How I prioritize my work, battles, feedback, critics

By Rajiv Malhotra

Here are my thoughts, and the ways I solicit and deal with critical feedback in order to strengthen my work.

Principles:

1. Being from software R&D background, I understand the value of debugging a system in order to strengthen it. We used to hire outsiders to try and defeat the system, in order to learn its vulnerabilities. Even when considered ready, it was first released to a few beta sites for further debugging. Once out with customers, the maintenance team must be good at receiving feedback, and dealing with it in a new release. So I am not one to run away from problems with my work. But there is a system to this.
2. Errors are not all of the same type. Some are serious errors in the deep architecture and these can require major redesign. Some have isolated impact that is contained within one module/feature only. Some can be bypassed such that the system works despite the error. Some are merely inconvenient or even cosmetic. There are certain "error reports" that are not errors at all, but the complainant wants a different functionality or a different approach than intended by the system design; the issue raised is not a bug but a matter of preference; maybe we don’t want to offer that feature for whatever reason – that’s our call.
3. Errors must be graded, stratified and not all treated equally. Some are urgent, others can and must wait, some will be addressed in the next system (or book in this case) to be developed, and many are to be entirely ignored.
4. Ultimately, the system developer decides what matters most to his client base. He must figure out the priorities for his success. An outsider might not know all the factors that go into his decision and his priorities. There are many considerations and levels of tradeoffs. In other words, someone unfamiliar with all the facts can be a nuisance if his opinions are based on what he sees from within his mental burqa.
5. In writing my books, I go out of my way to face critics. Everyone knows this about me. Some of these encounters get captured on videos you can watch, but most are in private settings. I go deep into “enemy”/opponent territory to understand their reactions, and this is for my own good. For the first 10-15 years I spent much time going to every Hinduism related academic conference/meeting and engaged the top tier scholars of every stripe. For my books, I send every draft to at least 10 critics for detailed peer review – in some instances I pay the critic to allow him to spend quality time and give me a critical analysis. In this feedback I am not looking for accolades, but quite the opposite. I am hardly sitting in my comfort zone the way most of our folks are. My works are the product of multiple encounters over many years with all sorts of people across the ideological spectrum. I can do this only because this has been my full-time work for nearly 25 years. Also, I thrive in debates and discussions to honestly introspect on serious issues, and I do not approach a topic with a closed mind. This is why I am able to innovate.
6. The major impact I seek from a book is where I focus on getting feedback, not on side issues. I want to write a book only when there is some big paradigm change I want, and one that is badly needed. I am not interested in quibbling about whether someone translated a particular verse correctly, unless that has impact on the overall paradigm. Remember that I was a chief design architect of large, complex systems, and now I seek intellectual situations with equivalent significance. I am not concerned with every small module of code being correct – many others are able to do that and they are probably better at it than me.
7. For example, in Pollock’s case, my major contribution is to have (a) decoded some of his most important theories/frameworks, (b) articulated these in ways that more people can understand, and (c) offered some preliminary responses or red flags from the dharma standpoint. I am not interested in minute errors here and there that would not help to demolish some major thesis of his. I will let others do that. Unfortunately, almost nobody on our side has even as of now properly understood his theories/lens; most of our folks still focus on relatively trivial issues in his work.
8. Pollock does not consider himself a Sanskrit language expert, and nor do I consider TBFS an analysis of his Sanskrit skills. Pollock is a major philologist today; philology = “making sense of texts” using some theory of interpretation. I critique him in his approach to philology. This is his deep work. It’s his work’s architecture. As a systems architect, this is how I analyze it. Finding a mistake here and there in his Sanskrit makes little impact on his philology – that would be pedantic for my purpose. For one thing, such errors are easily corrected without altering his philology. It is his philology that I am after. The famous Sanskrit expert in Bangalore who wrote a review of my book did not understand the difference between philology and use of Sanskrit as a language; hence much of what he said is of little significance.
9. Those few individuals who then took his review and turned it into a sort of public fiasco were even further removed from what would matter to my work, or to Pollock’s. These noisemakers are twice removed from where my priorities lie. This is why I call them pests because in my priority scheme, they are best ignored. Their issues do not belong do not impact whether or not I am able to pierce holes through Pollock’s political philology and liberation philology. Pollock’s impact in Indology is for having introduced the most widely accepted philology system and trained an army in its propagation. The impact I desire is to put enough reasonable doubt in his system that it does not become a de facto standard in Indology. Unfortunately, prior to my intervention, he was being very successful in making deep inroads into our Sanskrit studies establishment. The same Sanskrit folks who are embarrassed because they were sitting around staring at their navels, are now jealous and upset that I am doing what they were being expected to do all their careers.

Algorithm: With this background, below is my algorithm on how I choose to ignore/filter those I consider pests, hecklers, attention seekers, shallow noisemakers, opportunists, etc.

1. Does a given feedback relate to Pollock’s thesis and my counter-thesis? If so, it is priority 1 and gets my attention. If not, it is below priority level 1.

2. If below top priority 1, what is the effort required to rework it compared to the benefit to my target readers? In other words, will fixing this error help in a big way to educate my readers for their own analyses/critiques of Pollock’s philology? If of marginal/pedantic value, then it gets demoted below priority level 2, to level 3 or lower.

3. Is the critic genuine or someone seeking publicity, opportunistic, bringing down someone else just to hoist himself up? If so, I don’t want to encourage such behavior, and hence I would further lower the priority to level 4 or less.

The pests don’t like being ignored. They angrily demand as their birthright that I must deal with every single issue they raise as if they control my priorities. But are they my boss? Do I work for them? Do they have enough experience in this field to decide my priorities? Do they know enough about my workload and what is on my plate to be able to optimize how I should best allocate my time and resources? I have my own algorithms and keep updating them heuristically based on what makes me better at my game. I learn from the best khiladis in the world, not failures, would-be players, junior players, and especially not from persons lacking strategic minds.

Yesterday I did two important interviews with Vijaya who visited me for the day. These will get edited and put on Youtube. I told her that I spend as much as 50% of my prana dealing with type 4 persons who waste time. I request my supporters to help me get rid of the pests so we can focus where our collective yajna takes us.

I asked her: who are the ones in out texts that destroy the yajna of someone else. She said they are rakshasas. She also suggested Karna as the prototype who opportunistically switches sides as he is not rooted in dharma. This made me think: Just how grounded are such hecklers in the dharma? If they are not transformed by guru and by sadhana, then what is their motive for claiming to be “champions of Hindu dharma?” Are they trying to ruin the yajna without having one of their own? Are they loose canons?

In my interviews taped yesterday, I thanked the type 2 genuine supporters. I can continue on my journey with their encouragement.

Why did Kalavai Venkat abuse me?

Below is an article by Sejuti Banerjee which first appeared here.

A couple of days back, I heard of an interesting conversation about Rajiv Malhotra (RM), author of the phenomenal book “The Battle For Sanskrit” (TBFS) on Kalavai Venkat’s (KV) FB page, so I went on over to check it out. 

I had heard that KV was critical of RM’s work mainly because he was a big fan of Shatawadhani Ganesh (SG), so I considered it a golden opportunity to study the back-and-forth between the different parties and perhaps gain some new insights on the situation. It’s been a very old habit of mine to always test any idea I may have formed in my head with new inputs as and when available. I always felt this improved my understanding of things. 

So imagine my surprise, when I see that he has written the words “RM and semi-literate followers”. Yes, I follow RM’s work. Yes, I have been inspired by him. Yes, I think he’s managed to do what no one managed all these years. Yes, I think he has sacrificed his life for dharma. But how does this make me semi-literate?

At first, I was taken aback at this display of condescending animosity. Because what have I ever done or said to KV? I had never even heard of his name before in my life! I make a decent living and no one has questioned my literacy before!!! But then I decided to read on. Maybe he was actually a decent guy with a filthy mouth. I had seen a few of those after all.

But the rest was not much better. In fact, to put it in a single sentence, I was disappointed. What was happening there was basically some venomous RM bashing with some protests from those who know him better. I noticed some things KV seemed to be doing persistently: 

Passing Value Judgments 

Some commentators were concerned about the security breach at Sringeri that informed Pollock about what was transpiring between RM and Sringeri. Without knowing anything about the situation, KV immediately jumped to attack RM. “Always take such anecdotal claims from RM with a pinch of salt”, he said. In fact others had to tell him how wrong he was, because he didn’t know the ground situation, didn’t know the facts, that actually, the situation was far worse than RM let on out of respect. 

On the other hand, when it came to SG, KV said with great sureness that “Ganesh declined and gave a very pointed, honest and compassionate answer, in private to the intermediary, for declining”. Elsewhere, he also said that he didn’t know SG personally, hadn’t met him, etc. So he didn’t know SG, he wasn’t there when SG refused the invitation and yet he was all praises for his behavior.

So in this case one can only conclude that passing value judgments is his nature, at times he supports people with it and at other times, he attacks people with it. 

Trying To Divide People 

In his attempt to alienate people from RM, KV tried every trick:

1. He said “Traditionalists have gone out of the way to rally behind RM, perhaps out of ignorance” (one wonders if this is a tremendous show of respect for traditionalists on KV’s part), then “despite canards he spreads about them”. He asks, “Why should that be tolerated? Why should we stand behind someone who is throwing traditionalists under the bus time and again”. This after RM has repeatedly said that he is doing purva paksha and he wouldn’t be able to do uttara paksha without them. After he also said that “I want to provoke the insiders in order to get rid of me and then they will start doing this work because if the insiders start doing this work I can retire finally, but until the insiders do this job I’m going to be around”. To distort such pure intentions seems unethical.
2. He says, “It is also important to remember that RM is also positioning himself as an alternative to Sitaram Goel et al and actively discounts them. Those individuals made contributions orders of magnitude higher than RM”. This sounded like sly praise while attacking RM, pretending not to know about RM’s extensive bibliographies and the specialized nature of his work, which requires expediency. KV did the same with Aditi Banerjee and Aravindan Neelakandan, praising them and asking how RM would have coped without them (as if RM had not credited them for their contributions). 
3. Direct attack: “I would oppose any traditionalist from supporting RM unless he publicly apologizes for his unethical conduct vs. Ganesh. I would also want to see those traditional scholars, who endorsed TBFS, to retract their endorsement for the reasons given toward the end of my critique”. This on the assumption that SG has never slighted or insulted RM in the past. Why does KV get into personalities? There may be so many things that may have transpired between two people, why is it fair to assume that SG has never wronged RM? 

Downplaying The Severity Of The Situation 

KV says “But why this obsession with Indology...Look at the phenomenal contributions of Ganesh on aesthetics. Who would do those things? How many on this planet can even discuss something like alaṇkāra lakṣaṇa with erudition? Why should the finest battle Indologists? That should rather be the job of tier 2 intellectuals.”

Then again, “Why this obsession with Pollock and a bunch of Indologists? Why is refuting such works more important than reviving precious traditions as Ganesh has been doing?”

In Bangla we have a saying that goes like this “shaat kanda Ramayan pore Sita kar pita” (after reading all 7 parts of the Ramayana you are asking whose father is Sita).

KV doesn’t seem to understand that BOTH these things are equally important. We enjoy our lives within the boundaries of a country because those boundaries are protected. If no one fights the war against Indology, there will BE no aesthetics to discuss with erudition. Only watered-down ghosts of what they once were. Is this desirable? Quite honestly, reading these lines makes me think that KV hasn’t read TBFS. And he’s now produced a review of a review of a review of TBFS. Great.

He says, “Hindu battles have just commenced and they will last another 60 years against the academy. So, I wouldn't like to protect a writer on day 1 of the battle and weaken the forces in the long term”. One commentator openly said that it was this bickering that was the problem, that he was losing all hope. But KV continued with his tirade possibly because he had a mission to accomplish. He had to demoralize all the people and cause a rift between traditionalists and RM (because so many of them are in fact grateful for his work and supportive of him). This would help Pollock and party. So on the pretext of weakening the forces in the long term, he is destroying their morale today, which doesn’t make any sense at all! 

Fooling Gullible Hindus 

At one point, one of the speakers mentioned that SG had been seen sharing stage with Sudha Murthy of MCLI fame. KV tried to brush this aside as insignificant, forgetting that every society agrees that a man’s association is indicative of his nature. In English we say, birds of the same feather flock together. In Bangla we say, sat sanga swarga vas asat sanga narak vas (with the right association you land in heaven and with the wrong association you land in hell). The point is, association has always been an indicator of who or what a person represents. Besides, kshatriya dharma may require a person to go everywhere out of expediency. But when a person has dedicated his entire life to selfless study, he is considered by all as practicing Brahmin dharma in which case his hobnobbing with deshdrohis and sanskriti drohis becomes suspect. Does this mean that SG is automatically vindicated of colluding with the enemy? Of course not. Does it mean we should keep an eye on such future activities? Absolutely. This was not the stand taken by KV so one can only assume that he was being far from objective while also creating the impression that there was no danger. 

Insulting RM 

“with due respects let me say that it is a travesty to even equate Ganesh and RM by stating that they represent two sides of SME. That is like saying a Nobel Prize winning physicist and a Powerpoint slide maker from a PR firm represent two sides of SME”

It’s well appreciated that there will be differences of opinion in any situation and actually, it’s the differences in approach that bring richness to a debate and help all of us understand the situation better. But when there is such open unbridled animosity, you don’t help anyone.

It’s impossible to deny the impact RM has had on the general public, coaching them on our civilizational threats, encouraging people to talk back, as well as in increasing their interest in our sanskriti and in Sanskrit studies. At the end of the day, that’s what a movement is about. It is these “illiterate people” who will be left to carry the torch of Hinduism and it is we who must be prepared. We must recognize that each contribution is precious.

In RM’s case, we should think about this: why would a man give up all the pleasures of life, in complete disregard of his own health and life situation, plunge into this trauma of being the lone person facing day in and day out rooms full of adversaries? More people are realizing the danger and joining in now, but he has been and still continues to defend dharma alone in many hostile situations. People can’t and shouldn’t be painted black or white. If there are issues with his approach, we should be able to discuss like mature adults without resorting to a public brawl that disrupts the entire movement thus defeating our purpose. 

Covering Up SG’s Mistakes 

KV says, “Ganesh is very familiar with the works of Pollock and understands the global context very well.” Can we honestly say that if SG knew how dangerous Pollock is, he would have been sitting quietly? Can anybody sit quietly when he sees another systematically and very strategically destroying the very roots of the thing he studies with such passion? So no, in all probability, SG didn’t know about it. He’s probably not to blame for it because he doesn’t live there and is not exposed to the situation directly. But if he knew, it would amount to gross negligence on his part. Then why is KV claiming that SG knew? 

Elsewhere, KV says, “I only see honest critique not condescension in Ganesh's critique”. Then how would he account for SG’s assertion that RM suggested appropriating works into Sanskrit? He picks up a section on spoken Sanskrit and makes this allegation. Any spoken language imbibes words from outside and also creates words of its own. It’s a characteristic of spoken language. SG should point out the exact page and sentence where RM mentioned that we should “appropriate works”. Otherwise we can’t call it honesty. As for the condescension, it was apparent throughout, even illiterate and semi-literate people could figure it out.

Still, we can and should be charitable about it. SG was working with a group of others and one of them may have slipped in that word and it escaped his attention. He doesn’t need to publicly apologize or anything. That is just an ego-booster and makes us a laughing stock in front of Pollock and company. But what is really hard to understand is why we can’t provide a united front to the people attacking us despite our internal differences.

Conclusion 

I also looked at KV’s article called “The Straw Man Fallacy and the Battle for Sanskrit” where he concludes that abandoning RM is the most effective strategy for dealing with Pollock. For all the erudition he claims he has, he implied that traditionalists’ time is better spent critiquing people on their side rather than confronting the people who are trying to destroy them.

The awareness RM has created is growing into quite a movement now and continues to awaken more people every day. It is reasonable to assume that this will generate more students for traditionalists thus taking them out of their “lives of penury” as KV calls it.

So, the field is open. No one is preventing anyone from doing anything. But if someone suggests that we are more effective when we are divided and less organized, if he says there’s something insulting about building a home team, if he condones infighting as the correct strategy to win mega wars when we are anyway so small in numbers, if he deliberately misreads intentions, one can only conclude one thing: Not everyone is action-oriented. Some people theorize, others do the things that get the job done. I will choose the one that gets the job done. Any day. And hopefully, so will many others.

Response to Shatavadhani Ganesh

Shatavadhani Ganesh wrote a review of The Battle for Sanskrit.

Praveen after reading it had some questions and Rajiv Malhotra has provided some answers. Rajiv's answers are highlighted in yellow.

My Honest Thought after reading the article of R Ganesh regarding Rajiv Jis Book. Indeed there was a personal touch of R Ganesh to Rajivji, but article as a whole was questioning the way of considering the Indian Tradition by RajivJi.

1. R Ganesh makes point that , Transcendence would not happen without the Text, art etc as pramaanas and internalizing those would lead to Liberation/Transcendance.Indeed care should be taken that it would not become an mere intelelctual excersise!. Hence those are necessary without which transcendance is not possible what he claims!. In Rajiv Talks even I have heard many times, that even there are no texts or any form of pre-existing "Thing" are not needed for transcendence for Rishis State.

Does pre-existing Eternal Truth knowledge is required as pramaana to transcendence ?

[Rajiv: A) Ramana Maharshi said after attaining realization that the texts confirmed what he had already realized. B) if text is pre-requisite to attainment then how did the first rishi attain insight of shruti? Also, would you dismiss the non-text based attainments of bhaktas, tantrics, etc? C) Is ULTIMATE realization all that matters, or do 99.99% of us expect to advance at levels less than that. I find this approach by Ganesh characteristic of bookworms citing "ultimate" states, when in fact our issues here and now are to get ordinary folks moving ahead from whatever their starting point is. When I meet such lofty folks, I congratulate them for their "attainment" (though I find them chasing the most mundane things in their daily lives), and then I request they leave the rest of us alone who are trying to improve daily lives using dharma. I find this snobbish pretense of discussing the ultimate states a form of escapism and no more. It is this attitude that enabled western indologists and evangelists to brand Hinduism as being incapable of addressing practical problems; hence the need for foreign interventions to save our fellow Indians. D) Bottom line: I reject this as the starting point criteria to evaluate my purva paksha of Pollock, which is not premised on whether his or my work leads to moksha.]

2. He states, Rajivji is making a claim that he is a first out to study this field and argue back and Rajivji is disowning the Past Masters who have also argued back to such blatent studies! I also had tweeted some of the thoughts matching with Sri SL Bhairappa. But question is where does the Gap resides ?

i)Is really Rajivji disowning the past masters who are argued back "Especially" The traditional scholars? or is it that even though they argued it was only in academic circle not reaching the mass! or is it that Systematic Study of Indology mis-interpritation/representation was only started after Rajivji?


Things to be considered here is , even though there may be little bit phylosophical difference in understanding! Rajiv Ji has always accepted that he is no expert in it, but working his best on his spiritual path understanding. Where does the Gap resides? what shoud bother us in this regard? Phylosophy or Defending and Arguing back for Distortion of Phylosphy based on traditional views what we know?


[Rajiv: My approach to past masters is to practice under guidance of living gurus, and texts do not comprise the main access to the past. I access the past through the living present in sadhana, in gurus, in deities. I am not history-centric or text-centric.
3.Ganesh is bit disturbed about Calling Scholars Soldout! as he says Rajivji is discrediting so many scholars who are doing Good to their best. Remark: I think Ganesh has not read him correctly as he only discredits those who are soldout and not those who are not!

4.Ganesh says that Rajivji has not gone through the regional texts and scholars, Expecting something from a person, that too who has taken self initiative to inform the masses to study in depth and doing bit and asking him to do more work without helping him in any way is not a way of a Good Scholar what I believe. [Rajiv I have worked hard and at great risk to myself to promote the cause of traditional scholarship in the form of Swadeshi Indology. Where has Ganesh been all these decades when he enjoyed all the glamor, credibility and know how to be able to champion the cause of swadeshi Indology? Why not a single purva paksha by him of Western Indology? Why does he not channel his energy in thie matter to target Pollock instead? Has his insecurity become exposed becasue I am asking traditional scholars to get out of their silos?]

5.He asks why divide Sacred and Beauty ? Indeed we know there is beauty involved in the Sacred Set, Beauty is subset of Sacredness. But what he fails to understand is The Beauty that SPs are talking is not only about Sanskrit Text which are worldy affirming n not connected to Transcendence! But they are trying to bring down the Sacred&Beauty of Transcendance knowledge to merely worldly more than that insert some of their own thinking which does not exist here. [Rajiv: Correct. Ganesh violates the method of purva paksha by not reading Pollock before jumping to conclusions about his work.]

6. Ganesh is critical of some of the Sanskrit words and their meaning used , I thought which must be welcomed with right critics. But reducing rajiv ji to nobody and one of the normal is indeed a mistake ! Because the critics of Traditional Scholars and issues did not reach the masses! now its Digital Age hence mass reaching has become critical to progress in it. Not only work with Academic but also Mass. Making a network of right thoughts which are of right views is indeed necessary to servive.

Apart from above , he indeed talk in favour of Rajivs thoughts, also questioning is not a bad thing! I would urge Rajivji also not to dismiss this S Ganesh critics so easily as just a personal review! Indeed we need chanaakya Neeti applied to onboard.[Rajiv: I have tried and tried to engage Ganesh for the past decade. Dr TS Mohan in Bangalore who organizes my events has approached Ganesh on numerous occasions. Pls convey your sentiments to him and ask him to stop being so cynical toward anything I do. I want him on our home team and he must stop feeling threatened by my call to action by traditional scholars to do their job i purva paksha.

Finally: A hidden war has started in recent weeks by the Western Indologists to co-opt Indian scholars and do their dirty work. One prominent scholr at a prestigious Sanskrit university in Karnataka first endorsed my work and promised to join the purva paksha (on video); but then a couple of days later wrote in an email that criticizing Pollock should be avoided in order to get a few crores from Sudha Murty!!! Wow!]

Malayalam review of The Battle for Sanskrit by Acharya Shri. M.R Rajesh

The Battle for Sanskrit has been reviewed by Acharya Shri M.R. Rajesh of the Kasyapa Vedic Research Institute in Kozhikkode, Kerala.

Please see Malayalam article below.


Below is the English translation of the same article.

A Battle for Sanskrit and Sankriti 

William Jones, the son of Welsh mathematician Jones, reached Kolkata in 1783. He was in India in the capacity of a puisne judge on the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, the office of the East India Company. Jones, who was an expert in their native language of Welsh, English as well as in the classical languages of Greek and Latin embarked upon learning Sanskrit with certain well thought motives in mind. Which native would volunteer to teach Sanskrit to a foreigner who spoke a (Mleccha bhasha) different dialect? As it would happen, a Brahmin who lived in utter penury took up the mantle of teaching Sanskrit to this English import. The teacher set up certain preconditions prior to taking up the challenge of imparting Sanskrit knowledge to Jones. The conditions were that Jones had to go to him (The Brahmin) in order to learn Sanskrit and that while going for the studies, he had to collect water from the river Ganga and sprinkle it at the location and after having finished his classes he had to purify the place where he sat with Ganga water. All of these strictures had to be carried out by Jones himself. Thus the simple Brahmin started teaching Sanskrit to Jones, the English Judge, by making him to sit outside the house on the floor smeared clean with cow dung and himself sitting at a distance.

******* 

A huge statue can be seen sculpted on the expansive walls of the chapel of the world famous Oxford University. It depicts Sir William Jones writing perched on a high chair. Seated below on the floor are depicted three Brahmins taking down some noting. Below the sculpture the following line can be seen etched – Sir William Jones, ‘He formed a digest of Hindu and Mohammedan Laws’. Could it ever be imagined that Sir William Jones, a person born into the higher echelons of western society had been trained in law by the natives of a country which they absolutely ruled over? This picture and its background provide a perspective to the intentions and viewpoints of the Indologists who took up Indic studies.

The reason for discussion on this subject is a book which goes by the name of “The Battle for Sanskrit” by eminent researcher, Rajiv Malhotra. A battle for Sanskrit as well as Sanskriti.

We can start by putting forth certain questions to historians who teach history in Universities, to the people who teach Indology and those who do research on the Vedas. Which are the Vedas and the commentaries on them that you have read or studied? There are very few who have read them. However, the name of Prof. Max Mueller is a very well known one amongst them. There are many who also dole out the names of Griffith and Morris Winternitz. Those who study under the Department of Sanskrit are familiar with the name of Sayanacharya. They have also heard the names of Uvvata and Mahidara. However, even they are dependent upon the translations of the Vedas made by Max Mueller. Why are the translations and works of Max Mueller so important even today? This is not even a question to ponder about in the academic world. It was in 1999 that S B Chandekar presented his research paper in the University of Pune. He was asked as to why did the research take such a long time when it had started many years ago? The topic of his research was “The Constitution of the Universe in Vedic literature". However, his guide showed displeasure about the fact that there were no references to the foreign commentators on the Vedas like Max Mueller in his research paper. Chandekar, who had drawn references aplenty from the various Indian commentators and was armed with ample proof, was forced to include the names of Max Mueller and others as references before publishing his thesis. This is not an isolated incident in Indian academic world. If that was the case, it may not be prudent to expect people to have heard the names of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Aurobindo Ghosh as well as Damodar Satwalekar.

Today, in response to a question as to who is the greatest exponent of the Vedas in contemporary times, one can be sure of not getting an answer about the people in the Gurukulas of Kashi, Haridwar or the Sankara Mutts who lead lives based on the Vedic preaching but certainly of people like Prof. Michael Witzel of Harvard University who is a staunch votary of Christianity and ever on a warring path against Hinduism. They would even mention the names of Japanese researcher, Yasuke Ikari of Kyoto University and Prof. Cezary Galewicz of Krakow University in Poland. None of these people proscribe to the idea of the Vedas being of divine origin. They do not follow the Sandya Vandana and other Vedic procedures.

आचार हीनो न पुनन्ति वेदाः (Achara Hino Na Punanthi Vedah) says Manu. Even the Vedas can’t purify the one who does not follow the Vedic prescriptions. It is people who haven’t heard or understood this dictum from the verses of Manu and those who are self professed Indologists that drive the line of thought of the sold out Indian academic world. No one had taken up studies on the motives of these outsiders in order to expose these facts. This is where “The Battle for Sanskrit” by Rajiv Malhotra gains prominence.

He asks as to where and in which language is study being conducted on Chinese language and culture? The answer is such studies are conducted in Mandarin in China. Studies on Japanese culture are conducted in Japanese language in Japan. Studies on Russian culture are conducted in Russian language in Russia. Where are the studies on India conducted? It is conducted in English in faraway Harvard, Columbia and Oxford Universities!! Why is that so? The answer for this question will be given by the so called Indologists who are still mentally bound as the slaves of the colonial rule and yet to be free from their vice like grip in the form of weird arguments stating that it is a matter of pride for our culture if studies are being conducted by foreigners in foreign universities. This is the argument of the white man too. They say that they undertake Indic studies on a long term basis. Should you not take pride in this fact? When King George V was asked about the inappropriateness of his action of taking the Kohinoor diamond from India which graced his crown, he answered thus. The polity should be proud of the fact that their emperor is wearing the gem mined from their country on his crown!! Malhotra ridicules people who hold such viewpoints.

This research work has studied in great detail about a Sanskrit scholar, Prof. Sheldon Pollock, upon whom India had conferred the Padmashri award. Prof. Sheldon Pollock is The Professor of South Asian Studies in Columbia University. However, Rajiv Malhotra has not focused on any particular individual. He puts forth once again the concept of a detailed study of the Purvapaksha which was churned out over the ages from the simple and historic culture of India but sadly which the modern day historians have consigned to the dustbin.

What is this study of the Purvapaksha?

I will have an opinion and a viewpoint. There will also be an opposition to that. Now even if there is no opposition to one’s view, one should have a clear idea of the opposing viewpoints, whatever they may be. This appreciation is the study of the Purvapaksha. This study of the Purvapaksha is not for portraying holders of them in bad light but to understand the level at which they stand. To what extent can they go? What is their aim? What are their methods? What are their thought processes? This is a comprehensive and in depth study of Purvapaksha carried out by the Indian. This method can be seen amply in the works of Adi Shankaracharya. The Acharya includes the Sankhya philosophers, Nayyayikas, Buddhists and Charvaka philosophers in this category. When the Purvapaksha has been successfully presented, it is time to present the sidhantha paksha or uttarapaksha. This is the scientific temperament and culture of India.

Rajiv Malhotra in his foreword mentions the circumstances under which he writes the book.

“ In august 2014, I suddenly became aware of an unprecedented threat to the integrity of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham (started by Adi Shankara in the eighth century CE), one of the most sacred institutions for Hindus. There was a serious risk of a profound and systematic distortion of the teachings and mission of the peetham, as well as a distortion of sanatana dharma more broadly. I immediately stopped all my other work to investigate this and intervene. From that moment onwards, my energies have been channeled into dealing with this urgent matter.

A group of wealthy non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the New York area had teamed up with the top administrative leaders of Sringeri Peeetham in India and representatives of Sringeri Peetham in the USA to set up a university chair in the name of Adi Shankara. It was to be called the ‘SVBF Adi Shankara Chair in Hindu Religion and Philosophy’, (SVBF stands for Sringeri Vidya Bharati Foundation, which is the official institution representing the Sringeri Peetham in the US). They had already collected $4 million for the chair, which was to be created at Columbia University.

The plan was to set up three other chairs in various other universities in the US. Someone close to the group of the donors told me that as soon as this precedent with the Adi Shankara Chairs had been achieved, the door would be open to approach other Hindu lineages for establishing similar chairs across the US. These chairs would serve as official ambassadors of diverse Hindu movements. For instance, there could also be chairs in the name of Sri Ramanujacharya, another great exponent of Vedanta.

To appreciate why such chairs would undermine our tradition, the reader needs to understand the proposed terms of the Adi Shankara Chair at Columbia. Two committees were being formed to manage this chair. One was the Academic Committee, consisting of scholars from Columbia, to be headed by Sheldon Pollock. The second was the Donor and Advisor Committee, which would represent the various financiers and administrators of Sringeri Peetham. All the funding would come from the Donor and Advisor Committee. The selection of the scholar to occupy the chair would be made by the Academic Committee, which would have sole control over the selection, academic content and activities of the chair. The donors would have no veto right or say in the matter; they would merely be informed of the selection, after it had been made.

The professors associated with them would therefore be speaking to the world with the voice and authority of Sringeri. The whole objective of establishing the chairs would be to represent Shankara’s teachings to the modern world.

It would be the height of irresponsibility to give up control of the teachings and brand name of Sringeri to outside interests. This would be especially alarming if it were done without through investigation into the backgrounds and agendas of those being put in charge – equivalent to haphazardly giving away the intellectual property, trademark and custodianship of the peetham to some alien third party.

Upon learning this, I immediately approached the lead donor to offer my perspective on the risks. I explained the importance of carrying out a process that investors call ‘due diligence’ before any commitment is made. I explained my background in corporate due diligence and my subsequent experience over the past twenty years in analyzing how some prominent Western scholars represent ( or misrepresent) Hinduism today. However, the concerns I expressed and the suggestions I offered were not welcome. I was told that the Adi Shankara Chair at Columbia was, for all practical purposes, a ‘done deal’ and that it would be formally announced within six weeks, i.e., in October 2014.

Soon after having these discussions with the NRIs who were organizing the Columbia chair, I suddenly received an e- mail from Sheldon Pollock inviting me to meet with him. This was a surprise because our previous e-mail exchange had been five years earlier, and that exchange did not end positively. He had then refused my request to interact because he was concerned about my criticism of his ‘Death of Sanskrit’ paper. I accepted his invitation and we had a pleasant meeting at a local coffee shop in Princeton. He was charming and gave me a detailed biography of all his achievements as a pre-eminent Western scholar of Sanskrit today. After citing his impressive list of publications and awards, he turned to me and asked: ‘How could someone possibly hate Hinduism when I have spent my entire life studying the Sanskrit tradition? How could someone possibly hate the tradition that he has devoted his life to studying? ‘However, my response was different from what he might have anticipated. I told him he must have heard of certain American academicians who are considered Islamophobic , Islamophobic scholars spend their entire lives studying Islam. By Pollock’s logic, their long-term investment in Islamic studies ought to make them lovers of Islam. Nevertheless, they hate Islam and they study it diligently for that very reason. Their careers are made by studying a tradition with the intention of demolishing it and exposing its weaknesses.

I explained to Pollock, it was desirable that an important figure like him be evaluated based on the merits of this works and nothing else. This evaluation, I pointed out, should not be taken personally at all, but as something Indian scholars have done with each other for centuries. I explained that the tradition of Purva-paksha was central to Indian intellectual methods and that this tradition ought to be revived.

He said he had worked closely with traditional Indian scholars and listed several names. But when I asked him to name a single traditional Indian scholar who had written an extensive critique of his major works, he acknowledged this had not happened. He was quick to point out that this was not his fault because he had never stopped anyone from writing critiques.

I asked if he was a practitioner of sadhana based on Shankara’s teachings; he frankly admitted that his was strictly an objective study of the tradition as an outsider and not as a practitioner from within the tradition. We discussed the issue of potential conflict when the occupant of the chair takes positions that undermine the very tradition that has backed and funded the chair. Pollock said such conflicts are normal in the interest of academic freedom and that the donors cannot interfere with the autonomy of the scholars.

Meeting with Sringeri Shankaracharya

I decided I should visit the Shankaracharya of Sringeri personally and present my case. I visited Sringeri. The meeting with the Shankarachrya went well. The head administrator of the peetham had heard about my visit at the last minute and was already sitting in the room when I entered. Nevertheless, I was able to have an open-minded and direct conversation with the Shankaracharya. After listening to the examples I cited concerning academic biases, he said these Western scholars do not understand Vedic knowledge. My only request was that the decision regarding Columbia be put on hold, so that my written report could be made available for review by Sringeri Peetha,’s own scholars who could then make their independent, objective assessment. The Shankaracharya did not formally commit to this, but his response hinted a favorable posture. One of my main reasons for writing this book is to fulfill my promise to the Shankaracharya. ”

What do the foreign Indologists have to say about Sanskrit

Sanskrit is the language of power and subjugation. It does not have any legacy to proclaim itself as of divine origin. At the maximum, it may be the language of a country. Neither the Vedas nor the Upanishads are to be accorded any sort of divinity. In fact, the Europeans had even learnt of various lineages from the Vedas. Hitler had discovered Nazism from Sanskrit. That is why he had adopted symbols from Sanskrit. As per these Indologists, even the holocaust was the result of the Nazis learning Sanskrit. Epics like the Ramayana which were composed in later years were simply instruments of political weaponry. The kings of India had refurbished the Ramayana a thousand years back when the Turks had invaded India. In sort, stories such as the Ramayana when propagated by the King who is akin to God, motivated the natives to fight wars for him against the invaders. Therefore, it is not divinity but political expediency which is of primary importance with respect to epics like the Ramayana.

This is the same argument which the so called progressive thinkers had raised in the 1980s when the popular TV serial Ramayana was aired on Doordarshan directed by Ramanand Sagar. It was also opined that this was done for the revival of Hindutva ideology. These arguments did not find its origin within the minds of the Indian intellectuals. On the contrary, these ideas germinated from people like Sheldon Pollock who gloat over the so called death of the divine language, Sanskrit.

Sheldon Pollock, whom India honoured with a Padmashri, is a person who has made even funnier discoveries about Sanskrit. He says, ”Sanskrit is a language which had died decades ago. This language with its structure and grammar was the prime reason for the societal oppression prevalent in India”. He avers that there is no hand of the Muslims and British in the death of Sanskrit. In fact, it was the British and the Muslims who strived to save this language. It was the Hindu kings who were responsible for the death of the language. Their need for preserving and holding onto power led them to abandoning Sanskrit and adopting native languages. It was the inequality between the prescribed practices and the native structures that led to the lowering of the stature of the kings”. Such childish and boorish explanations which will leave us flabbergasted are the ones put forth by the Indologists regarding India. But, without realizing these, the way in which our spiritual leaders are handing over information passed onto them by or ancestors to the foreigners is a matter of grave concern and connivance of the lowest order.

In 1975, Universities of Harvard, Berkeley and Helsinki came together in collaboration and under their initiative conducted a Shrouthayagam called Athiratram over a period of 12 days at Panjaal in Kerala. An American researcher called Frits Staal was the organizer of the Yaga. He published two volumes under the name of ‘Agni’ following the Yaga which was conducted under the stewardship of Erkara Raman Namboodiri. He became a regular visitor in the Brahminical households ( Illams) of Kerala. Following Frits Staal, many foreign researchers started coming to Kerala to learn the Vedic practices. Seeing his devotion towards Vedic practices, the organisers of the Athiratra Yaga which was again conducted in Panjaal during 2011 made sure of his presence at that time with a special invitation. Staal who was considered as one who had embraced the Vedic practices was finally found to have embraced Buddhism in Thailand where he bid adieu to this world in 2012.

Whenever a foreign researcher lands in Kerala, the local print and television media make it huge news. No studies are ever conducted about such researchers. Which university and department do they represent? What is their topic of research? What are the studies which they had conducted before? What were their observations regarding Sanskrit and the Vedas during such studies, if any? What are the objectives and agenda of the sponsors of such studies? What are the main views of their study about India? Do they recognize the divine origins of Sanskrit and the Vedas? Opening up the plethora of ancient knowledge passed onto us by our ancients to people just because of their fair skin without carrying out such due diligence on our part is a cruelty inflicted upon the culture of India which will be questioned in due time by the future generations.

The submissiveness of Indian experts
There are about 15 Sanskrit universities in India. There are more than 100 departments in many universities devoted to Sanskrit. There are Sanskrit academies too. Even the official language of Uttarakhand is Sanskrit. These are activities carried out with Governmental funds. However, there are many Vedic gurukulas and study centres which function without any grants. There are many who function under the auspices of Ashrams and devote their lives for the study and sanctity of Sanskrit. But their views are not approved by the various academies if they are not in consonance with the foreign researcher’s views. How is the Indian academician bought out by the foreign universities? Very simple. 1. By arranging foreign trips. 2. By inviting their papers for presentation in foreign conferences. 3. By arranging for research and post doctoral studies. 4. Most importantly, getting sponsored on long term research by organisations like the Ford Foundation which put in a lot of money over long time. Whether the Sanskrit researchers who go to foreign universities really carry out research on the Vedic views held and passed on by the Rishis or the views espoused by the Indologists is something which nobody bothers to question. Our academic world has been sold out. For those who are not, the language of Sheldon Pollock is alien. They are not familiar with the communication tools of such Indologists. Hence, they are not able to reply to them too.

As to why personalities like Sheldon Pollock should be studied in detail is clear from an article written by eminent leftist Dr. RomilaThapar some years ago stating that Sanskrit was a language meant for subjugation. It was Sheldon Pollock’s idea which she had completely borrowed in that article. Guiding the thought process of Indian intellectuals who do not understand Sanskrit is a foreigner who is hell bent upon destroying the language. As to how much division studies of Indologists like Sheldon Pollock has created within Indian society is evident from the notice put up by All India Student’s Federation in Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2014 which has been in news off late for all the wrong reasons. It reads

Dear Sir,

The ‘great day of victory’ of so called Brahminical virtue over popular evils is round the corner and this progressive and secular campus, like ours will be hoping you to participate in the festivity of killings and humiliation of indigenous (Mulnivasi) people (i.e., Ravana, Mahisahsur, Shambuka, Bali, Ekalavya and others) of this land. But sir did you ever ponder about those who were killed at the hand of ‘virtuous lord’ and their progenies who are still being attacked and tormented. Do you ever consider that how deeply these symbols strike in the psychosis of socially deprived section of the campus and terrorize them of their ‘historical defeat’? … Let’s assume for a while that hero of Brahminical orders killed indigenous people then logically there must have been a resistance by hero of social emancipation and toiling masses. So why not we indigenous people should remember our heroes and struggle against tyranny of Brahminism

All India Bahujan Students' Parliament ( AIBSP),

All India Students Federation (AISF),

Concerned Students (CS),

The New Materialists (TNM)

As a consequence, investigate

Sheldon Pollock is a political symbol. A person who questions the authenticity and the divinity of the Vedas and who is actively involved in churning out modern day Charvakas has been endowed with the responsibility of editing and publishing the crown jewels of our knowledge by none less than the founder member of Infosys, Sri Narayana Murthy. Max Mueller had published over 50 books a hundred years ago. They were more popular in Europe and America. In India, they were confined to the Universities. Still, the grave issues and wounds that they created in our society are yet to be overcome by us. That is when Murthy’s library is set upon translating about 500 books and make them available at cheap costs all over India. These low cost translations which will make Sanskrit irrelevant and neglect the purity of the views expressed by the Rishis will be a source of terror for us in future much more so than the threat of the nuclear bomb in possession of neighboring Pakistan.

The Study of the opposing viewpoint

Rajiv Malhotra had conducted the Purvapaksha study which we had considered as having gone extinct from our society and culture. This is a matter of great pride for us because it was more than 80 years ago that a similar study was conducted by an Indian, Pandit Bhagavadatta - a disciple of Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s lineage, about the evil intentions behind the study of India by western researchers. ‘Western Indologists – A study in motive’, is a good example of the study of the Purvapaksha. Justice Gangaprasad, a person from the same lineage had written a book by the name, ‘Fountainhead of Religion'. Through this, we could learn about Islam, Christianity and Jewish religions. No further follow up on those studies have cost us dearly.

A modern day example of carrying out the study of the Purvapaksha in order to establish one’s religion in line with the Vedic injunctions is Swami DayanandaSaraswati, founder of Arya samaj. ‘Sarvadarshana Sangraha’ of Mahdava, a 14th century published work on All major philosophies covered emphatic studies on Indian philosophies whereas it did not attempt any study on the then prevalent Christianity and Islam. Swami Dayananda Saraswati was a legend who through his Satyartha Prakash carried out such a study of the Purvapaksha. It is a matter of heartfelt joy that such a professional study of the Purvapaksha has been carried out by Rajiv Malhotra similar to the ones conducted by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Let this be the torchbearer to the Indian method of study of Purvapaksha.

A collection of posts from various authors on the issues raised in TBFS

This post contains links to some of the important writings that have come out in recent times since The Battle for Sanskrit was released.

1. Here is a review of TBFS by Siddhartha, who calls out the deficiencies in Sheldon Pollock's scholarship starting from his discrediting of oral traditions of Hinduism to his dating of Ramayana and its interpretation, to his collusion with Indian Marxists to attempt intervention in India.

The review can be read here:

A review of The Battle for Sanskrit

2. Next up is the article by Aditi Banerjee in Swarajya magazine. In her article, she not only argues why it is foolish for Indians to be outsourcing the adhikara to interpret our civilizational heritage to people who are not insiders but she also lets us know how rigorous a training one should have to even attempt interpreting our sacred scriptures and treatises. She talks about how this rigour was inculcated in our scholars and how bypassing this rigour can dilute the ability to interpret correctly our shastras and scriptures.

Her article can be read here:

Let's stop funding our enemies

3. Ashay does a throrough deconstruction of Pollock's paper 'Deep Orientalism'. He says that the paper is 'a step-by-step guide to blame India in general & Sanskrit in particular for Nazism'.

He says that 'The outline is as follows:
Step 1: Trans-historicize the idea of Orientalism
Step 2: Show that “Orientalist” German Indology contributed to Nazism
Step 3: Show existence of pre-colonial “Orientalism” in Sanskrit thought
Step 4: Show that British Indology was a continuity of pre-colonial “Orientalism”
Step 5: Show Nazism is continuity of Sanskrit thought'

You can read the article here:

The shallowness of Pollock's 'Deep Orientalism'

4. Sejuti Banerjea does an excellent job of refuting Rohan Murty's statements in his article in the Times of India. The article is titled 'The classics belong to the world and no one has exclusive rights'.
In her rebuttal, Sejuti picks up statements made by Rohan Murty in his article and points out the fallacies inherent in them.

She has blogged at:

What Rohan Murty's comment really says

5. Kaushik Gangopadhyay draws a parallel between American progressives at the time when slavery was a practice in America and now as scholars learning India. He contrasts two people Frederick Olmsted from the times when slavery was practised and Sheldon Pollock as a scholar studying India. He draws eerie parallels in their methodology and shows how it can be catastrophic for India to let Sheldon Pollock have his way unchallenged.

His article can be read at:

American Progressives also typify others

Kanchi seer Mahaperiyavaa foresaw many decades ago what Rajiv Malhotra says about Indology today

The following extract is taken from the book The Vedas by Kanchi seer Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati which can be found here. The translation is by late Shri. NSS Rajan. It is a translation of selected discourses by Paramacharya on Vedas and related topics from Tamil to English. The first edition of this book is 1988, so timing of his discourses is before 1988.

In this extract the seer makes his observations on Indology studies by Westerners and he said the same things then (about 40-50 years ago) that Rajiv Malhotra is saying today. Read on to find out how.

It is a matter for regret that the main source of the knowledge about the Vedas for most of us in India is the research done by foreigners called orientalists and our scholars who follow in their footsteps and conduct research. I agree that foreign scholars have indeed made very useful contributions concerning the knowledge about the Vedas. We must acknowledge it and thank them for it. Many like Max Muller have really taken great pains to collect material and analyse it as they were inspired by the grandeur of the Vedas. They have written volumes on the Vedas. We would be struck with wonder at the number of publications released by the Asiatic Society, founded over 200 years ago by Sir William Jones, who was then a Judge of the Calcutta High Court. Max Muller, with the aid of the East India Company, had serially printed and released Rig Veda with Saayana's commentary and also many other Hindu religious texts. Englishmen, Germans, French and even Russians have worked hard with their researches. They have collected and published translations of the Vedas along with the extant aphorisms, which were scattered in parts all over India.

There are foreigners who have also served the cause of some other aspects of our cultural heritage. When Lord Curzon was the viceroy, the Protection of Ancient Monuments Act was enacted. This stopped vandalism. Ferguson took photographs of all sculptural treasures throughout the century and made us aware of their importance. Cunningham, Mortimer Wheeler, Sir John Marshall are all noted archaeologists. Mackenzie gathered ancient palm leaf scrolls from all over the country without which we could not have known about some of our sastras. A separate department of epigraphy was instituted only during the British Rule. Thus a lot of gain accrued to us from foreign domination. But in their wake came losses too. The Indologists and orientalists were committed to writing ancient history from material taken from Vedic texts and, in the process, introduced the till then unheard of concept of Aryans and Dravidians, which created mutual hatred. Their conclusions were based on what they called rationalisation, according to which anything outside the ken of the sense organ, can only be regarded as allegorical. This would permit them to regard the ancient Rishis as primitive men inferior to the modern. Their analysis of our religious texts was motivated by the desire to show Christianity as a better religion. All the while they kept up the facade of impartial research and, in the process, denigrated our religion.

Noting the points of similarity between Sanskrit and their language, many studied our texts purely in the interests of cornparative philology.

We can admire them for their tenacious research, and the publicity they gave to the greatness of the Vedas. But they missed the essential purpose of the Vedas which is to ensure the well·being of the universe at large by spreading the sound of Vedic chant and ensuring the performance of Vedic rites. Setting aside. these two essentials, the Vedas, which are beyond its reach, have been sought to be analysed by the brain. What should subsist as a living force in word and deed of the common man has been entombed in voluminous books adorning the shelves of libraries, like keeping fauna in museums which house skeletons and archalc objects.

Indian public disagrees with Rohan Murty's defensiveness

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

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

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

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

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

JP weighs in:

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

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

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

Srinath chips in:

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

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

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

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

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

Subramanian says:

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

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

Harish opines:

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

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

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

Prof Lal comes in:

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

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

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

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

Mallika writes:

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

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

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

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

Arun joins the discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hari's comment made to ET is reproduced below:

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

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

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

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

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

Rajiv Malhotra's response to Swarajya article on the DCF issue

Rajiv Malhotra's response to the article at: http://swarajyamag.com/ideas/how-hinduphobia-rears-familiar-head-in-american-academia

Kalyan Vishwanathan of DCF is quoted in Swarjya's article and below is Rajiv's response.


1. He is saying things (and even using vocabulary) that I initiated 2 decades back. But he is hopelessly out of date with my views which have developed since then.

2. The big point is that: we must focus on purva-paksha first, as we cannot do uttara-paksha without the purva-paksha. It is useless trying to "correct the distortions" without first writing solid, direct critiques of the nasty Indologists in the level of detail I have done in 5 books. Short blogs and Powerpoints here and there lack the gravitas to generate the level of energy required.

3. My funding of the US academy in the past led to my competence, experience and courage to be able to do item 2 - i.e. reversing the gaze.

4. What DCF lacks is this specific mission of purva-paksha of Western Indology.

5. Reason for 4 is their lack of experience, core knowledge and courage to be able to do 2.

6. Hence they are trying to skip the "uncomfortable" and "controversial" aspects inherent in 2. They want to jump ahead and produce "positive works". This will FAIL to have sustenance. For one thing they will be at the mercy of the very same western institutions where the purva-pakshin (opponents) are rulers with tremendous clout and power. Its analogous to BJP funding Rahul Gandhi to topple the Congress party. Or like hiring Pakistan's ISI to help convince the Pakistanis on India's position on Kashmir.

7. First DCF must come to terms with the "negative, controversial" nature of the job to be done. They must not imagine the battlefield to be a sort of picnic and public relations party. They try to be too goody-goody which will result in a combo of: (a) selling out, and (b) getting rejected by the western institutions. They are suffering both these now.

8. What Kalyan should do: Spend 2 years full-time and write a heavy book that directly criticizes the writings of the top scholars who led the anti-DCF petition. Dont pick minor players. And dont pick Witzel etc who are already well known, hardened and not very academically active today. Pick some powerful Indologists who actively manipulate Indians into supporting them, but in the end are on the opposite side - like I have done in each book. Do not be generic, but must be specific, and directly name the names. Do not be emotional or bombastic. Use at least 100+ solid quotes from the opponents' works to make your case and give logical rejoinders.

9. After such a heavily researched publication, Kalyan must do tours to sell his ideas and generate huge ground swell of awareness. Dont stay within "like minded circles". Have open Q&A before whosoever invites you, and especially where they will try to bring you down. He must elicit opponents to attack him. That is how their true character will come out and that is how you will generate awareness among our people who are sleeping. He must not try to be ignored by opponents. For only through many such battles can he develop as a kshatriya. Once he has developed battlefield expertise - not hit and run, or hide inside "like minded forums" as he is presently hiding - will he get the prerequisite experience to think strategically.

10. Today they have not even started any of this. They have not even the goal to do this. They are like military generals who never fought in battle, sitting in the VIP lounges watching the battle on CNN, and making decisions on asset deployment.

11. I am their friend who would like them to succeed. They must understand my intentions. I am not the one to make them "feel good" and waste more time and money of our community the way they have been doing. They must get out of this "personal loyalty system" as the management style. They must stop getting defensive about me and be more open to listen.

In friendship and seva of dharma,
Rajiv

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.

Indology conference 2015 - No due diligence done: Prof Stietencron being honored at Rashtapati Bhavan.

Please follow today's twitter thread discussing this event where this scholar is to be honored.

Request 1: Dont look for bad "person" please. By now you ought to be able to evaluate scholarship.

Request 2: Dont even say he does "bad scholarship". The bowler on the opponent team who gets our batsmen out quickly, cannot be called a bad bowler. He is a great bowler for HIS team. Similarly, many Indologists I critique are good at their job for their civilization. But the basic lens, assumptions, framework, etc used are Western. They are entitled to use their lens. But our leaders should know better, and not simply eat out of their hands.

Prof Stietencron is a figure mentioned in Indra's Net as a pioneer of Neo-Hinduism.  
(two paragraphs from Indra's Net are shown below)

This means his work is based on the assumption that Hinduism is falsely considered to be intrinsically unified. Until recent centuries, he claims, the various streams were not only separate but in mutual conflict. Only recently were these streams brought together into a single philosophy and made to look unified.

In other words, Neo-Hinduism considers our tradition to be a synthetic unity and not an integral unity. The synthesis, according to them, was done recently. This is a big deal for us to understand and contest.

Request 3: Do NOT mix this issue with the history of the name "Hinduism". It does not matter what people called it earlier, or whether they even had any name for it. The issue being discussed by him and me is whether there was a philosophically unified set of ideas across the spectrum we now call Hinduism. If your name changes, it does not mean you are not the same person. After 20 yrs of explaining the basic point I continue to get stupid issues raised like: "Hindu name is new because ....; and therefore, ...." Please focus on what this thread is about, what Stietencron's thesis is, what Neo-Hinduism thesis is.

I am attaching one of his papers referenced in IN. You cant blame his rigor, level of intensity or hard work. The question to ask is whether he exaggerates differences and downplays underlying unity. Does he fail to see the integral unity at the foundation?

To understand the issue from my viewpoint will force you to read IN. Only those who have done so may genuinely contribute to this thread. We are not looking for personal "opinions" or blaming his intentions, or any such generic level of discussion.

Due diligence: I cannot believe the GOI did proper due diligence in this situation, before creating a major Indology conference behind closed doors with some select few voices invited. They might now be claiming due diligence out of defensiveness. This is GOI's very formal and official stamp of approval on Western Indology.

Purva-paksha and uttara-paksha on Stietencron would require GOI to read my critique and address it alongside his work. Otherwise it is one-sided propaganda and awe of a white man just because he is a Sanskrit scholar. Our inferiority complex is so deep towards any Westerners who seems to say a few words of praise for us, who worked hard to study us, etc.

Our purva-paksha tradition does not permit making evaluations based on the personalities of the parties; this must be done strictly on the merits of the intellectual positions they adopt. If GOI claims to have done purva-paksha, can they please publish it as its our civilization and we must be parties to it?

In any case, it would be a better scholarly event if the opponent voices that have critiqued Steitencron were also allowed to discuss their response. I was not even aware of such an event until someone told me on twitter.

Dilemma: Am I wasting my life producing hard research works if the authorities simple do not care to read it? Ironically, many of the persons involved in making such decisions know me and appreciate my work privately. But have they read it? And what happens in "official" decision making?

I mean no disrespect, but merely wish to raise issues articulated in IN. These deserve a hearing before the Neo-Hinduism voice gets GOI blessing.