This post contains links to some of the important writings that have come out in recent times since The Battle for Sanskrit was released.
1. Here is a review of TBFS by Siddhartha, who calls out the deficiencies in Sheldon Pollock's scholarship starting from his discrediting of oral traditions of Hinduism to his dating of Ramayana and its interpretation, to his collusion with Indian Marxists to attempt intervention in India.
The review can be read here:
A review of The Battle for Sanskrit
2. Next up is the article by Aditi Banerjee in Swarajya magazine. In her article, she not only argues why it is foolish for Indians to be outsourcing the adhikara to interpret our civilizational heritage to people who are not insiders but she also lets us know how rigorous a training one should have to even attempt interpreting our sacred scriptures and treatises. She talks about how this rigour was inculcated in our scholars and how bypassing this rigour can dilute the ability to interpret correctly our shastras and scriptures.
Her article can be read here:
Let's stop funding our enemies
3. Ashay does a throrough deconstruction of Pollock's paper 'Deep Orientalism'. He says that the paper is 'a step-by-step guide to blame India in general & Sanskrit in particular for Nazism'.
He says that 'The outline is as follows:
Step 1: Trans-historicize the idea of Orientalism
Step 2: Show that “Orientalist” German Indology contributed to Nazism
Step 3: Show existence of pre-colonial “Orientalism” in Sanskrit thought
Step 4: Show that British Indology was a continuity of pre-colonial “Orientalism”
Step 5: Show Nazism is continuity of Sanskrit thought'
You can read the article here:
The shallowness of Pollock's 'Deep Orientalism'
4. Sejuti Banerjea does an excellent job of refuting Rohan Murty's statements in his article in the Times of India. The article is titled 'The classics belong to the world and no one has exclusive rights'.
In her rebuttal, Sejuti picks up statements made by Rohan Murty in his article and points out the fallacies inherent in them.
She has blogged at:
What Rohan Murty's comment really says
5. Kaushik Gangopadhyay draws a parallel between American progressives at the time when slavery was a practice in America and now as scholars learning India. He contrasts two people Frederick Olmsted from the times when slavery was practised and Sheldon Pollock as a scholar studying India. He draws eerie parallels in their methodology and shows how it can be catastrophic for India to let Sheldon Pollock have his way unchallenged.
His article can be read at:
American Progressives also typify others
1. Here is a review of TBFS by Siddhartha, who calls out the deficiencies in Sheldon Pollock's scholarship starting from his discrediting of oral traditions of Hinduism to his dating of Ramayana and its interpretation, to his collusion with Indian Marxists to attempt intervention in India.
The review can be read here:
A review of The Battle for Sanskrit
2. Next up is the article by Aditi Banerjee in Swarajya magazine. In her article, she not only argues why it is foolish for Indians to be outsourcing the adhikara to interpret our civilizational heritage to people who are not insiders but she also lets us know how rigorous a training one should have to even attempt interpreting our sacred scriptures and treatises. She talks about how this rigour was inculcated in our scholars and how bypassing this rigour can dilute the ability to interpret correctly our shastras and scriptures.
Her article can be read here:
Let's stop funding our enemies
3. Ashay does a throrough deconstruction of Pollock's paper 'Deep Orientalism'. He says that the paper is 'a step-by-step guide to blame India in general & Sanskrit in particular for Nazism'.
He says that 'The outline is as follows:
Step 1: Trans-historicize the idea of Orientalism
Step 2: Show that “Orientalist” German Indology contributed to Nazism
Step 3: Show existence of pre-colonial “Orientalism” in Sanskrit thought
Step 4: Show that British Indology was a continuity of pre-colonial “Orientalism”
Step 5: Show Nazism is continuity of Sanskrit thought'
You can read the article here:
The shallowness of Pollock's 'Deep Orientalism'
4. Sejuti Banerjea does an excellent job of refuting Rohan Murty's statements in his article in the Times of India. The article is titled 'The classics belong to the world and no one has exclusive rights'.
In her rebuttal, Sejuti picks up statements made by Rohan Murty in his article and points out the fallacies inherent in them.
She has blogged at:
What Rohan Murty's comment really says
5. Kaushik Gangopadhyay draws a parallel between American progressives at the time when slavery was a practice in America and now as scholars learning India. He contrasts two people Frederick Olmsted from the times when slavery was practised and Sheldon Pollock as a scholar studying India. He draws eerie parallels in their methodology and shows how it can be catastrophic for India to let Sheldon Pollock have his way unchallenged.
His article can be read at:
American Progressives also typify others
No comments:
Post a Comment