Vishnu) and Hara (Siva) to promote harmony among the followers of these two.

·         Thyagaraaju, another great Telugu poet refused patronage of any king, singing his songs in the temples of Rama and likewise another great Telugu poet, Shyama Sastri, sang in the Kanchi temple. Both of them joined Muttuswami Dikshitaar to become Carnatic Music Trinity.

·         Thus there are many Telugu poets who dedicated their works to their favourite deity and not to a king. How can Sheldon Pollock say that all Hindu literature was patronized by Kings and get away with a blatant lie?

·         Three great Telugu poets Nanne Choda, Vemana and Ramaraja Bhushana were non-Brahmins.

·         Sheldon Pollock says Sanskrit was a reserved area of Brahmins. The greatest Sanskrit poets Valmiki, Vyasa and Kalidasa were not Brahmins. Valmiki was a hunter, Vyasa  was the son a fisherwoman Satyavati and Kalidasa was not a Brahmin. Even if Valmiki mentioned he belonged to Bharadwaja clan, does it preclude him being the son of a hunter woman?

·         Marriages between Brahmins and non -Brahmins were common. Vashista the Brahmarishi par excellence married Arundhati, a Dalit Kanya.

·         Sheldon Pollock says the subject material of all kavyas was kings. Here again he fails to produce fool proof evidence. Mrichchakatika one of the best Sanskrit plays and definitely the best known in Europe, had a poor Brahmin, Charudatta, as hero and Vasantika, a courtesan as heroine. The other roles were from lower classes who spoke all languages like Prakrit in addition to Sanskrit in the play.  A disregard to Natya Sastra that frowned upon.  Krishna Karnamritam, another kavya did not choose a king for hero.

·         Even Ramayana’s Aranyakanda, Kishkindhakanda, Sundarakanda and Yuddhakanda deal with rakshasas, vanaras and birds, and have no mention of a single Brahmin. The Guru Vishwamitra was not a Brahmin.

·         The other great playwright of Sanskrit Bhasa chose themes involving common people, against the stipulations of Natya Sastra. Not always  were sastras  obeyed as Pollock would have us believe. In Telugu,  Palkurki Somanatha wrote in Dwipada Chandassu, a disrespect to Lakshanika Sastra.

·         A strange statement is attributed to Pollock that Muslims and British tried to rejuvenate Sanskrit and Brahmins refused. I lived in Telangana under Nizam for 21 years before I left for Canada. Nizam did not give a cent for the development of Telugu, the local language let alone Sanskrit. Everyone had to learn Urdu.  In Pakistan Sindhi, Punjabi, Pustu and Balochi are not spoken today because of the domination of Urdu, according to Tarek Fatah. That is how Muslims treated other Muslims in a Muslim country.  Imagine the atrocities Nizam committed in Telangana against Hindus - rapes, murders and looting. Telugu language is full of poems describing the Nizam’s atrocities.  Not only Telugu, but there are similar poems in Marathi and Kannada languages also, as they were under the Nizam’s rule as well. No Marx, or no Pollock can say those atrocities did not happen.

·         In one of his papers Pollock complains the prayoga (experiment) was not developed in India as much as sastra (theory).  He should know better.  Hindus were best in three areas - metallurgy, textiles and shipbuilding. Did they get to be the best without prayogas?

·         Madhva based his Dwaita sidhdhanta on Pratyaksha (प्रत्यक्ष – perception), Anumāna (अनुमान inference) and Śabda  (शब्द - relying on word), a rationalistic approach unheard of in the Abrahamic religions or even in dogmatic Marxism.

 

·         Calculus was developed in India 250 years before Leibnitz and Newton by the Kerala school as reported by a Manchester-Exeter universities team. The Kerala school developed the Pi series and used it to calculate Pi correct to 9, 10 and later 17 decimal places. It goes on to say “….. there is strong circumstantial evidence that Indians passed on their discoveries to mathematically savvy Jesuit missionaries who visited India during the 15th century. That knowledge, the researchers argue, may have been passed on to Newton.

·         So called Pythagoras theorem, Pascal’s Triangle and Diophantine equations were known to Vedic people long before they were to Europeans. Zero, infinity, negative numbers , age of the earth, age of the universe , shape of the earth as being round as opposed to Biblical version of a flat earth, and plastic surgery are some of the achievements of Hindus so pre-occupied with power,  prashasti according to Pollock.

·         The plastic surgery developed by Susruta was practiced by potters, not Brahmins.

·         Soldiers were non Brahmins who spoke Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali.

·         Thus Hindu intellectual achievements spanned a spectrum of areas from arts, science, mathematics, technology, medicine, surgery, governance, metaphysics, philosophy, literature and others where non Brahmins made significant contributions.

·         Certainly we didn’t have kings like Henry VIII or other syphilitic monarchs of Europe.  Europe introduced syphilis into every country they travelled.  A major genocide of First Nations people in North America happened from other diseases carried in blankets brought from Europe. Let Pollock deny this!

·         It seems Pollock has Hindu phobia and Sanskrit phobia. One wonders why?  Hindus opened their arms to all refugees including Jews, Syrian Christians, Parsis, Buddhists and even Muslims.  India, a Hindu country had one time in the recent past, a Muslim President (APJ Abdul Kalam), Sikh Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) and Christian Congress Party President (Sonia Gandhi) - all minorities.  Can Pollock show a religion like Hinduism that showed so much tolerance to minorities?  We know what Christians did in Canada, in America, in Mexico, in Chile, in Australia –  genocide of unbelievable proportions. Even today in Canada the rapes and killings of First Nations women, children and men continue unabated, sometimes at the hands of the police.  In the USA,  police and Euro-Americans kill African Americans routinely.  Did Hindus do anything like it? Why oh, why, does Pollock hate Sanskrit and Brahmins so much? I think I know the answer.  He is directing his anger toward Hitler onto Brahmins and Sanskrit. Hitler admired Sanskrit, he took Swastika as his symbol, he admired Aryans and then he killed so many Jews. So Pollock hates Hitler who liked Sanskrit – ergo in his little mind Pollock has to hate Brahmins and Sanskrit. However unreasonable it may sound.  I just want to remind Pollock that Leningrad is no more Leningrad - it is St. Petersburg once again.  USSR failed, communism failed. Will Frankfurt school be any better?  No. It won’t be.  Al l Western philosophies share one thing common with Monotheism, even the communists and Marxists - the belief that <MY WAY IS BETTER THAN YOURS.  I WILL GO TO ANY LENGTH TO DEFEND IT - EVEN KILLINGS ON MASS SCALE> Now let me tell you why Hinduism survived - it accepted everyone with love, patience and tolerance, qualities absent in the West and in the middle east and in the Abrahamic Religions. Let Pollock consider this awhile.

·         I will stop here and let you apply the theorem to Sheldon Pollock of not furnishing evidence for his statements.

Following Valmiki who addressed the Nishada cursing him with no rest for ever for killing the unsuspecting male crane in the process of maithunam, I send the following poem to Sheldon Pollock for being so uncharitable to Sanskrit and to Brahmins.

रामायण कविता नाटक (कल्पित रचना )
This is a work of fiction. Main characters in this poetic play are from Ramayana. Any resemblance to actual persons is purely coincidental. The author  wishes to acknowledge with profound thanks the editing done by Dr. Ratnakar Narale.
Naveen Chandra Ph. D.
पात्राणि : वसिष्ठः, सूत्रधारः, दशरथः, कौसल्या, उर्मिला, लक्ष्मणः, विश्वामित्रः, दूर्वासः, मशकासुरः (पेल्डोन् सोल्लक:),  दुर्गा माता
संध्याकाल:, कोलंबिया-विश्व-विद्यालयम्
पेल्डोन् सोल्लक: :
संस्कृतं मृतकलेवरम् ! संस्कृतं भ्रष्टम् ! 
संस्कृतं कृयति परिप्लव !
रामायणम् अशुच्यम् ! रामायणं अनृतम् !
रामकथा निर्वीर्या, रामायणं बहु दुष्टम् !
दुर्गा माता :
पापी! प्रलापी! त्वं प्रसारयसि रोगम् !
तव दौष्ट्यं भीषणं दण्डं अर्हति !
भवतु मशकासुरः  अवद्य नरकः!
खादसि अवकरं दूषितान्नं किं सदा !

वसिष्ठ उवाच :
शुक्लाम्बरधरं विष्णुं शशिवर्णं चतुर्भुजम् !
प्रसन्न वदनं ध्यायेत् सर्व विघ्नोपशन्तये !
सूत्रधारः :
पृथ्वीकम्पनं भवति ! श्यामम् धरति अम्बरं !
उत्तुङ्गतरङ्गांबोधिः ! झञ्झामारुतं प्राणीति !
स्फुटति अग्निपर्वते धूम्राच्छादनम् च अनलः !
किं कारणं दुश्शकुनाय? कृपया वदसि महन् !
वसिष्ठ उवाच :
क्षुद्रो गर्वोन्नतभाषः अपमानं करोति रामस्य
अगोत्रिकः दुर्भाग्यश्च, नूतन-यार्क-निवासी
मर्यादोल्लन्घनः परमपातकः
वदति अश्लीलान् शब्दान्, लिखति अनृतवाक्यानि
असन्दर्भेण प्रलापान् संदिग्धमेधां
वाचालतः अनिर्णयायान् सिद्धान्तान् च

दशरथ उवाच :
सः दुष्टः मशकासुरः राक्षसः वाचालः दंभी च
करोति वल्गनाः
भारतखण्डनं  च भञ्जनम्
अबद्धचरित्रसृजनम्
कपटपाण्डित्यम्
पाश्चात्यविषप्रसारणम्
संस्कृतमात्सर्यपूजनम्
वितण्डवादविराजनम्
गरलभुजङ्गदंशनम्
मशकासुरवर्तनमेव
कौसल्या उवाच :
न पश्यति रमणीयाम्
अत्यन्तसुन्दरां रामकथाम्
मूढो मूढं व्यभिचारम्
अनृतभाषां वदति
अनृतां रचनां लिखति
अनृतं वर्तनं करोति
उर्मिला उवाच :
सर्वं पापं तव जीवनम्
व्यर्थं व्यर्थं तव जीवनम्
निन्दसि मधुरं संस्कृतम्
निन्दसि पवित्रं संस्कृतम्
देववाणीं निन्दसि !
पापं भूयिष्ठं तव जीवनम्
नास्ति नास्ति मुक्तिः तव अन्ते
अस्तु अस्तु जीवन सर्वं नष्टम्
वृथा वृथा तव कपटज्ञानम्
लक्ष्मण उवाच :
रामायण कथा परमार्थिका
तव बुद्धि मन्दतानूह्या
तव कपाले अनाचराः !
तव मेधायाम् अनादरः !
तव कपाले निस्सन्ग्रहम् !
तव मेधायां निस्सन्धानम् !
हीनं हीनं तव जीवनम् !
पापं भूयिष्ठं तव जीविते !
करोषि  त्वं  मिथ्या अन्वेषणं तव दुर्भाग्यम् !
हे! मशकासुर ! तव पतनं निश्चितम् निश्चितम्!
लाञ्छनम्  ते धिक्! धिक् !!
पतनं तथ्यं तथ्यं तव पतनं तथ्यं तथ्यम् !
पतनं तथ्यं तथ्यम् !
विश्वामित्र उवाच :
न जानाति वाल्मीकं, व्यासम् !
न बोधति भासं, कालिदासम् !
डिम्भकः अधमः ! दंभाचार्यः! मन्दबुद्धिः !
वृथा ! वृथा ! तव जन्म तुच्छं ! तुच्छं !!
छद्मपाण्डित्यं परमदारुणम्!
पण्डितनटनं पापकारणम् !
पण्डितनटनं पापकारणम् !
पण्डितखण्डितः तव सिध्धान्तः तथ्यं तथ्यम् !
भवतु भवतु भवतु तव नाशः !
वृथा वृथा तव जीवनम् !
छद्मपाण्डित्यम् परमदारुणम्!
तथ्यं तथ्यं तव पतनम् !
दूर्वास उवाच :
आङ्लेयो न बोधति सुन्दरां कविताम् !
देवभाषायां प्रकाशितां सुन्दरां कविताम् !
तव कपालं मात्सर्यभरितं !
तव कपालं शिलासदृम् !
नास्ति नास्ति विश्लेषणं तव मस्तिष्के !
किं प्रयोजनम् मोहभरिताङ्ग्लेयस्य !
किं परमार्थं पाश्चात्यदुर्मार्गे !!! 
रावण उवाच :
विधिलिखितं दुर्भाग्यं ललाटे
मूढ अचार्याभ्येयः  शिरोमणिस्त्वम् !
मूर्खचात्रेभ्यायः  अधिपतिस्त्वम्  !
अज्ञानतिमिरे  निवाससिस्त्वम् ! 
तव पतनं तथ्यम्
तथ्यं तथ्यम्
समाप्तम्

A poem, रामायण कविता नाटक (कल्पित रचना), written by Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra, retired scientist and educator, author, freelance journalist and speaker. Copyright©2016 Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra. chandraalex@hotmail.com