Internal sabotage of the Battle for Sanskrit and Sanskriti

Shrikant Talageri made an important contribution to the discussion forum which was turned into an article and posted here. We reproduce the article as is.

Rajiv Malhotra is fighting a battle for all Hindus. It (the battle against western, and specifically American Indologists, academic control of the study and discussion of Indian history, religion and culture) is a battle which has been initiated by him, and he is the only person who has managed to take the battle deep into the enemy territory, given this battle world publicity, and enlisted, organised and united possibly lakhs of Hindus into the actual intellectual battle. I myself would not agree with every single tiny point of analysis made by him on the subject of actual interpretation of the texts, but then:
1. Hindu texts are capable of umpteen interpretations, and any interpretation made by him, given that he is an insider to the tradition, has to be accepted as one more of them, and
2. Rajiv Malhotra has himself repeatedly pointed out that he is not an expert on Sanskrit, and his job is only to prod a sleeping traditional Indian Sanskrit scholarship to take up the battle.In light of this, particular interpretations made by him, right or wrong, are simply not the issue.

The point is that he is fighting a vital battle for Hindus, Hinduism and Hindu culture, and any so-called Hindu scholar who tries to start a mini-battle with him on the sidelines is very clearly doing it only in order to take the heat off Pollock and his anti-Hindu gang, and to divide Hindus so as to try and sabotage the Hindu side from within at the very source. This is totally unacceptable and unforgivable, and no-one should take this as anything but a sabotage act and should refuse to be a part of this treacherous act, whatever their personal admiration for the “Hindu” scholars attacking Malhotra.

I personally have very great admiration for Shatavadhani Ganesh, and have had friendly correspondence with his co-writer Hari Ravikumar. Their initial article against Malhotra was nevertheless a very bad move which must have had the Hinduphobic American academics involved in this battle in splits of gleeful laughter. Many people felt that the sometimes sharp reaction from many of Malhotra’s supporters further aggravated the situation, but then every action has its equal and opposite reaction. After that, both the sides could have joined hands and fought a united battle. But the vicious articles and writings of people like KalavaiVenkat have muddied the waters to an incredible extent. It appears that K Venkat is indeed determined to see that there is no Hindu unity, and it appears that the only (apparent) motive seems to be to avenge certain grudges from the past where he feels Malhotra failed to give due importance to suggestions made by him!

It must be remembered that Malhotra has never in any of his books or articles in general targeted other writers fighting for Hinduism, and certainly never at a point of time when they were fighting for the Hindu cause. So this attack on him is totally and absolutely an unprovoked and unforgivable one. While it is true that Malhotra has been fighting an unceasing battle since years, and must have been badly in need of a rest or a sabbatical, I feel this present temporary withdrawal by him from active participation is a reaction caused by deep personal mental mortification caused by these unprovoked and lethal attacks on him by people who should have been supporting him, and I can only hope and pray that we do not lose this battle for Sanskrit even before it starts in full swing because of internal (and not Leftist or Secularist but “Hindu”) sabotage!

Indian public disagrees with Rohan Murty's defensiveness

Rajiv Malhotra posted a news item which appeared in the Economic Times dated 3 March 2016.

Rajiv says:
Rohan Murty defends the choice of Pollock (as expected) with the following words:

"The root of the problem, he said, is that there aren't more scholars in India capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature."

So he admits what I have said, namely, that the Murthys and their supporters believe Indians are not up to the job of Indology. Firstly, is this true? Secondly, if true, is it curable with a program to upgrade the quality and quantity of Indology in India? Or is it some kind of inferiority we Indians inherently have compared to Westerners?

If it is curable, then all the more we ought to bring about this upgrade in India's own Indology. To feed US Indology is shortsighted, and makes the gap even worse.

JP weighs in:

I think now the focus of discussion should be on Rohan Murthy's words, "The root of the problem, he said, is that there aren't more scholars in India capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature."
1. Are there NO SCHOLARS in India capable to carry out such a work?
2. Rohan Murthy seems to have evaluated whole of Indian scholars to make such a CONCLUSIVE remark.
3. On the statement below in italics, Did Murthy make a public announcement of his library and did he call for all the scholars and make an evaluation before settling in for Pollock?

"Murty said not one of the signatories had approached him since he launched the library and questioned the timing of the petition instead. What stopped any of these people from getting in touch with me? Not one single person came forward, which is incredible,"

Rajiv: I doubt he did anything similar to my tour across India to get to know traditional scholars both in Sanskrit universities and those in Hindu matthas. This requires getting out of comfort zone and doing serious tapasya.

Srinath chips in:

Fact is that rohan ultimately is a junior money bag with no domain knowledge in the very field he is outsourcing.

He also (arrogantly) believes that it wasn't his due diligence needed re: how many insider scholars exist etc. rather it is incumbent on those scholars themselves to engage with him before he undertook such project.

All this points to the same dogma "have money will do" and because I can throw $ therefore I'm not the one lacking in research but others are (!)

Only solution for such deep rooted anti samskrti is for insider movement to devalue products resulting from this "library" by presenting authentic alternatives.

Until then arrogant rich boys will keep referring to genuine samskrt and India based scholars as "peanut gallery"...

Subramanian says:

He also asks which lines in his translations do people have a problem with , and doubts that any of the critics have read any of the translated volumes. (...)

Rajiv: Question should be whether ANYONE WHATSOEVER has read their volumes?

Harish opines:

Murthy seems to have not got(or willingly ignored) the main question raised in the petition.

The potential damage that could be inflicted by a person who carries such deep biases(replete in his earlier papers).

I would have expected a well intentioned person to explain/devise a mechanism that prevents such problems. Instead, he deftly deflects the question by digressing to JNU. This for me suggests some degree of complicity. (Alas, this petition didn't happen before the JNU issue).

Prof Lal comes in:

I wonder what would Murty(s) would feel and say if an American said that India does not have any computer expertise and Indians do not know what is the meaning of computer software and hardware!

Murty (s) should simply say that their business interest in USA has forced them to take Pollack. They should be just a businessmen and should not try to judge something of which they do not know even 'a'. I will leave the world of academic if Mr. Murty(s) can read out one para of Sanskrit text or one hymn from any of the Vedas. Money does not make one scholar or intellectual.

Look at their attitude! USA does not have even fraction of what India has in terms of Sanskrit scholarship. Let Murty(s) carry "white man's burden and be their slave -- both mentally and physically", but should not impose it on nation. Many of you may recall that N. Murty spent a huge money and many articles came to be written in magazines and news papers that he is the right person to be the President of India. My God!

Here is a suggestion. Boycott being part of Murty-Pollack project in any way -- be it translation, editing, writing or even reading and citing. No one can stop you doing that.

Mallika writes:

There is a lot more to Narayan Murthy family's obsession with being in good books of WASPs than just inferiority complex. I think they consider themselves Globalized elite just like previous years "Bhandralok".

N Murthy's Son Ii Law is a Conservative member of British Parliament. His business model is still based on labor arbitrage for which easy visa regime is a necessity. He was a member of Ford Foundation and also was on NDTV board. NDTV has close connections with Communists and Congress.

So, Hindus should not expect anything from him.In fact should be vary of his willingness to harm Hindu civilization for personal reasons. More important issue is to inform our own about the BI forces and our own elites propensity to be in bed with Hinduphobic forces.

The least we can do is to popularize TBFS and ensure that our children do not take any courses in South Asian, Hinduism courses from any American Univ. Boycott the courses, then South Asianites will be under pressure and learn about hinduism from AVG, Chinmaya Mission or traditional Indian Scholars.

Arun joins the discussion:

If we take Rohan Murty seriously, in the spirit of purva-paksha, see what the petition to oust Pollock has caused several issues to be surfaced in a very public way:

1. Why do the (English-speaking) elite believe that India lacks the scholars? And why are they so miserly in growing Indian scholarship?

2. The problem of inadequate number of scholars (i.e., India has some great scholars, but far too few for a country of the size of India) can be highlighted.
What about the non-English elite, exemplified by PM Modiji think, and what do they plan to do about it?

3. That in turn leads to the whole question - what is the track that India has been on since Independence? How did India get into the position that it now seems to have to outsource the preservation popularization of its cultural DNA? What have the whole cohort of Romila Thapar and others been doing all these so many years? Isn't the failure of modern Indian universities highlighted? And most important, what is India going to do about it?

This beautiful opening to raise all these issues to a national debate and increasing public consciousness should not be lost by slinging about ad hominem attacks. This is no longer dismissable as some Hindutva thing; the problem of sustaining the Indian samskriti has been pointed out by no less than the Murtys.

Look at it: one, give some long-missing recognition to Indian scholars who can do the translations of high quality. Two, that there may not be enough to do the 500 books in the stipulated period may be highlighted, and the cause for this situation may be discussed. Three, what will the government, and philantropists and universities and people do to remedy the situation? And so on.

Please, ultimately, the samskriti is not in these books or in the shastras; it is in the practice. Rajivji is struggling to bring back purva-paksha, please try to practice it in as many situations as you can. All the shastras and literature of the past are the end-product of these and other practices we have forgotten, and not the cause. The paw mark in the soil shows the passage of a tiger, we want to revive the tiger, more paw marks will follow. What we have are the literary traces of a great civilization, merely cherishing its paw marks will not revive it.

Hari's comment made to ET is reproduced below:

Rohan, we must understand that in Indian culture several version of interpretation of Itihas, Purans, Vedas and Upnishads is available in various Indian and foreign languages. And you would understand the difference between them only if you read. But fortunately all these translation of insiders are collective have one view which is opposite to secular view. Just compare Ramayana Translation version of Insider and outsider. But do you have time for that?

Money is yours. Choice is yours. Several secular people before Pollock has tried to misinterpret our culture and this is another attempt. But this time it is huge because of your money power and internet age. You choose insider or outsider that is your choice.

But being Indian whenever people like you fund secular translation of our indian heritiage we as an insider and practitioner has full right to stand and stop you. Ultimately it is not about only money and profit of yours but about mis-interpretation of culture.

Unfortunately because of foreign education your mind trusted secular / foreigners more than the practioner and you instead of doing due dilignece and research of scholars here in India you took shortest popular route. So you chose the best of the Ameria! And now saying that in India we do not have scholars to do the kind of work which you are doing.

In india you will find all kind of people. They can do secular translation for you and secred also. But I think you were looking for a person who can do secular translation of our heritage.

‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ – A Preview of Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book

Following his seminal and voluminous works published in three books, Rajiv Malhotra (RM) is about to launch his fourth book, ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’. The following briefly describes the main points of this forthcoming book and the import of the cover page of this book. This is based on RM’s essential points on his new book discussed within his Discussion group recently. The texts under inverted commas are his original words. The underlined text and italicised text in parentheses are my additions to RM’s words, which have been inserted for the sake of clarity to the article. Moreover, some Sanskrit words are also italicised.

This forthcoming book is a continuation of RM’s thesis published and disseminated previously. It is therefore recommended by RM himself that readers wishing to read this book, and get the most out of it, should get acquainted with RM’s thesis. He specifically gives references to his recent lectures at the World Sanskrit Conference (Bangkok - June 2015), Goa (Feb 2015), and Delhi University (Jan 2015). The youtube links to these videos are provided below for ease of access. His previous three books are Breaking India [2011], Being Different [2011] and Indra’s Net [2014]. Of course, there are a host of other public lectures by RM, but the aforementioned lectures are focused on the nature of Sanskrit studies in the West.

At the outset, RM makes it clear that this current book is a Purva-Paksha on the West regarding their Sanskrit scholarship. Purva-paksha, for those who don’t already know, is an integral part of the ancient Indian practise of debate (called Shaastraartha) between different philosophical views where one school of thought diligently educate themselves on the ideologies of the other school and vice-versa. For instance, the Buddhist school would do a Purva-paksha on the Vedanta school and vice-versa. As such, this book is not political nor is it an angry response. Continuing along the lines of the ancient Indian tradition of Shaastraartha, subsequent to the Purva-paksha, one school would challenge the ‘leader’ of the other school. The story of Adi Shankracharya of the Advaita Vedanta school challenging Mandana Mishra is one for the ages. With this in view, RM has identified Sheldon Pollock as the leader of the Sanskrit studies in the West. This book is respectful towards Pollock and as RM states, “there is no ad hominem attack on anyone”. RM believes that “both sides stand to come out ahead in such debates by explaining their positions better”. He also hopes that “both will also benefit from the opposing stance and ought to reconsider their own in some cases”.

So which are the two sides, i.e. ‘both sides’ that RM refers to? The schools of thought that differ in ideas about Sanskrit have been called the ‘Insiders’ and ‘Outsiders’ by RM. These are the two sides. The ‘Insider’ camp holds a Traditional view of Sanskrit while the ‘Outsider’ view looks at Sanskrit from a purely Social studies point of view. Here I have used the word ‘Traditional’ and ‘Social science’ as proper nouns, i.e. labels for the point of view in question. Thus the distinction between ‘Insider’ and ‘Outsider’ is solely on the basis of their respective point of view. Indeed, RM is categorical in stating that the ‘Insider’/’Outsider’ division is “not based on race, ethnicity or nationality”. Thus, while in general the Western view looks at Sanskrit with a Social science lens, any Westerner holding the Traditional viewpoint on Sanskrit would be called an ‘Insider’. By the same token, Indians holding a Social science point of view would come under the ‘Outsider’ camp.

RM’s thesis is his concern about the Western view of India and the Sanskrit studies with the Western lens of Social science falls under this purview. This is amply depicted in the proposed cover of the book itself that shows an artwork of the motif that is still being displayed at the University of Oxford.

Motif depicting Sir William Jones at the Oxford University. Getting a picture of this motif was not straightforward. RM had to spend a year getting this picture! (Source: http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com)

The motif shows Sir William Jones on an elevated seat surrounded by people of Indian origin listening to what Jones is articulating. The message underneath reads “He formed a digest of Hindu and Mohammedan Laws”. The irony of the motif is not lost on those who know the history. RM explains the marble carving motif. ”It is Sir William Jones (in late 1700s) talking down at the pandits. Earlier he had learned at their feet, but back home he claimed to have 'discovered Sanskrit' and 'given the Hindus their laws'. Hence it is an image of arrogance.”

According to RM, the goal of the book is “to highlight how, why and by whom the Traditional [Insider] views are being replaced by the social sciences [Outsider] views”. This book also explains ‘the implications [of this replacement] to the future of the Tradition’. Those familiar with RM’s thesis will readily see the continuity of his work in this book. RM’s major concern is that the ‘Insiders’ are blind to this, and hopes that this book will help raise awareness about this hidden agenda amongst the ‘Insiders’. He hopes that after reading the book, the ‘Insider’ will find a gateway to perform a thorough Purva-paksha on the ‘Outsider’ camp vis-à-vis Sanskrit studies in the West. Keeping this in mind, the book looks at Sanskrit studies from an ‘Insider’ (Traditional) versus ‘Outsider’ (Social science) viewpoint. With the ‘Traditional’ vis-à-vis ‘Social science’ viewpoint the book is written within three sub-themes - Is Sanskrit: Dead or Alive? Oppressive or Liberating? Political or Sacred? These form the bylines of the title. While ‘Alive’, ‘Liberating’ and ‘Sacred’ are the ‘Insider’ views based on Tradition, the West/’Outsider’ view takes a Social science lens at Sanskrit and calls Sanskrit ‘Dead’, ‘Oppressive’ and ‘Political’. Within these sub-themes the book discusses Philosophy, Metaphysics and History as seen under the two ideologically different lenses. The book argues that there are parallels between the Social science view and the William Jones’ motif and raises concern that this Social science view is a deliberate attempt at hijacking the Traditional view of Sanskrit. As an aside, it should be clear that this book does not teach Sanskrit grammar or how to converse in Sanskrit!

This book on Sanskrit has been welcomed by all in RM’s Discussion group. The book cover-page has also been discussed within the Discussion group and several good points were raised – the motif, title and the artwork of the motif. Attempts will be made to incorporate these comments as the book launching date nears. Indeed, several group members have already placed bulk orders ranging from 10 to as many as 100 books, for distribution in their local communities.

'Outsider' community campaigns against Rajiv Malhotra prior to his book release

Finally, an important comment on the recent turn of events which has some bearing on this book. About a fortnight ago, a plagiarism charge was laid against RM on one of his previous books by Richard Fox (RF). RF works in a seminary in New Jersey and his work supporting conversions in India was exposed in RM's book 'Breaking India'. These plagiarism charges against RM have since been proven to be false by independent scholars, and a petition filed by Madhu Kishwar supporting Rajiv Malhotra's outcry against the 'Outsider' academia has more than 10000 signatures in support so far. A lot has been written in the last few days both for and against RM. This link  provides a compiled list of articles in support of RM, with articles against him nested within the support articles. Of special mention is Western Indologist Koenraad Elst's post, who takes a neutral stance. He states,"Do I agree with Malhotra? Firstly, we don’t entirely work on the same subjects. Secondly, where we do, there are still differences,...". However, he does go on to emphatically say that the powerful Western academia on Indology has a few questions to answer. Revealing the modus operandi of the 'powerful establishment', Outsiders in this case, Koenraad states, "...serious debate is indeed being avoided. The first step of an establishment against a vocal opponent is always to deny him legitimacy, [KE's original writing in bold] then to pretend that there is no real debate, only a querulant rebelling against established common sense. These mechanisms can be seen at work now against Rajiv Malhotra".

We wait in anticipation for the book to come out!