By Ravi Joshi
This following interview of Rajiv Malhotra
discusses the critique made by R Ganesh of Rajiv’s latest book The Battle for Sanskrit which deals with
the scholarship of American Indologist Sheldon Pollock.
Rajiv Malhotra is a prominent researcher,
writer, speaker and public intellectual on current affairs as they relate to
civilizations, cross-cultural encounters, religion and science. Among the
issues on which he has raised awareness is that Indian civilization is studied
through biased and distorted lenses by western scholars. He has authored many
best-sellers, including his latest book, The
Battle For Sanskrit.
Sheldon Pollock is an American sanskritist well-known
for his writings on the intellectual and literary history of India. He also
studies comparative intellectual history and occupies a prestigious
professorship at Columbia University. He was the general editor of the Clay Sanskrit
Library and is the founding editor of the Murty Classical Library of India. He
is the primary focus of Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book The Battle for Sanskrit where his work is critiqued systematically.
The
Battle for Sanskrit is Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book
challenging the ongoing western approach to the discourse on India. It seeks to
alert traditional scholars of the analysis of Indian texts made by an important
school of thought that is led primarily by Sheldon Pollock. The scholars of
this school are intervening in modern Indian society with the explicitly stated
purpose of removing ‘poisons’ allegedly built into Sanskrit texts. They hold
that many Sanskrit texts are socially oppressive and serve as a political
weapon of the ruling elite; that the sacred aspects need to be refuted or side
lined; and that Sanskrit has long been dead.
R Ganesh is a Bangalore-based Sanskrit
scholar and practitioner of the art of avadhana. He is an author in Sanskrit
and Kannada and an extempore poet in multiple languages. He has performed
avadhanas in Kannada, Sanskrit, Telugu and Prakrit. He is known for extempore
composition of poetry and chitrakavya. He also gives public lectures on dance
(natya sastra), music, art, culture, literature, poetics.
Ganesh recently wrote a scathing attack on
Rajiv Malhotra’s book, The Battle For
Sanskrit (TBFS). The attack became personal against Rajiv Malhotra’s
competence. This raised another controversy at a time when most of us expected
all lovers of dharma to rally behind the defense of our sanskriti and take up
the battles articulated in TBFS. Ganesh has divided some of the activists and
this needs to be healed.
To put the matter to rest, I decided to interview
Rajiv Malhotra on some very specific and concrete claims made by R. Ganesh. The
goal here is to set aside personality issues and delve into the subject matter
of Pollock, Hindu dharma, TBFS and Ganesh’s views.
This is a long but important interview, so
for ease of reading I divided the issues into the following thematic categories:
1. The qualifications required to do Rajiv Malhotra’s work
2. Issues concerning methodology and Ganesh’s overall approach
3. Disagreements concerning the interpretation of our sanskriti
4. Who is being logical or illogical?
5. What should be the future course for our sanskriti?
Q: Someone
reading Ganesh’s review could easily think that he is poisoning the well by
branding you unfairly. Some of Ganesh’s
supporters have made this negative branding even more explicit. What is your
response to charges that you are unqualified to do your work?
In the opening para itself, Ganesh cites a
theme from the Mahabharata to give us some obvious advice: “Act not in haste! A
loss of sagacity (viveka) is the worst calamity. Fortune and prosperity
comes to one who analyses and calculates.” Ganesh then applies this wisdom to
say that I am unqualified for the work I am doing: “In the battle for Sanskrit,
Rajiv Malhotra is like an enthusiastic commander
of a committed army whose strengths and weaknesses he himself is sadly
unable to reconcile.”
The commander of an army that he refers to
is like a CEO, and must be evaluated as such. He is not supposed to be like a
techie or some narrow subject-matter expert. He cannot be a frog-in-the-well.
My movement requires me to be able to identify and define the immense variety
of specialized battlefields we must engage. I must study the strengths/weaknesses
of the main opponents we face, not only as individuals but also the workings of
their institutional support apparatus. Any such leader must know the opposing
side’s history, ideology, motives, strategic plans and tactical maneuvers. He
must know how opponents have infiltrated and installed their own supporters
among us, including many who serve them unconsciously and even imagine they are
operating with good intentions for our civilization.
This CEO type of leadership is not just a
matter of book knowledge, and is certainly not limited to book knowledge about
our own systems. It also demands extensive experience in direct close combat with the best warriors of the opposing side.
Such a leader must be psychologically strong like a kshatriya. He must be
articulate with good debating skills. To debate the West on its own turf
requires considerable real-world experience in the global intellectual
kurukshetra, which is not to be confused with meetings of “like-minded people”
in India. One must have experience leaving one’s comfort zone of supporters,
and confidently walking directly into the line of enemy fire, even when surrounded
by a hundred or more heavily armed opponents. Such a warrior must be able to
win arguments and come out stronger for the next battle.
For my specialized area of work, the
battlefield is situated globally, the gatekeepers are mostly hostile towards
us, and we have a ragtag army to start with. I am sure Ganesh will agree with
the importance of intellectual combat experience in the western battlefields,
just as his avadhanas provide him the field-experience in his domain of expertise. Has Ganesh known enough about my
background in this specific kind of battlefield over the past quarter century,
to be able to justify his sweeping dismissal of my effectiveness?
Ganesh then amplifies his dismissal of my
personal competence, by citing some words of the legendary Prof. M Hiriyanna.
Ironically, even though Hiriyanna is very well-known in his own right, Ganesh
establishes Hiriyanna’s credentials by quoting that the Harvard professor
Daniel Ingalls praised him as a “great scholar”. I will not dwell upon this
inferiority complex many Indians have, a complex that compels them to cite a
westerner’s pat on the back as the gold standard of legitimacy. I have
extensively written on this signature quality of many Indians. Why should one
of our great avadhana leaders need to cite Harvard’s Ingalls to prove the
greatness of Hiriyanna?
Ganesh cites Hiriyanna saying that “It will
be a serious deficiency if the Pandit passes through his career as a student
altogether oblivious of this new knowledge…” Ganesh wants to make the valid
point that we must not be living in old knowledge and that an expert must also
learn new knowledge. Hiriyanna is quoted saying that “there was a lack of
historical perspective in what he [the pandit] knew.” Hiriyanna rightfully
complained that “Pandits confined their attention only to the subject in which
they specialized, and even there to a few chosen books related to it… But
thoroughness is no antidote against the narrowness of mental outlook.”
Ganesh goes through many such elaborate
quotations not only to demonstrate that he has such book knowledge, but to make
the case that my knowledge is obsolete because I am stuck in old knowledge.
However, he cites no evidence at all to prove that such lofty quotes apply to
me. Ganesh assumes that quoting someone about the criteria for failure
automatically proves that the criteria apply to me. This is a ridiculous level
of illogical reasoning.
In fact, had Ganesh taken the time to read
my works, he would know that I emphasize new knowledge acquired in several
ways, including the following methods:
- I regard the “rishi-state” of higher consciousness as a method our exemplars have used to constantly refresh knowledge, and not get frozen in time;
- I have read a vast corpus of literature by our opponents pertaining to a broad spectrum of topics in the humanities and social sciences;
- I engage opponents in debate as often as I can because this is an important form of knowledge acquisition;
- I promote and participate in the use of modern scientific empiricism to study old knowledge with open minds, in order to benefit both the science and our improved insights about the tradition; and
- I advocate the adaptation and writing of new smritis for our times.
Ganesh’s obvious statement about the need
for new knowledge should not require him to cite quotations by an Indian X and
validating the Indian by citing a Harvard professor Y. It is an example of very
pedantic, commonsense points made in his article. He then gives us a tutorial
on sanatana dharma that mentions rather well-known things. None of this
pertains to Pollock’s work or my purva-paksha of Pollock.
I
wish to turn his argument back on him: The complaint he cites about pandits
being ignorant of the latest knowledge from new sources is applicable to those
traditional scholars who are not up to date in knowledge of Western Indology,
which is the subject matter of our discussion.
Furthermore, our tradition has always encouraged
and even valorized innovative thinkers who seemed to lack formal training in
some field, but who successfully challenged those with eminent “credentials”. His
branding me right up front as unqualified is unscholarly and elitist. Ganesh
says that “Malhotra’s understanding of Sanskrit and Sanskriti seems second hand
since he puts a premium on form (rupa) as against content (svarupa)
and uses pseudo-logic instead of non-qualified universal experiential wisdom to
counter the enemies (see pp. 44-49 for an elaborate but hazy diagnosis of the
problem).”
My response is as follows:
- On what basis can he conclude that I lack first-hand experience of sanskriti? He fails to define the scope of sanskriti and then show that I am deficient in it. This would require him to do detailed pariksha of my background, my sadhana, my guru, and so forth - something he has not done. This goes to show that Ganesh has a somewhat reductionist view of what our sanskriti is, and he makes sweeping judgments of others whom he hardly knows.
- His argument about the distinction between rupa and svarupa is irrelevant. Yes, in metaphysical contexts, the aim is to transcend rupa into understanding of svarupa but that has nothing to do with the context of defending dharma socially and politically from hostile interpretations.
- His reference to my book’s pages 44-49 shows a lack of basic understanding of my book. In those pages I do not discuss the “enemies” at all, but rather our home team’s internal shortcomings. This is a standard SWOT analysis done to assess one’s competitiveness. It is based on numerous interviews I did over the years to assess the views and preparedness of various kinds of individuals who ought to be on our home team. Ganesh seems to be unfamiliar with such techniques, and dismisses it as “an elaborate but hazy diagnosis of the problem.” He wants to pass judgment on everything whether he has a clue or not.
- Pollock also resorts to this kind of hubris many times. It reminds me of a corporate slogan: “If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit!”
Q: What are your thoughts on
Ganesh’s strengths and knowledge gaps?
Ganesh is a great scholar but I find him
lacking knowledge of the specific meta-narrative in which Sheldon Pollock’s
work is located. Without understanding this fully, it is useless and in fact
misleading to attempt to do purva-paksha on isolated verses and statements made
by Pollock. The following four-tier model explains the layers of knowledge one
must bring to bear on such a purva-paksha. It organizes scholarship into
categories, from the most general to the narrowest:
- Wide sweeping critique of
western Indology. Cover lots of old Indologists,
from Christian to secular, clubbing all of them under a simplistic profile as
“western”. Most postcolonial scholarship has focused on this and some of it has
been pretty useful. Few traditional Indian scholars have done serious work
here, and most of them regurgitate bombastic, emotional and politicized
criticisms. In any case, this is not where my focus lies in TBFS. We already have
lots of such material from numerous writers over many decades. But this genre
of ideology is not what we encounter today, because western Indologists like
Pollock have moved on and other more sophisticated theories have superseded.
- Present ecosystem of Western
Indology and where the Pollock School fits in. This
tier looks at prevailing infrastructure for knowledge production, such as: institutions,
ideologies, agendas, distribution channels, etc. This research looks at not
only western scholars but also their Indian collaborators and sepoys. What are
their strategies at work? Who funds what? What is the purpose of all this work?
To do this type of work, one must have expertise in industry analysis. I
would say Breaking India is a book in
this genre.
- Deconstruction of Pollock
school's specific lens. Here one must look at this
school’s meta-theories, narratives, key vocabulary, plans. What are the
implications to dharma being studied in this way? How has this knowledge spread
over the past 30+ years? Who is who in their army? This requires a multi-disciplinary
approach, and knowledge of heavy English, Western thought and the ability to
decode multilayered (including sly/deceptive) writing style that is typical of
western scholars who want to look politically correct. I request the reader to
please go through my article, The
Challenges of Understanding Sheldon Pollock, available at: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/rajiv-malhotra-explains-the-challenges-of-understanding-sheldon-pollock
- Text specific micro-analysis. This entails analysis of specific Indian texts as per Pollock
school and as per our tradition. This supports our uttara-paksha. It 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. It is also
obsolete as even the westerners today have disowned it. Westerners have
replaced this old Orientalism with their own new Orientalism.
In a nutshell, Ganesh and most Indian
scholars miss tiers 2 and 3 entirely, and do not seem to realize this. Their
ideas of western Indology are frozen in the old era of tier 1. They investigate
specific issues (i.e. tier-4) in the context of tier-1. Because they miss the
middle tiers, which is where Pollock’s original and creative theories and
lenses belong, they miss out on what is special about Pollock.
Therefore,
Ganesh and I are doing two different types of yajnas. They entail two distinct subject
matter areas, with different kinds of opponents and issues. I am aware of my
shortcomings, and explain in my book the necessity for more specialists like
Ganesh to join as teams. But unfortunately, he sees his corner of the field as
though it were the entire global kurukshetra. For some mysterious reason he is
blind to his own limitations.
Nevertheless, Ganesh and other traditional scholars need to undertake the
important work based on the tier 2 and tier 3 analysis of Pollock.
Theme 2: Issues concerning
methodology and Ganesh’s overall approach
Q: What was your first reaction to R. Ganesh’s review of
your book, The Battle For Sanskrit?
I wish to thank Shri R. Ganesh for showing
interest in my book by writing a lengthy critique. Any such critique has the
effect to wake up traditional scholars and draw their attention to the prevailing
intellectual battlefield.
However, there are many serious errors,
misunderstandings and contradictions in Sri Ganesh’s article. I would like to
point out a few of the statements that are irrelevant/pedantic or that
misrepresent what is written in TBFS. I would also like to clarify my domains
of expertise and repeat TBFSs call for traditional scholars to work in
collaboration with me in ways that complement one another.
Q: Ganesh dismisses
your thesis of breaking India forces, calling it a “conspiracy theory”. What is
your response?
Ganesh complains that my notion
of western orientalists appropriating the Indian left “sound like conspiracy
theories”. Had he written this before my books Breaking India and Being
Different became extremely influential, that would be one thing. But in the
past several years a large number of Indians in multiple disciplines have read
and appreciated that thesis. Someone dismissing it as “conspiracy theories”
today is clearly out of touch with the real-world events that are taking place
all around us. Our experts must be better informed about the world or else not
opine so authoritatively.
Q: Please
respond to Ganesh’s charge that your “meticulous analysis of the works of
Sheldon Pollock”, is “also an indicator of Malhotra’s obsession with Western
academia, to the extent that the reader gets the impression that Hinduism will
not survive unless Western academia views it in a better light.”
Ganesh contradicts himself and cannot seem
to make up his mind on whether such a systematic purva-paksha is a good thing
or not. He accepts Pollock’s importance and the principle of purva-paksha, and
yet finds my “meticulous analysis” to be a sign of obsession. This is like
someone complaining of the “obsession” of Shankara and other exemplars of
purva-paksha to critique their opponents with rigor.
Ganesh also accuses me of “playing the
blame game” and advocates that we must “counter Pollock with facts.” This
charge assumes that I did not counter Pollock with facts. It is a ridiculous
misrepresentation, given I worked so hard to get into the “facts” of Pollock
while Ganesh shows no knowledge of Pollock apart from what he sees in TBFS.
Ganesh also misrepresents me when he says that
I want Western academia to view Hinduism in a better light. My fight is exactly
in the opposite direction: I oppose funding western Indology chairs that hope
to win over Western academia. I want Swadeshi Indology to become strong. The Indian Grand Narrative must be home grown
and only then can we export it. Others will not respect us until we respect ourselves
with unity. Anyone who has read my works knows all this well.
Q: What is your response to Ganesh’s criticism that: “The
first imperative step of establishing pramanas is missing in The
Battle for Sanskrit.”
In the absence of common pramanas between
Western Indology and our tradition, it is impossible to debate because we may
be talking about rishi consciousness but Pollock being a Marxist, disregards
that such a thing even exists, and he only cares about socioeconomic
dimensions. TBFS is constantly showing that Pollock rejects the claims of
sacredness, and hence automatically rejects Vedas and experience of higher
states.
The important point raised in TBFS is that the
battle has to be initially fought on western terms, since the West is presently
“the establishment” and we are their consumers.
TBFS is targeting the heart of establishment. This is an unfortunate state,
but realistic. Once we become the main knowledge producers in modern Indology,
we can dictate the terms and establish the pramanas for debate. Right now, we
live in a society governed by laws and processes that are not based on our
pramanas. To enter the debating court, we are being required to fit within
Western Universalism.
I am acutely aware of this dilemma and have
spent most of my adult life arguing against this state of affairs. But I am
also a pragmatist and cannot limit myself to the old style of argumentation
just to show off that I am knowledgeable in pramanas. Today’s research
methodology must be inter-disciplinary. I like to take the fight to the
opponent’s battlefield, and this cannot be achieved as a conversation among
insiders only.
Q: You mention that Ganesh is at times confused between your
position and Pollock’s position that you criticize. Please give some examples.
I often quote or paraphrase Pollock to
explain his thoughts to my readers, but Ganesh takes it as my position and
starts to criticize it. For example, he says: “Why this divide between sacred
and beautiful?” This divide is Pollock’s divide, not mine. Pollock wants to put
a wall between shastra and kavya. I go through great pains to try and explain
what Pollock says, and then I give my rebuttal. Just to make it perfectly
clear, I do not believe in any absolute Pollock-like divide between
sacred/beauty or between shastra/kavya. Unbeknownst to Ganesh, what he says is
in agreement with my views; we both oppose Pollock on the issue of sacred/beauty.
Another example is when Ganesh claims that
I do not understand what shastra and kavya mean, but does not prove this
allegation by citing my writings. Instead, he seems to refer to my paraphrasing
of Pollock’s views; he misunderstands these as mine. Ganesh’s following
statement is in alignment with what my book says:
“Any organized body of knowledge is sastra;
it serves two purposes – to govern and to reveal. A system of grammar is a sastra.
It tells us what is the right usage (governs) and shows us new connections
(reveals). A sastra may or may not be connected to the Vedas.
Any creative work that evokes rasa (art experience; aesthetic delight)
is kavya.”
He also writes: “In general, yajña
refers to an act of self-dedication or service above self.” But this has always
been my view, and yet he claims that I do not understand yajna. Similarly, he
gives well-known definitions of terms like darshana, etc. straight from
elementary textbooks, without telling us why his quotes are relevant to my book.
Q: He accuses you many times of not
understanding the diversity of Indian traditions. Can you respond to the
following charges he makes?
- “[Malhotra’s] understanding of the nature of sanatana dharma as a transcendental system is flawed. He aims to show that Hinduism is exclusivist in its own way …”
- “Western scholars are familiar with dissent but they often lack a framework to reconcile with the differences and transcend them. While Malhotra respects this spirit, he is unable, unfortunately, to express it clearly in his book.
- “We must also realize that diversity is the way of the world and should learn to tolerate opposing views.”
- He claims there are “many instances of Malhotra’s monolithic view of Indian culture and tradition.”
- “He should realize that the same tradition that he is defending has these diverse views.”
One
of the most glaring misrepresentations of my work is his repeated assertion that
I am against the diversity of Indian traditions. No serious reader of my work
has ever said such a thing. In fact, my earlier book, Being Different,
which he cites, says the exact opposite: it contrasts Indian diversity with the
Western focus on the normative and the Abrahamic emphasis upon "one
truth". In fact, a key highlight of Being
Different is that it goes beyond the common platitudes we read about our
diversity, and proposes a
comprehensive theory on why there is diversity.
The
contrast between what I call history-centrism and adhyatma-vidya
are key building blocks I have formulated to explain not just the diversity in
our traditions, but more importantly why this diversity exists. This
insight as to the underlying causes
of diversity in one civilization and monoculture in the other civilization is
worked out in considerable detail in my work.
In
my subsequent book, Indra's Net, I develop this thesis further into what
I call the open architecture of dharma systems. Not only do I explain
the immense diversity, I also examine the profound underlying unity - hence
there is no fear of chaos as in the case of the Abrahamic systems. There is no
control-obsession in our culture in the sense that the West has. I explain why this unity-diversity is there,
whereas most writers have been content merely praising it, without adequately
asking what sustains it.
Given
that this theory of our diversity has been one of my important areas of work, I
find it disappointing that Ganesh misunderstood me. For instance, he does not
understand the notion of integral unity as explained in detail in my writings, when
he writes: “Malhotra speaks about an ‘Integral unity of Hindu metaphysics’ (pp.
98-102) without caring to look at divergent view from within the tradition.”
By
definition, an integral unity allows plurality within a shared architecture.
Sometimes, blind orthodoxy blurs the appreciation of any novelty in
articulating our heritage. One of the hallmarks of our tradition is its ability
to evolve with the changing times. This requires us to be receptive and open to
new knowledge from new sources.
Q: What do you
think of Ganesh’s criticism of the categories “tradition” and “American
Orientalism”? He writes the following:
- “Often clubbing all insider views as ‘the traditionalist view’ – his argument is rendered weaker.”
- “He begins to falter when he compares the ‘Sanskrit Traditionalists’ and ‘American Orientalists’.”
- “There is no single group that one can call ‘Sanskrit Traditionalists’.”
Ganesh’s
foundational misunderstanding of my work concerns the nature of
unity-diversity, and this feeds into numerous other incorrect analyses by him. He
does not understand the cluster nature of various dharma systems in their
integral unity. He has not read chapter 2, one of the largest chapters in TBFS,
which is devoted to explain this. Frankly, I doubt Ganesh knows much about the
category I have designated as American Orientalists, which I emphasize must be
differentiated from earlier European Orientalists.
I
go to great length to explain that insiders/outsiders and
traditionalists/Orientalists are clusters and not homogeneous categories. Pages
30-34 are entirely devoted specifically to define and nuance these terms. Pages
35-43 list nine separate ways in which the traditionalists differ from
Orientalists, and give a brief overview of each difference to show its
significance. I refer the reader to the tables on pages 24-25 and 76, along
with the accompanying text, and invite him/her to assess whether my analysis of
this matter deserves to be so flippantly dismissed.
Q: You have made a core point in your book
about Pollock’s removal of sacredness from Sanskrit texts. How does Ganesh see this?
TBFS argues against Pollock’s allegation
that sacred Sanskrit texts are toxic and that they oppress Dalits and women. He
espouses removing the sacredness and I oppose him vehemently on this. It is in
this context that I state in my book that: “Traditionally, Hindus have read
Sanskrit for the purpose of understanding the ideas of ultimate reality.” To
me, this sentence makes perfect sense for the intended purpose and context.
However, Ganesh picks this very same
sentence from my book and rejects it summarily without explaining the context
of what I am trying to establish. He writes: “The ultimate reality is beyond
form – it is immaterial if Sanskrit is used as a means.” It is true that the
ultimate reality is beyond form, but how does it follow that Sanskrit can be
disposed of as a means to the formless? Sanskrit mantras are important to many
sacred practices, and reaching the formless ultimate reality does involve vyavaharika processes in
certain practices. Besides, my reasons for questioning Pollock’s removal of
sacredness is not only based on his rejection of our idea of ultimate reality;
my concern is also that such a removal is a mischievous effort by the Left to
accuse sacred Sanskrit texts of violating human rights. Once again, Ganesh is shadowboxing an imaginary position
without understanding the context of what I am refuting in Pollock theses.
He writes: “Further, how does he account
for the teachings of many poets and sages who were unaware of Sanskrit?” Of
course, we all know that many poets wrote in other languages. But Sanskrit’s
sacred usages do not imply that other languages are useless. Ganesh seems to
think that sacredness of Sanskrit is a claim of its exclusiveness among all
languages for sacred purposes. When I say that an entity X has a property Y, I
am not saying that other entities cannot have property Y as well.
Furthermore, while it is correct that
learning Sanskrit is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for
spiritual enlightenment on an individual basis, it is dangerous to dismiss the
importance and criticality of Sanskrit to the transmission of the dharmic
traditions at a societal level. Sanskrit
is the language in which the Vedas have been transmitted, and it is the
language in which our mantras have been revealed; in the very sounds of the
Sanskrit language lay pathways to the transcendental realms.
Q: He criticizes your
interpretation of mantras. Please comment.
The context in which I mention mantras in
my book must be understood before one can evaluate what I say. The context is
that I am refuting Pollock when he considers mantras (and other “non-secular” aspects)
to be socially toxic and oppressive against Dalits and women.
Ganesh cites my view that: “Meditation mantras…produce effects which ordinary
sounds do not.” Ganesh gives a rejoinder by assuming that I must refer to
“healing effects” of mantras, but that is a false assumption. He tries to show
that mantras cannot heal in Ayurveda; but that is beside the point because
their effects can be of various kinds, not necessarily for healing.
Ganesh is arguing about the issue of
healing, whereas my book is arguing on a different
issue, namely, that mantras and other sacred elements do not cause social
oppression. They produce effects. But TBFS does not go into any specific kinds
of effects, and certainly makes no medical claims.
Q: Is Ganesh misinterpreting what
you mean by transcendence?
Ganesh is bothered by my use of terms like
“supersensory experiences,” “higher states of consciousness” and “‘rishi’ state
of consciousness”. He dismisses all such statements as “arbitrary”, presumably
because they do not fit the jargon he has learned. He is particularly troubled
with my statement that: “The idea of selfhood that is transcending the ordinary
ego is increasingly accepted in scientific inquiry.” The fact is that cognitive
scientists and neuroscientists now discuss states where the subject does not experience a separated, isolated
experience of self.
Rather than being inquisitive to pursue
such new knowledge, Ganesh hastily tells us that: “All such remarks only weaken
his argument since the debate is happening at the level of pratyaksa and
anumana.” He must appreciate that western cognitive science does not claim to have “measured” the higher
states of consciousness, but claims to have discovered correlates to it that
are measurable. This is a big difference to be appreciated. It is also a big
breakthrough in modern science. I wish he would be more interested in reading
the literature on recent studies, and join in the effort to show that the west
is busy digesting our knowledge into their own paradigms.
Furthermore, Ganesh is missing a key point.
It is not correct that this debate is happening at the level of pratyaksa and anumana. To concede this point would be to concede the battle to
Pollock. Pollock as a Marxist is by
definition materialist and would dismiss the relevance of the levels of
consciousness that deal with the para
– those which can be experienced through aparoksha gyanam (direct experience)
that is not reliant on sensory experience or intellect alone. But Sanatana Dharma cannot be confined to a
materialist understanding of the universe alone – therefore, any materialist
interpretations like the Marxist ones and what Pollock champions inevitably
distorts and warps the tradition. To
play into the lens Pollock uses would be to concede the battle before it is
even fought. Just because Pollock
dismisses the higher levels of pramana we use in understanding our tradition
does not mean that we should, too! The whole point of TBFS is to put forth our
own interpretations of dharma to debunk his distortions.
Q: He does not like your term
“beyond” to explain paramarthika. What is your
response?
Ganesh misinterprets my statement that
“paramarthika is the realm ‘beyond’”. He retorts that “paramarthika is not just beyond but also within.” He assumes that
beyond means some spatially removed place out there in the sky, as in an
Abrahamic notion of heaven. But I use “beyond” (which I put in quotes in my
text for this nuance) in a way that does not have anything to with inside or
outside in a spatial sense. It means beyond the ordinary state of
consciousness, beyond what is ordinarily experienced by most of us. It is
roughly equivalent to the prefix “para” (adopted from Sanskrit into English). To
be clear, in the very same sentence I say that vyavaharika, by contrast, is
“the ordinary reality around us.” A more technical way might be to say that
“beyond” refers to what the six pramanas cannot reveal – these being Pratyaksha (Perception), Anumana
(Inference), Upamana (Comparison), Arthapatti (Postulation), Anupalabdhi
(Non-apprehension), and Sabda (Verbal Testimony).
Furthermore, Ganesh contradicts his own
position in another part of his article when he writes “The ultimate reality is
beyond form.” If his view on “beyond” above is valid, then this statement by
him would also be falsified.
Ganesh is also concerned that “Malhotra has
not given a direct quote of Pollock rejecting the paramarthika.” This shows Ganesh’s inability (or disinterest) in
reading Pollock beyond surgical punch lines in isolation. If he has read
Pollock’s magnum opus, “The language of
gods …”, he ought to be able to track the references to it given in TBFS.
He would easily discover Pollock’s reliance upon Vico throughout. TBFS mentions
how Pollock translates parmarthika-sat and vyavaharika-sat to correspond to the
Latin terms, verum and certum, respectively. Pollock’s
arguments that follow based on this mapping lead to his sidelining of
paramarthika. This level of understanding Pollock is a prerequisite before
Ganesh can begin to write any non-trivial review.
Q: Ganesh
says that your statement about four ‘levels’ of speech is incorrect, because
according to him, there are four ‘stages’ in chronological sequence and not ‘levels’.
Please respond.
He is wrong in his understanding of vac.
For example, Sri Aurobindo discusses levels. The significance of levels is that
they can exist simultaneously whereas stages are in a strict chronological
order, one at a time. Advanced tantra and other yogic techniques take
practitioners to higher states where they are simultaneously able to function in higher and lower levels. These
are not always mutually exclusive.
In any case, this is an example of a very
pedantic issue, as it would not make any difference to my thesis if I were to
replace ‘levels’ with ‘stages’. The point TBFS is arguing is that Pollock is
wrong in considering the oral tradition to be useless. My argument is that some
of the pathways from external speech all the way to subtler forms and the
ultimate para level are important, and if one has only text but no orality
these would get sidelined. The real point
here is that the four levels/stages are unavailable in text mode, but are
available in oral practices. This point is unaffected whether these are
stages or levels. Ganesh missed the point and quibbles over something very
pedantic.
Q: Are you troubled that Ganesh
does not buy into your argument on the non-translatability of certain Sanskrit
words?
Ganesh disagrees with my notion of
non-translatability of certain Sanskrit words. He gives the following
rejoinder: “In general, the defining feature of a technical work (pertaining to
philosophy, or medicine, or science) is that it can be translated, since it has
a precise language of its own (and is not bound to a particular language).”
Ganesh goes on to argue that “anything that
comes within universal experience can be translated.” My arguments on
non-translatability have been made very extensively in Being Different, with a whole chapter devoted to this. The reader
should go through that chapter and decide whether Ganesh is patently wrong in
his views on whether certain Sanskrit words are non-translatable.
He then says something that is simply irrelevant
to the issue at hand: “Further, even in Sanskrit, the same word has different
connotations in different subjects.” Being
Different already explains this fact with numerous examples, but this is an
independent point unrelated to non-translatability.
Q: Ganesh questions your logical abilities and calls it “pseudo-logic”. You have pointed out illogical statements
made by him. Please explain.
Ganesh is making some illogical statements, ironically with the stated purpose of exposing
"Malhotra's pseudo-logic". I offer a few examples.
- In some instances, he adopts my position and yet says I am wrong. For instance, he quotes me: “Dhyana (meditation) is available without the need for analysis since it is entirely experiential. (p. 98)” Then he disagrees with this, saying: “If this is the case, how do we account for the fact that dhyana has been analyzed extensively on the basis of experience?”
Analyzing an experience after the fact does not mean the analysis is required to have the experience. My statement that dhyana does not require analysis, is not refuted by his valid statement that some people have analyzed dhyana. That they have analyzed does not mean the analysis is mandatory for attaining the experience.
- Ganesh’s failure to understand the context of my statement leads him to think it is incorrect. He quotes TBFS: “…Natya Shastra was a text developed to enable the theatrical performance of itihasas.” This statement is taken from the section on Integral Unity (pages 98-102) where I am arguing against Pollock’s claim to decouple paramarthika and vyavaharika. In order to refute Pollock’s claim, I cite numerous examples of their unity and one of them is that Vedas, itihasas and Natya Shastra are linked and cannot be decoupled into separate camps with mutual tension the way Pollock does. Ganesh states some irrelevant facts which have nothing to do with the context in which I state my position about the integral unity of our traditions to jump to his conclusion that this is “one of the many instances of Malhotra’s monolithic view of Indian culture and tradition.” He offers no logic as to how he reached this conclusion.
- Ganesh reaches an illogical conclusion in discussing my reference to the critical edition of the Ramayana that was compiled by MS University. TBFS mentions that the critical edition was later misused by Western Indologists to make incorrect interpretations. This critical edition gave them easier access which they previously lacked. Does this mean we should not do such critical editions? Certainly not. All I am pointing out is that just as China controls the way foreigners can access its intellectual resources, so also we could at least make some policies on when to allow Westerners unfettered access. For instance, we could consider having some scrutiny over their access. They must state the purpose for which they are requesting the access, and we must monitor their works to verify that they have not violated their obligations. Moreover, knowing their motive will help us do a thorough purva-paksha of their positions, and also help produce rejoinders (as uttara). This ensures a balance between freedom and control and firmly establishes the adhikara with our civilization.
As an analogy, I offer the following: The Kumbha Mela is very open (point X). But western scholars have used this openness to infiltrate it with nefarious designs that I have recently written about (point Y). Because we don’t like Y, the solution is not to stop X (i.e. we should not end our openness). One possible solution is to bring some mechanisms of monitoring, and taking corrective action when required. Simply abandoning the adhikara and letting outsiders have a free run is unwise.
Ganesh does not understand the logic involved in this point. He misinterprets my written words (page 322) when he asserts: “Malhotra opines that it was unwise of M S University, Baroda to have compiled a critical edition of the Ramayana and preparing an English translation (p. 322).” This is not at all what I wrote and I never blamed MS University’s project either. Rather, I blamed western scholars for taking advantage of this openness, and what we can learn from this experience. What I propose is to have some controls, and not passively give away our adhikara.
- Another example of an illogical analysis concerns my statement about popular culture. In my discussions with Kanchi Shankaracharya, he explicitly agreed with my view written in TBFS that “Kavya is literature that can be merely entertaining, or can also be a means for experiencing transcendence.” In fact, the Shankaracharya emphasized numerous times that we must develop a strategy to popularize our knowledge through visual entertainment such as film, TV and theater. He explained to me the importance of doing this today.
Yet, Ganesh quotes the above statement from my book, and classifies it under the heading: “Ignorance of Existing Literature and Divergent Views.” The factoid he cites has no bearing on the falsification or otherwise of my position. He uses the approach of muddying the issue by excessive citation of texts as if merely quoting proves anything by itself.
Q: He seems to disagree
with you on whether to encourage new knowledge production in Sanskrit. Can you respond?
Ganesh dismisses the idea that Sanskrit’s
revival could include producing new knowledge. He writes:
“Also, his suggestion for the revival of
Sanskrit is to produce new knowledge in Sanskrit. Is this even practical given
that scholars from many mainstream non-English languages (like Chinese, Dutch,
French, German, Spanish, etc.) are finding it hard to make a name for
themselves in the academic community, which is under the firm grip of English?”
Ganesh disagrees with Chamu Krishna Shastry
(quoted on page 297) that Sanskrit must once again become a language of
innovation and change, absorbing new words from elsewhere, and inventing new
ones internally, as and when the need arises. Ganesh retorts that “Innovation
is not language-specific. Appropriating works (and words) into Sanskrit is not
of practical value since the world is becoming a global village.”
I wish to point out that China and Japan are examples of government programs to
produce new knowledge in their native languages. Mumbai based Shri Arnaal has
developed software for machine translation of texts pertaining to specific
subject matter, such that it would bring about a paradigm shift in the ability
of non-English knowledge production. Machine translation is expected to usher in
a new age of non-English languages becoming empowered in their own right.
Another concrete example is that Prof Bal
Ram Singh (a biochemist) and Prof Girish Jha (a Sanskritist) have had
productive collaborations where new scientific meanings and significance of
Sanskrit terms are being discovered in sophisticated experiments in medicine. Old
Sanskrit texts are the basis for their experiments today.
One can also examine how computational
linguistics is thriving in the West as a field built on the study of Sanskrit
grammar. It is at the cutting edge in computer science. Many persons (most
notably BVK Sastry) have pointed out the loss of intellectual capital by the
Indian side when this field is being de-Sanskritized by the west with the full
collaboration of Indian scholars. This is what happens when we adopt the
posture of not developing new knowledge on our own terms, and allow others to
further enrich their intellectual platform at the cost of ours.
Finally, I want to point out that Ganesh’s
position on new knowledge production in Sanskrit is aligned with what Pollock
means by calling Sanskrit dead. Pollock rightfully says that a language cannot
be alive by merely parroting old materials. This is precisely what happened to
Greek/Latin and hence they became classical/dead languages whose only purpose
is for rituals and occasional opera that very few understand and that serve for
nostalgia only.
I expected Ganesh to champion Sanskrit as a
living language for innovation, and not use it only for performances to entertain
audiences.
Q: Explain Ganesh’s disagreement with your proposal that
new smritis must be developed for today.
Ganesh attacks my suggestion that we must
write new smritis and adapt old ones for this era, and that traditional
scholars should play an important role in doing this. He writes:
“How is this practical? If someone were to
compose a new constitution of India in Sanskrit, would s/he be taken seriously?
For example, refer to the sastras and smritis composed by great
scholars like Vasishta Ganapati Muni and Pullela Sriramachandrudu – what is the
value given to their works by the laity and by the scholars? One can compose a smriti
but what executive authority does s/he have? What are the kind of new texts can
traditional scholars develop in Sanskrit? And what to make of compositions in
Sanskrit hailing a tyrant like Lenin…”
We clearly disagree on how to interpret the
notion of smritis for our time. And yes, the constitution does serve as a
smriti whether we like it or not.
The issue of what authority such a new
smriti would enjoy is a complex one. Many smritis written in the past did not necessarily become official state
policy enforced on the public. They were in many cases a proposal or a
particular individual’s view of society at a time and place. They were debated
among experts in the marketplace of ideas. Some were merely descriptive (how
things happen to be) and not
necessarily prescriptive (how things ought
to be). Others have the tone of formal authority.
Ganesh is blind to a very serious challenge
we face: Today, the Indian Left led by
Pollock’s team is in the process of developing new smritis very actively and
very politically. They don’t explicitly call them smritis in order to not
raise flags prematurely. But anyone who has properly read Pollock ought to know
that his call to scholars to do what he terms “liberation philology” is
precisely this kind of project of writing new policies for society today. There
are plenty of doctrines about Dalit empowerment today that function like
smritis in a pragmatic sense. Pollock’s “political philology” is the
descriptive part and his “liberation philology” is the prescriptive part. The
latter is what leads to calls for foreign interventions in India.
While our opponents have been busy
formulating new positions, then turning these into formal policies, and finally
using international agencies to make official international laws that can be imposed
on India, most of our own brilliant traditional scholars seem clueless and
disinterested in entering this battle of new policies. This is analogous to
someone who claims to be leading an army, but who does not believe in any
R&D for new weapons, even though the enemies all around have been upgrading
their weapon systems. Smritis are like
weapon systems in ideological warfare, and we cannot afford leaders who just
don’t get this.
Q: Is Ganesh accurately representing your stance on Sanskrit as it
relates to non-Indian languages?
I advocate against studying Sanskrit texts
using the methods developed for the study of Greek/Latin classics, because
those are dead languages and officially acknowledged as such. I cited Arabic,
Mandarin and Persian as examples of old languages that are treated as living
languages by their government and intellectuals. Ganesh misses my point
completely. He says: “Malhotra wants Sanskrit to be bracketed with Arabic,
Mandarin, and Persian instead of Greek and Latin (p. 377).” Bracketed in what
sense?
He says that Sanskrit grammar has been
static whereas the grammars of widely spoken languages like Arabic, Mandarin,
and Persian have undergone changes over the years. This is true, but it does
not impinge upon my suggestion that we should decouple from the methods of
Western Indologists that are based on studying dead languages. Whether Sanskrit
grammar should or should not evolve beyond Panini is an unrelated issue.
My
concluding remarks
I do hope these responses by Rajiv Malhotra
will reduce the tension caused by Ganesh’s rash statements, and that both sides
will be able to work constructively together. Sanatana dharma needs this today.
Many of us also feel that Ganesh might have been misled by some individuals
with their own petty politics and agendas. However, given his stature, we hope
he appreciates the big picture issues that are at stake here.
