Dr. Koenraad Elst's Response to Scroll Editor Regarding Aryan Debate

(Dr. Elst posted this in the forum. emphasis and highlighting is ours)
 
Dear friends,

the Aryan debate keeps on attracting silly politicos:

https://scroll.in/article/732899/video-an-animated-map-shows-how-sanskrit-may-have-come-to-india

Herewith my reply:


"Dear Mrs./Mr. Editor,

 "While I don’t much mind an ignorant pen-pusher pontificating about the Aryan invasion debate, some concomitant modesty would at least be in order. Ridiculing any scepticism about the 19th-century Aryan invasion theory (AIT) merely shows that he is quite unaware of the state of the art.

"So he equates the rivalling Out-of-India Theory (OIT) with Flat Earth and Creationism. But it is very easy to find material evidence against both the latter, such as the fossil record. By contrast, your contributor is quite unable to muster any evidence against the OIT. Even Harvard professor and AIT champion Michael Witzel admits that no material evidence of Aryans moving into India has been found “yet”, i.e. after two centuries of being the official hypothesis sucking up all the sponsoring. So your correspondent thinks himself superior, successful where the greatest specialists have failed?

"A year ago I was participating in a Delhi conference on the Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization. While there, I received an e-mail from one of the world’s foremost specialists on the linguistic aspect of Indo-European origins, HH Hock, all the way from the US. Predictably, he upheld the now-dominant invasion scenario and added that no one takes the Out-of-India Theory seriously today (though it was the dominant assumption from 1786 till ca. 1820). Among linguists, this is approximately true: Nicolas Kazanas, Shrikant Talageri and myself have been in splendid isolation in those circles. But then, linguists who can competently argue in favour of the AIT are hardly more numerous. As I have verified at several specialist conferences, most concerned linguists don’t work on the problem of the origins, which has an aura of obsoleteness, and blindly follow the dominant theory because it happens to be what their textbooks contained. Which is what non-linguists like the cited team from Auckland also do.

"However, while I read this e-mail, I was surrounded by the creamy layer of Indian archaeology. Each professor read his paper presenting the findings at a particular Harappan site where he was digging, and each of them reported a complete cultural continuity, no trace of an invasion. Sitting next to me was the dean of Indian archaeology, the nonagenarian professor BB Lal. When he was young,  he made his name by “proving” that the archaeologically attested Painted Grey Ware indicated the Aryans on their way into India. That “proof” is still cited till today in favour of the AIT, at least in India. But in reality, Lal himself has renounced that hypothesis decades ago, realizing that his posited link with Aryan invaders was itself based on a tacit acceptance of the omnipresent AIT. Today he emphasizes that there is no trace at all of any Aryan invasion.

"You choose to poison the debate by insinuating a Hitler reference into it. Suit yourself, but again it proves your ignorance, for Hitler was a zealous follower of the AIT. If the OIT has been associated with Hindutva (wrongly, for VD Savarkar, who launched this political concept, was an AIT believer), its alleged political use is at any rate only a trifle compared to the AIT. The OIT has been upheld mostly in one country for a few decades by a few scholars without any political power. By contrast, the AIT has been used politically for some 160 years by major state actors such as the British empire and Nazi Germany, and in India by Jawaharlal Nehru, the Ambedkarites (though BR Ambedkar himself emphatically rejected it), the Dravidianists, the missionaries and of course the secularists. If you don’t like the mixing of scholarship with politics, you should first of all  lambast the AIT, not the OIT.

"May Allah (or Whoever serves as God to you secularists) give you the wisdom to keep your mouth shut on topics you don’t know enough about.

"Yours sincerely,


"Dr. Koenraad Elst"

Prof. Ramasubramanian of IIT Bombay responds to critics of the petition

Rajiv Malhotra: Since Prof Ramasubramanian is named as the first petitioner, it is important to hear his side. Unfortunately, his side never got covered by any mainstream media. I re-post his response below:

At the time of filing this report, we understand that Prof. Ramasubramanian's response has not been posted to the mailing list in the Indology Discussion Forum by Dominik Wujastyk as requested by Prof. Ramasubramanian. 

Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Against the petition against Prof. Pollock
To: Dominik Wujastyk

Cc: Mandyam D Srinivas
Dear Prof. Wujastyk,

Thank you for your mail concerning the petition calling for a reconstitution of the editorial board of the Murty Classical Library of India. I am grateful to you for your kind words of appreciation on the work of our group on the Indian tradition of Mathematics and Astronomy.

At the outset let me clarify, as I have done elsewhere too, that I was not the prime mover behind this petition though I fully subscribe to it as a signatory. It was by error that the petition was uploaded in my name at change.org, an error which has been corrected subsequently.

I also appreciate your kind gesture to enclose the mail that you had sent to the Indology Discussion Forum in response to some of the issues raised in the petition. I just arrived in New Zealand as a visiting Erskine Fellow in the Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury, and it took sometime for me to settle here. I also had to give a couple of lectures, and hence the delay in responding to your posting in the Indology Forum.

The following response is prepared by me in consultation with my colleague Prof. M .D. Srinivas (cc-ed). We would greatly appreciate, if you could post this response in the Indology Discussion Forum.

Thanks much, and
Best regards,
-ram.

--------------------
Response to Prof. Wujastyk's posting in Indology Discussion Forum
--------------------
We are surprised that Prof. Wujastyk's response to our petition is totally silent on the main issue raised in the petition, which is that Prof. Pollock has been a prominent signatory of two statements which have strongly condemned the actions of the authorities of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the Government of India in taking constitutionally mandated legal actions against the anti-national slogans raised by an unauthorized assembly of protesters at the JNU on the 9th of February 2016. While castigating the actions of the democratically elected Government of India as an “authoritative menace”, these statements do not condemn the protesters who called for the dismemberment of India and abused the Supreme Court of India for “judical killing”. Clearly Prof. Pollock and others who were signatories to these statements have no respect for the unity and integrity of India which has been won after a long struggle of the Indian people against colonial rule. We are at a total loss as to how Prof. Wujastyk could miss this central issue which was the `"main context" of this petition calling upon the Murty Classical Library not to be mentored by academics who have an ideological and political bias that does not allow them even to respect the unity and integrity of India.

In the following, we shall only briefly respond to Prof. Wujastyk's point that the petition has misconstrued the views of Prof. Pollock on “What South Asian Knowledge is Good For”.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ mesaas/faculty/directory/ pollock_pub/What%20is%20South% 20Asian%20Knowledge%20Good% 20for.pdf

He has referred to the following passage cited in the earlier version of the petition from the 2012 Heidelberg lecture of Prof. Pollock: "Are there any decision makers, as they refer to themselves, at universities and foundations who would not agree that, in the cognitive sweepstakes of human history, Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has lost? ...That, accordingly, the South Asian knowledge South Asians themselves have produced can no longer be held to have any significant consequences for the future of the human species?”

Prof. Wujastyk would like us to believe that, Prof. Pollock is only presenting the above statement as a पूर्वपक्ष (purvapaksha). Sorry, if it were so, all the theses presented in पूर्वपक्ष have to be completely refuted before presenting the सिद्धान्त. Prof. Pollock has only begun with what he believes is a "statement of fact" that the leaders of Western academia are unanimous in their conviction that “Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has lost” and that South Asian knowledge "has no significant consequences for the future of the human species".

If this were to be a पूर्वपक्ष in Pollock's paper, the rest of the paper would have been devoted to the खण्डन (systematic refutation), of this पूर्वपक्ष in its entirety. Here, we do not even see Prof. Pollock expressing his deep shock or strong condemnation that such a Western supremacist view is prevalent in the exalted circles of Western academia.

It is true that Prof. Pollock does concede (these are the examples that Prof. Wujastyk also cites) that there are some South Asian “forms of knowledge that may be thought of to possess a truth value for the contemporary world (the nature and nomenclature of nominal  compounding or aesthetic response) or at least a truth value for some people in the contemporary world (the benefits of yogic asanas and pranayama)”. However it is Prof. Pollock's considered view that the “greater part of South Asian achievements and understandings” have “no claim whatever ... to any universal truth value in  themselves, and precisely because they pertain to what are specifically South Asian modes of making sense of the world.”

Prof. Pollock is indeed very forthright in expressing his opinion that he does not believe that “South Asian contribution is the most important ever made to world knowledge” and that “What the region does provide is a record of achievements of human consciousness” which “allows us to frame a strong hypotheses about the nature of that consciousness and the conditions of its  transformation”. These need to be studied “in and of themselves” and not because they “enable us to live intelligently in the world."

Clearly, Prof. Pollock sees little role for “Indian knowledge” qua “knowledge” in the contemporary world or for the future of human species. Its relevance is mainly as a historical expression of human consciousness which could help “us” (namely, the Western academia) to learn something about the nature of that consciousness. After arguing for such a thesis (सिद्धान्त), it is indeed ironical that Prof. Pollock makes a claim in the end of his talk that "our understanding of 'usefulness' and 'truth' [of South Asian knowledge] has grown substantially in the time since Marx and Weber".

It was this thesis that was summarised in the petition by the statement that Prof. Pollock holds the view that “the shastras generated in India serve no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express themselves.” It is indeed a fairly accurate summary of the thesis presented by Prof. Pollock in the Heidelberg lecture.

As regards Prof. Pollock’s 1985 paper, we would also not go into details, except for drawing attention to the following pronouncement in the abstract of the paper:

“The understanding of the relationship of Sastra (“theory”) to Prayoga (“practical activity”) in Sanskritic culture ...Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them. “

Any scholar who has studied the standard texts of Indian sciences such as Jyotisha or Ayurveda would not fail to see how these texts advise the practitioner of their sciences to be acutely aware of the limitations of the theories expounded in the sastras which are only thought of as means (उपाय ). The Jyotisha texts emphasize the need for continuous examination (परीक्षा ) of the procedures taught through observations. The Ayurvedic texts, as Prof. Wujastyk is indeed well aware, go to the extent of declaring that “the entire world is a teacher of the intelligent” and that the “Sastra is a light which serves to illuminate. It is ones own intellect that perceives the correct course of action.” In his monumental work Narayaniyam, Narayana Bhattatiri succinctly summarizing an important section of Bhagavata observes: 

त्वत्कारुण्ये प्रवृत्ते क
इव नहि गुरु: लोकवृत्तेपि
भूमन् ?

Prof. Pollock only betrays his deep prejudice against the Vedic culture when he concludes the abstract with another pronouncement that “... [In sastras,] progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past The eternality of the Vedas, the sastra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.”

It is precisely scholarship of this genre that Mahatma Gandhi aptly characterised in his seminal work Hind Swaraj over a hundred years ago:

"The English ... have a habit of writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the function of the Godhead... They write about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet."

We are not upset by Prof. Wujastyk's claim that “Prof. Ramasubramanian has misunderstood Prof. Pollock's views by 180 degrees”, though it is totally incorrect. But we are deeply dismayed by his insinuation that many of those who have signed this petition (most of them eminent Indian scholars) “have signed Prof. Ramasubramanian's petition, presumably without having read Prof. Pollock's work for themselves, or having failed to understand it.” As indicated by Gandhi, statements exhibiting such condescension borders almost on racial prejudice.

K Ramasubramanian,
Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay

M D Srinivas
Chairman, Center for Policy Studies, Chennai and Member ICHR

A purva-paksha of Sheldon Pollock's thesis on Shastras

First post is by Divya J, a member of Rajiv Malhotra's forum, with a followup by Navita V, Arun and other members.
 
Dear All,

Here are some thought after reading Pollock's paper.  If I understand him correctly, he is basically trying to say that Indian culture is stagnant because it relies heavily on ancient shastras imbued with divine authority that can never be challenged. I am willing to grant that Indian culture is stagnant, if not in a continuous state of degeneration. However, I would theorize that this is because we have neglected our shastras and not because we have relied upon them. As far as theories go, there is more evidence for the latter than for Pollock’s theory. In fact, his entire essay is peppered with evidence that goes against the grain of his own theory, a fact that he even acknowledges but ultimately neglects. A good theory must accord with the empirical evidence and must resonate with the people or culture it describes. I doubt most Hindus recognize themselves or their culture in Pollock’s description. As such, his entire essay lacks explanatory force and can resonate only with people of Pollock’s own ilk.

In fact, Pollock himself appears to be an embodiment of all the elements he imputes upon Indian culture. For starters, he does not look around him for evidence but simply draws upon his pre-existing cultural biases and presents them in the form of a theory. Some of the specific biases of western culture that he imputes upon the Indians are the following: (i) that knowledge is textual; (ii) that values are normative; (iii) that authority (shastra) is some sort of truth that cannot be challenged; (iv) that theory precedes action; and (v) that there is a divine realm starkly different from the secular realm that humans must obey. These are, in fact, the defining prejudices of western civilization, but Pollock cannot see the forest for the trees. Instead he acts like he has discovered something about Indian culture which is in fact quite the opposite of what Pollock describes.

Let’s look at his claim that Indians treat knowledge as if it is textual, implying that knowledge is something that can be put into words or contained in books. As evidence for this he cites numerous passages that assert the authority of the shastras. But this is rendered moot right off the bat because the vedas themselves assert that true knowledge cannot be obtained by relying on the vedas (or any other text). The clear implication is that knowledge can only poorly be put into words, or not at all. Pollock cites a passage from the Gita where Krishna emphatically asserts the importance of shastra. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that Krishna’s closing words to Arjun were to do as he, Arjun, thinks best, after proper reflection, and not that he must open up his textbooks before he decides what to do.

It is a common lament among most Hindus who live in the West that their parents did not teach them anything about “Hinduism”. This becomes a problem in western culture where you are expected to spout off exactly what your religious beliefs are. This is because in western culture such knowledge is contained in a book and can be described in words and formulated in terms of beliefs. This attitude is all pervasive in western culture, not just with respect to religion. In order to act correctly they believe they must know what the right thing to do is. Not so in Indian culture where action (karma) generates knowledge. Most Hindus cannot articulate the fundamentals of their culture; there are no common beliefs, and no common practices. Yet it is a culture that has thrived, spread, flourished and survived to this day. Obviously there’s some form of knowledge that has been passed along from generation to generation even though most of us cannot put it into words. Surely in his 30-year-long career Pollock must have discovered, just as the British did 200 years ago, that Indians, including the pundits, are mostly quite ignorant of their shastras? How, then, can he claim that Indians cannot act until they consult their shastras since all evidence points to the fact that they have not been consulting them?

At the Kumbh mela I asked a couple of ordinary sadhus what books they relied upon. They looked at me with incomprehension as if I was totally clueless. They said that their lifestyle was mostly about keeping their parampara alive, looking out for each other, networking with others on the same path, and following some basic practices. None of them (the three people I spoke to) relied upon any Shastra and I’m guessing they would have told me if others in their akhada did. However, as Pollock notes, there is even a Shastra for proper sadhu behavior. So who’s reading these Shastras? Clearly it is the likes of Pollock and not the sadhus. Therefore, he is totally and completely wrong to claim that Indians believe that “the practice of all human activity depends on rules accessible to us in a textualized form.” The more accurate statement would be to say that human activity can be described in a textualized form. From here you cannot jump to the conclusion that Hindus believe that knowledge comes only from texts or shastras. In fact, that theory precedes action is closer to the western attitude and not an Indian one.

Pollock's paper is riddled with holes and I meant to take down some other aspects of his accusations but this has become way too long already. He does not strike me as someone seriously looking to solve any problems. It’s a pity he has so much clout.


A followup response from forum member Navita V.

Rajiv ji's analysis of Pollock's 1985 paper in TBFS is brilliant, thorough and very elegantly put. Divya J also did a very impressive analysis...

Here are some lay observations :

A. Pollock’s negative pre-disposition towards Sanskrit and Sanskriti

This is quite apparent in his 1985 paper that it beggars belief how some argue otherwise. Some examples :


1. The very first sentence is a clue to the lens being used :

‘Sastra is one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular ‘

At the very outset Pollock categorically problematizes an entire civilisation before the reader has even had a chance to consider his thesis.


2. ‘In light of the major role it appears to play in Indian civilization, it is surprising to discover that the idea and nature of sastra in its own right, as a discrete problem of intellectual history, seem never to have been the object of sustained scrutiny.’

Ironically Pollock himself is the first to construct that the Shastras are a ‘problem’ and then proceeds to be surprised that no one else has seen it that way! Since there have been plenty of competing ideologies over time, one could also reasonably expect that such dissenting views would have arisen organically out of the tradition itself had the Shastras really been a ‘problem’. That this did not happen suggests that the practitioners did not feel the ‘problem’ that he alludes to and that Pollock is first applying an entirely Western lens and then proceeding to craft a 'problem'.

3. ‘It was this attitude that prompted me to further study in the area of shastric regulation, conceived accordingly as an analysis of the components of cultural hegemony or at least authoritarianism.’

The words ‘hegemony’ and ‘authoritarianism’ in this context are Western concepts that ought not to be applied with such abandon as it is clear that in that era one was free to disagree and set up alternative schools of thought (evidenced by the many competing philosophical systems that co-existed harmoniously, at least non-violently).

4. ‘Besides the extraordinary taxonomical interests and procedures of the metrical texts, what struck me most forcefully was the nomological character of the handbooks….’

The use of the word ‘nomological’ appears to be a function of Pollock’s lens and understanding.

5. ‘The question of domination remains in my view important for several areas of pre-modern India, the realms of social and political practices, for instance.’


Another indication of the ‘lens’ being used and the hidden agenda


6. ‘What both Manusmriti and Amy Vanderbilt's Everyday Etiquette articulate for us is practical cultural knowledge, mastery of which makes one a competent member of the culture in question. Such cultural grammars exist in every society;’


So Manusmriti just did what all societies do and whilst Pollock then goes on to say the Classical Indian civilization was the most exquisite expression of this, he completely ignores the even more remarkable point that Western society only got round to codifying such practical cultural knowledge in the 1950’s (as per his quote) while Manusmriti did this millennia earlier ie. the Indians had reached that civilizational stage thousands of years earlier.

7. The second concerns the implications of this relationship for the conceptual possibilities of cultural change and development. While I believe the degree of actual influence of shastric models on cultural practices and beliefs in pre-modern India to be a far-reaching issue of the utmost importance.


There is a hint of setting up a framework for ‘indirect intervention politics’ ie. stirring up one side against the other whilst pulling unseen strings ….why else is the influence of shastric models on the culture such afar-reaching issue of utmost importance? One senses urgency here.

8. ‘Sastra, the Sanskrit word for these grammars, thus presents itself as one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular.’


Why a problem? The shastras only prescribed a way of doing things, perhaps an ideal way that would lead to the best functioning of society and highest transformation of the individual. One was still free to do things their own way given all the competing schools of thought and ideologies that existed at the time. There were no prescribed be-headings for not following, only that one would not get the full benefits of a particular action if not performed correctly. The fact that the public followed the shastric norms of their own volition could be interpreted as being due to their lived experience of the benefits.

9. ‘Sastra is a significant phenomenon both intrinsically--taken as a whole it is a monumental, in some cases unparalleled, intellectual accomplishment in its own right--and extrinsically, with respect to the impact it has exercised, or sought to exercise, on the production and reproduction of culture in traditional India.’


Key point here that Pollock remains silent on is that the Shastras were not physically imposed – It was not authoritarian ie. no capital punishment for failure to comply – it is entirely possible and more likely that people followed the shastras because they experienced the benefits

10. We are informed further by Patanjali that "Sastra is that from which there derives regulation [definite constraints on usage]"


Not sure if the ‘definite constraints’ comment is part of Patanjali’s quote or a Pollock translation. It could also mean that something becomes the norm not because it is strictly imposed but because it is recommended and then found to be the most efficient and pleasant way in practice.

11. ‘Whatever the number and specific composition of such topics of knowledge, it seems clear that the very notion of a finite set of "topics of knowledge" implies an attempt at an exhaustive classification of human cultural practices.’


Finite as per the available knowledge in that era, not finite till the end of time – would be a more generous interpretation, which of course would not suit Pollock’s agenda.


B. Pollock’s deliberate or inadvertent misunderstandings to suit his argument


1. ‘Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them.’


This is questionable. While there may be no dialectical interaction between Shruti and practice, there can be a dialectical interaction between the understanding of Shruti and practice, the latter’s role being to refine the understanding and interpretation of the former.


2. ‘Two important implications of this fundamental postulate are that all knowledge is pre-existent, and that progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past.’


The second point is not necessarily an implication of that postulate – but rather that progress is achieved by better and better discoveries / understandings / interpretations of this pre-existent knowledge. Ie. just because certain knowledge is not in our collective consciousness, this does not invalidate its existence. For example, the Earth did not start orbiting the sun only when the Western world discovered that it did so.


3. Similar to point 2

‘THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRIORITY OF THEORY
That the practice of any art or science, that all activity whatever succeeds to the degree it achieves conformity with shastric norms would imply that the improvement of any given practice lies, not in the future and the discovery of what has never been known before, but in the past and the more complete recovery of what was known in full in the past ‘


The fundamental flaw in this seems to be the lack of understanding that it is not about ‘what was known in full in the past’ (because presumably not everything existed in the collective human consciousness at that time), but what ‘was’ and ‘is’ ever extant, only waiting to be discovered….so although it has always existed, it is still ‘new discovery’ to the human consciousness.


C. Pollock lends support to the point that the Abrahamic religions need to be history-centric in order to maintain their power.

‘The eternality of the vedas, the sastra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.’


So the eternality of the Vedas de-historicizes cultural practice and this is a component in a larger discourse of power. The most obvious interpretation of this is that ‘historicity’ enables power-play by giving control to a unique time-stamped and non-replicable event eg. the historicity of Jesus gave the Church its power for centuries. On the other hand, the de-historicized Vedas enable a more egalitarian playing field where many new ideas can originate over time within the same overarching eternal framework.

Arun adds:
Since Divya J gave a summary of Pollock's 1985 paper that is pretty much what I would give, let me just add a point.

If Sanskrit was not spoken by the general public, I don't really care how aesthetic the power it had; the mechanism of how some texts, held and kept secret by the brahmins, exerted any influence on the non-brahmin jaatis. The mechanism of this control needs to be explained.

IMO, a possibility which needs to be examined is that the Shastras are primarily like encyclopedias, used to compile all known stuff, and as a reference work; but not consulted for daily living, etc., any more than today we consult the Encyclopedia Britannica. They can't deaden knowledge production because like the encyclopedia, they are the storehouse of knowledge which is generally accepted and has long been available, they aren't the front line of knowledge production. That is, in modern terms again, they are not the research papers published by scientists, they are textbooks or encyclopedias.  

 

Dr. Nityanand Mishra replies to Ananya Vajpayee on TBFS, Pollock

A strong response by Dr. Nityanand Mishra to Ananya Vajpeyi's ad hominem attack.

Dear list,

While Niti Central (which recently shut down) and Swarajya are certainly pro-right/conservative magazines (just like The Hindu is left-leaning/liberal), but to describe them as ‘propaganda’ would be an exaggeration, just like calling The Hindu as ‘communist’ or ‘Chinese mouthpiece’ would be (in fact, the Friends of Tibet society actually calls The Hindu ‘a mouthpiece of the Chinese communist party’, this was covered by Pradip Ninan Thomas in his book ‘Negotiating Communication Rights: Case Studies from India’). In a recent article, the Financial Times described the Swarajya magazine as ‘conservative’.[1] Even Sreenivasan Jain, a journalist with the NDTV (whose political leaning are no secret), described the Niti Central as a ‘right-wing site’ in an article in 2013.[2]


As for Mr. Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book, it has already received attention in India, in both the academic sphere and outside, way beyond websites like Niti Central and Swarajya. I shared a link to the review of the book by Bibek Debroy in the moderate/centrist OPEN Magazine. The book carries a quote by Prof. Arvind Sharma (Birks Professor of Comparative Religion, McGill University) on its front cover. It has earned praise from Mahamahopadhyay Dayananda Bhargava (renowned Sanskrit scholar), S. R. Bhatt (Chairman of ICPR), K. Ramasubramanian (Sanskrit scholar and signatory #1 on the MCLI petition), Roddam Narasimha (aerospace scientist), and Dilip Chakrabarti (Professor Emeritus, Cambridge) among others. Some leading educational institutes in India which have hosted Mr Malhotra since January include the JNU, Ramakrishna Mission (Chennai), Vedic Gurukulam (Bidadi), Art of Living Ashram (Bangalore), Chinmaya Mission, IIT Bombay, TISS, IIT
Madras, and Karnataka Sanskrit University.

As for attention outside the world of scholars, Mr. Malhotra's book was launched by very well-known personalities: Subhash Chandra (Chairman of the pro-right Zee Media) in Mumbai, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (eminent spiritual leader and humanitarian) in Bengaluru, and Dr. Najma Akbarali Heptulla (Minority Affairs Minister, Government of India) in Delhi. Prominent journalists and authors who have discussed his book include Madhu Kishwar (pro-right academic and author), Amish Tripathi (best-selling author), and T. V. Mohandas Pai (Chairman, Manipal Global Education).


I need not add that the book is selling well (it is a category bestseller on Amazon India) and Harper Collins would be happy with their investment.

I doubt if all this attention can be ‘staged’ or ‘managed’. There is an elephant in the room. Love him or hate him, Mr. Malhotra is becoming too notable to ignore.


Regards, Nityanand


[1] Amy Kazmim (February 21 2016) India divided over right to political freedom. Financial Times.


[2] Sreenivasan Jain (June 29 2016). Response to Niti Central article on NDTV's Ishrat Jahan report. NDTV.

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-March/042858.html

shared on the forum by Vishal

Response to Nagarajan's article in Scroll

As a followup to our TISS blog last week, an article on Rajiv Malhotra's talk was written in scroll.in. This is a response by a forum member to that article.
 
Ms. Shantipriya's response to Mr Nagarajan's article that appeared yesterday in Scroll

Dear Sir,

I am distressed to read the one-sided hollow rant of Arvindhan Nagarajan presented as a rebuttal to Rajiv Malhotra’s intellectually provoking talk at TISS in Mumbai last week. Scroll.in does not have space for reader comments. I request the editor to post my response to Nagarajan’s report.

Nagarjan’s intolerance to an alternate viewpoint is in full display at the very outset. He refers to Rajiv Malhotra contemptuously as being ‘a self-taught social scientist’ - as though that, in itself, is sufficient reason to shout him down and dismiss his ideas. After all, social science is not rocket science that one should have laboratory experience. In fact, social science is all about people and cultures, an evidence-based study, far better understood by observing the real world than merely sitting in the silos of Universities and applying general theories to fit all peoples and cultures. Remember how Ekalavya became a better archer than Arjuna through self-study, Mr Nagarajan?

Nagarajan and his friends, if they are serious students of social sciences, would have been open to new ideas, and eager to listen to this ‘self-taught social scientist’ who offers a different interpretation of the motivations for India studies in the West. Instead, they had come with a prejudice against the man. That is why Nagarajan feels Mr Malhotra’s talk “quickly devolved (sic) in to a hail of accusations at his audience”.

Nagarajan’s bias is one more instance of a growing body of evidence that academicians have created an ‘elite club’ which restricts membership to only those who toe its line. Indeed, the events at TISS are evidence of Mr Malhotra’s charge that our Universities have become knowledge gatekeepers that will permit only one particular thought into academic discourse. As a consequence, our students have not developed critical thinking skills. Their incomprehension and sense of insecurity, when faced with an alternative point of view showed up in their boorish conduct at TISS.

It is sad that Nagarajan, instead of presenting any concrete intellectual refutation, calls Mr Malhotra, ‘hollow’. To dismiss a man of Malhotra’s intellect and training - a man who has authored four best-selling books - as lacking in substance is intellectual dishonesty. Ironically, it exposes the very intolerant elitist arrogance which was the subject of Malhotra’s talk at TISS. I do not agree with or like the ideas of Amartya Sen and Sheldon Pollock. Would it be proper for me to characterise either of them as ‘hollow’?

Nagarajan accuses Mr Malhotra of not taking questions when Malhotra actually went out of the way to answer in great detail the charges of plagiarism levelled against him. Not surprisingly, Nagarajan suppresses the abominable behaviour of the young social scientists of TISS during the Q&A session. I urge everyone to visit 

to view the event and decide for themselves. 

Even the much-maligned Dronacharya gave Ekalavya the chance to display his skills before chopping off his thumb – a chance that would immortalise Ekalavya. Why is the academia not ready to debate Malhotra? Is Malhotra beyond the pale just because he is a ‘self-taught social scientist’?

Some FAQs on the upcoming book 'Battle For Sanskrit'

Rajiv Malhotra responds to some frequently asked questions in the forum on his new book that is being published by Harper Collins, India. The book can be pre-ordered at Amazon.

1. Is it a book on Sanskrit? No. It is NOT a book on Sanskrit. You will not learn any Sanskrit reading it. Nor will you learn the glories of Sanskrit. There are already many nice books for these topics and many experts far better qualified than me.
2. Then what is it about? It is a book on the academic field of Indology, a field that is rooted in Sanskrit studies. It is a purva-paksha and uttara-paksha on the output being produced by that field. It examines the substance of the Indological works, as seen from the perspective of an insider/practitioner of our faith. It also examines the power structure of that field and how that has eroded the traditional adhikara. It shows how the ideas starting in this field have become widespread
3. Is it the same thing more or less as in your prior books? No at all. I do NOT examine any scholar here that I have ever examined previously. Nor are the serious issues here the same as those discussed in my earlier works. Chapter 1 summarizes the main issues very clearly. The Conclusion chapter lists the 18 debates/discussions that are needed going forward as a result of this book's findings. Bottom line: You must read it and not start commenting with your opinions based on prior information and knowledge you have.
4. Is it about Sheldon Pollock? No. It is about a school of ideology that I have termed "American Orientalism". First I explain the earlier European Orientalism (which I call Orientalism 1.0) and then I explain how this new Orientalism 2.0 is a more evolved/sophisticated and dangerous version. It shows how we are being re-colonized & digested while we are imagining that we are being promoted.
5. Why so much emphasis on Pollock then? To sharpen my analysis, I never want to discuss in abstractions, but in concrete terms dealing with concrete writings of specific pioneering thinkers. So I always pick one or two top leaders of a given school of thought and focus on that person(s) to make my points. I use Pollock as the leader of this genre, who is in fact the most important Indologist in my opinion that we must study and engage today. Hence, Pollock is a window into a wider phenomenon.
6. Is this anything to do with Wendy Doniger? Not so. Pollock is not at all like Doniger. He is a far deeper, more accomplished Sanskrit scholar. His criticisms of the Sanskrit texts are not at all based on Freudian psychoanalysis while Doniger's work is based on that.
7. Are you attacking Pollock? Not at all. I introduce him in detail as a solid scholar. I disagree with his premises, methods and conclusions because these are counter to how our tradition sees itself, especially those who are devout practitioners. But I am respectful of him personally. He is a product of his training and his background, and I am approaching this as an "insider" who is invested in the tradition while he is an outsider with an entirely different investment.
8. What are your main issues with Pollock and his school? I criticize his determination throughout his work to remove the sacredness, his determination to focus on social oppression which he claims is at the heart of the Sanskrit texts, and his attempts to see our sacred texts as designed for political exploitation. The byline under the title on the cover, "Is Sanskrit ...." says it all. These three issues are each very serious and impact the way our civilization has been misrepresented.
9. Do you want Pollock and his team to stop their work? Not at all. I believe in intellectual freedom. Nor can I compel them to alter what they do, even if I were to try. It makes no sense to ask the opposing cricket team to stop playing so hard against our team. Furthermore, such churning of opposites is the way manthana works, so it can also be useful for us to face his challenge.
10. In that case, what is your desired goal in writing this book? My call to action is to the insiders, the traditional scholars, the leaders of our dharma institutions today. They need to wake up, get out of their isolation sitting in silos. They must engage in serious purva-paksha and uttara-paksha. I can with confidence that till now NOBODY IN THE TRADITIONAL SIDE HAS EVER STUDIED POLLOCK OR THE REST OF HIS SCHOOL AND GIVEN A RESPONSE. I know this from numerous traditional scholars I consulted in the course of my own research. Why must I have to do this work while hundreds of scholars with great qualifications and prestigious positions never bothered to do so?
11. Why have our traditional never bothered to do this kind of work? I address this issue in a specific section of the book, titled, 'Where is the home team?' Later on, in the final chapter, I also have a section that comes back to this issue. It is titled, 'The death of purva-paksha', in which I explain the history of the decline of our purva-paksha tradition. Why did we fail to do this purva-paksha to early Christians, later Medieval Christians after Vasco da Gama, Islamic invaders, more recent Marxists and postmodernists? What caused our "experts" to hide under the fascade of being introverted? Why this capitulation? I offer my explanations and also a psychological model of our vulnerability. This insight can then lead to a remedy that I suggest.

‘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!