A limited assessment of and response to some statements of Professor Tyler Williams

This blog initially appeared here and is penned by Megh Kalyanasundaram

On 2016 April 15, in a talk at Columbia University by Shri Rajiv Malhotra, a member of the audience, introduced himself as “…Tyler Williams…I am a Professor of Hindi and Urdu, I also teach a bit of Sanskrit, bit of Persian, I also teach about Bhakti, teach about Indian religion…” (Video time stamp (VTS): 54:29-54:37) and  curiously, chose not include in his introduction, the name of the university he taught at.

In what was meant to be a question, Tyler Williams (TW) made a few statements, which can be called misrepresentations and/or allegations. This short piece highlights 2 such statements (in italicised-blue below) and evidence from Shri Malhotra’s scholarship as to why these statements can be called misrepresentations.

Tyler Williams’ (wilful or otherwise) Misrepresentation #1: ‘Insiders and Outsiders’ related

Tyler Williams said (VTS 56:04-56:10)) “…the schema that you have given, that I am outsider and they are an insider, the white students are outsiders…“ 

Evidence (from RM’s scholarship) on why TW’s statement is a misrepresentation:

Evidence 1:

I also wish to clarify that I do not consider all Western scholars as ‘outsiders’, nor all Indians or Hindus as ‘insiders’. These are provisional terms to get the conversation started. My suggestion to the reader is that s/he should first read the Conclusion chapter that concisely articulates the final takeaway message of this book. It lists a set of debates I want between the insiders and outsiders on a range of issues raised in this book.  (Source: Rajiv Malhotra, The Battle for Sanskrit, Introduction, Hard Copy version Page 28, Kindle Location 508-518) 

Evidence 2:

My book frames these issues in terms of two opposing lenses: the lens of insiders, who are those with loyalty to the Vedic worldview, and lens of outsiders, who are those who dismiss (or at least marginalize) the Vedas and look at the Sanskrit texts primarily through Marxist and postmodernist theories of social oppression and political domination.

Adopting the insider perspective, my main objections to Pollock and other outsiders concern the following methods and views:

•The methodological separation between the secular and the sacred in studying Sanskrit tradition;

•The claim that racial and ethnic oppression, class discrimination and gender bias are intrinsic to Sanskrit and its conceptual matrix in the Vedas;

•The side-lining of the oral tradition as a dynamic part of Indian history and thought;

•The politicizing of the genre of kavya;

•The outright dismissal of the positive value of shastra;

•The insistence on a dramatic split between Sanskrit and the vernaculars;

•The determination to show maximum split between Hinduism and Buddhism;The distortion of the Ramayana as socially abusive and as harbouring anti-Muslim rabble rousing (Source: Rajiv Malhotra’s blog Insiders Vs Outsiders: Who speaks for our heritage?) 

Tyler Williams’ (wilful or otherwise) Misrepresentation #2: ‘Dalits’ related

Tyler Williams said (VTS 56:04-56:10) “…the idea that Dalits are outsiders to the Hindu community…” (Video time stamp 56:13-56:16)

Evidence (from RM’s scholarship) on why TW’s statement is a misrepresentation:

Evidence 1:

In 4 of out 5 books which Shri Rajiv Malhotra has authored, the string ‘Dalit’ appears over 533 times (book-wise detail included below).

Book	Number of occurrences of the string ‘Dalit’ occurs, as part of the word ‘Dalits’ or as stand-alone word	Kindle version location number
The Battle for Sanskrit (Is Sanskrit Political or Sacred, Oppressive or Liberating, Dead or Alive?)	20	456, 1143, 1211, 1258, 2241, 2250, 2273, 2334, 2702, 2711, 2892 3560, 3685, 4479, 4605, 4785, 5550, 6104, 8046
Breaking India (Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines)	> 500; The word ‘Dalits’ appears 152 times	Too many to list
Indira’s Net (Defending Hinduism’s philosophical unity)	10	659, 894, 2316 (twice), 2566, 2619, 4500, 6436, 6530, 6801
Being Different (An Indian challenge to Western Universalism)	3	6296, 6298, 6301

Where exactly, in any of these 533+ locations  specified above (or for that matter anywhere else) has Shri Malhotra, propagated the idea “…Dalits are outsiders to the Hindu community…” as alleged by Tyler Williams?

How can anyone who has actually read Breaking India (which has the word Dalit in its title sub-text: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines) and Indra’s Net, logically allege that Mr. Malhotra considers Dalits are outsiders to the Hindu community?

Evidence 2:

In fact, the opposite of Tyler Williams (Dalit-related) allegation is perhaps closer to the truth, evidenced by Mr. Malhotra’s thesis (in his words) pitted against the ‘Neo Hinduism’ thesis, from the book Indra’s Net (Defending Hinduism’s philosophical unity).

From Indra’s Net->Part 1 PURVA PAKSHA->Summary of both sides of debate->Tabulation (9 of 10)
Neo-Hinduism	Contemporary Hinduism (My thesis)
Hinduism is inherently oppressive of minorities such as Muslims, Christians, Dalits and women. It forces others into its own homogeneity for gaining political control. Hindutva is its later incarnation and its goal has been to impose homogeneity	Contemporary Hinduism renews the coherence and unity of diverse Indian traditions. It does not harm their diversity, and has, in fact, the most open architecture among the main faiths of the world. Its lack of historical absolutes (in the sense of Abrahamic religions) accounts for these extraordinary qualities)
	‘My thesis’ above refers to Rajiv Malhotra’s thesis

Of course, the above misrepresentations could have been reconciled to atleast some extent had Tyler Williams said he had not read Shri Rajiv Malhotra’s books. One could perhaps then rationalise and allow for a benefit of doubt about Tyler Williams position (and/or complicity in furthering a separatist propaganda) in view of not having read Mr. Malhotra’s scholarship.

However, does Tyler Williams allow room for such a benefit of doubt to be extended given his:

> claim “…I have read your book” (VTS 56:46-47; 58:18-23) and yet misrepresenting (evidence provided above), all this despite being a “Professor”, of whom the expectation of correctness , atleast in the academic way of referencing, would normally be higher than a lay man?

&

> false (implied) allegation that Shri Rajiv Malhotra may tarnish TW’s name like that of he did of TW’s colleagues (VTS 54:44-54:47), while what he actually did could be construed as attempting to tarnish Shri Malhotra’s name, by bringing up plagiarism allegations, which have been comprehensively addressed at various levels, including clarification between related publishers.

(To read a comprehensive analysis of the plagiarism allegations, refer here: https://traditionresponds.wordpress.com; To extend your support to Rajiv Malhotra, sign this petition: https://www.change.org/p/publishers-of-rajiv-malhotra-s-books-do-not-yield-to-mafia-pressure-tactics-that-seek-to-compromise-intellectual-freedom)

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.

Response to Prof. Anant Rambachan's critique of Indra's Net

Readers of Rajiv Malhotra will know that Prof. Anant Rambachan has been named in Rajiv's latest book Indra's Net as being one of the leading proponents of the Neo-Hinduism thesis that has steadily gained ground in Western academia. Prof. Rambachan has recently been invited as a speaker representing Hindus at a forum for Hindu-Catholic dialogue. This set off a discussion within the forum. Forum members sent mails to the organizers of this dialogue asking them to clarify on what basis Prof. Rambachan is seen as representing all Hindus, especially when he espouses and propagates the deeply divisive and fragmenting theory of Neo-Hinduism. Those readers who do not understand the tern Neo-Hinduism are advised to read Indra's Net which is solely devoted to understanding this concept. A summary of the thesis can also be found here. For readers interested to know what Rajiv has to say about Prof. Rambachan in Indra's Net, the chapter on him from the book is uploaded here.

Prof. Rambachan decided finally to answer his critics and wrote an essay on Swarajya Mag to debunk Rajiv's "myths" about him as he calls them, that he claims Rajiv has concoted in the book Indra's Net. The essay can be found here. Following the publication of this essay, the forum has been alive with extremely meaningful and profound discussion points put forth by many learned forum members. This particular thread on the forum contains some extremely profound observations by various forum members.

Rajiv's response to Prof. Rambachan's essay is appearing in pieces on the forum as Rajiv is extremely busy and they are reproduced below in chronological order.

Response 1:

I am glad Rambachan has decided to respond to me. This is what we need. Not him and Vatican in interfaith propaganda, but INTERNAL resolution among Hindus as to our positions. 

So let me articulate specific issues/questions on which I request him to give clear, crisp responses as that would define his stance.

1. Is he willing to criticize his academic peers who support the neo-Hinduism thesis? Specifically, his PhD adviser Ursula King, Brian Pennington, Peter van der Veer, Pankaj Mishra. Richard King. If he wants to be 'nuanced' and cannot say it openly and directly for everyone to understand, that would be more gobbledygook and only continue suspicions: Which side is he on? Is he saying one thing to Hindus but another to the Western academy?
2. Is Hinduism as espoused by Swami Vivekananda any of the following: new and disconnected with Vedic origins, lacking unity across its various elements,  in conflict with Advaita Vedanta? If so, I have a problem. I would like to convince him to come out in a positive, concrete way and assert the following:
1. Vivekananda's Hinduism is a continuation of an old tradition, merely repackaged for modern times.
2. Its various elements comprise a unified system
3. It is consistent with Advaita (which we must note has undergone many interpretations/evolutions).
3. Did Vivekananda use Christian/Western influence for formulating any of the following: his notion of karma yoga, his notion of raja yoga as science, his notion of bhakti? If so, I have a problem. That is what Rambachan has maintained before. In his recent article, he hedges his position and does not come out clearly. I would like him to change to the following position, even though that would contradict his own prior works and create tension with his Western academic peers::
1. Karma yoga, raja yoga as science, bhakti - each of these is indigenous in our tradition, are not an adaptation of Christian/Western ideas.

The above is a core set of issues where we should start and then we can go further.

Each time he privately went and complained to persons X or Y about my critiques of neo-Hinduism, I wrote back saying that he must have a direct discussion with me. I have expressed this also to Rita Sherma when she called from DCF; I suggested that in some academic setting Rambachan and I can discuss where we stand on these matters. I have not heard back on this. Its much important to debate these issues than all the nonsense that the academy is obsessed with.

The issue of neo-Hinduism has caused serious confusion about who we are - in the mainstream media as well as academics. Many of our own folks are going about parroting such things. If neo-Hinduism is a valid thesis, it is not just Vivekananda that gets compromised, but all that followed after him, including: Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Mission, Chinmaya Mission, Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, Art of Living, etc. In fact, the entire modern yoga movement where yoga-vedanta are unified is undermined.

Given his claim that he speaks FOR Hinduism, how could he have never in the past have stuck his neck out and EXPLICITLY REJECT neo-Hinduism? I am glad if I am forcing his hand to come out one way or the other. This has created bheda within the ranks of the academy studying Hinduism their own way.

Why is unwilling to write positively on the UNITY OF HINDUISM ACROSS ALL THESE VARIED SYSTEMS? If I can get him to do this, it would make my effort worthwhile. The price he would have to pay would be with the western academic cabal. Thats a choice he has to make. If one top player breaks ranks with the academic establishment it could spiral out of control for them. Wouldn't that be a game changer for us?

The more we debate this, the more tricky it becomes for him to take both sides, using nuance.

Response 2:

Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised by the excellent quality of many of the comments under Rambachan's article. Shows these are well read persons who think for themselves and apply rigor.

Many comments have cited in some detail the anti-Hindu writings of Ursula King, under whom Rambachan studied in UK and got his advanced degrees and academic credentials. Many have caught him on some utterly false or at least misleading statements he makes in the article.

Right now my priority is to meet my deadlines for my next book, The next 2 chapters I am doing are very tough and challenging. After that will be smooth sailing. But to do these on time is excruciating. 

So you have to be patient for my response to Rambachan. Meanwhile, you should use this opportunity to get involved, learn the issues, etc.

In any case, he evades the key issues of neo-Hinduism and merely wants to cover himself - WITHOUT in any way wanting to upset his academic cabal.

He also ignores that I am not the first to raise these objections about him. My book's chapter on him cites a long debate between him and Arvind Sharma years back, in which Sharma made some of the same points as me and I am citing his extensively. I also cite T.S. Rukmani, Prof of Hindu Studies at Concordia U, who feels the same as me. Then there are some Western scholars who my book cites. I am in good company on my positions. What I do for the first time is to bring together the whole gang of neo-hinduism. Previously scholars have not put them together as a group with a consistent theory they all echo.

Strangely, he whines that I am doing ad hominem attacks against him in the book - yet he cannot cite a single such incident. I always make it a point to send my book drafts to as many as a dozen reviewers before it goes to the publisher, and the specific purpose is for scholars who are new to the issues to make sure the tone is respectful, the material is coherent, etc. So I challenge Rambachan to cite where exactly my book has any ad hominem against him.

Also, he is only one of a whole group of scholars in the neo Hinduism club that I take on. Why did that group ask him to shoulder the responsibility to evangelize on their behalf? While he is upset that I pointed out his affiliations with the Church and other western bodies, he does not say what was incorrect in my statement.

I am glad this happened as it will fan the flames and more Hindus will read to understand the issues that are at stake.

Response 3:

I authorize people to post scans or copies of chapter 6 of Indra's Net which is specifically on Rambachan. Also the end notes for that chapter. You may also post chapter 10 where I reconcile Vedanta and Yoga - the neo-Hinduism camp finds them in mutual tension.

Pls post this material here and elsewhere - right now I am bogged down and unable to do this but I request others to do so for me.

Please point out in various forums:

1) End note 11 of chapter 6 is where I refer to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, since Rambachan refers to him. What i write there is misrepresented in Rambachan's article. I do not say what he alleges. I say that swamiji teaches unity of various elements of Hinduism and champions this through the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha.

2) He accuses me of ad hominem attacks. I read through chapter 6 again and did not see anything like that whatsoever. Yesterday, I showed it to a scholar at Princeton Univ who is uninvolved in religious studies and works elsewhere in the humanities. She has no knowledge of Hinduism or this issue. She said it is very well written and by no means ad hominem. Is Rambachan whining and claiming 'victimhood' status to divert attention from the real issues of neo-Hinduism? This is a common Church technique.

3) Focus on Ursula King, please:Rambachan is a product of two strong influences. One side is the influence of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, from whom he learned Vedanta philosophy. He then took this knowledge to England where he spent many years under the tutelage of Prof. Ursula King, a rabid anti-Hindu scholar of considerable influence. (Indra’s Net has a chapter summarizing some of her writings. I also met her once at Oxford where she attended a lecture I delivered back in the 1990s.) He did his advanced work under her and she was his PhD advisor. Under her supervision, he got his academic credentials. He cannot try to hide all that influence under the rug, as he tries to do in his public posturing before Hindu groups. When he wants to establish his credentials amongst Hindus, he speaks only of Swamiji as his teacher. But in his academic writings, he is very much part and parcel of an entirely different world, where his membership started decades back under the mentorship of Ursula King. His is a tale of two worlds. He is remarkably silent on his history and involvement in this second world.

Thank you for so many excellent comments people have posted at his Swarajya article. See this as a chance to delve deeper into a major issue all Hindus must become informed of - neo-Hinduism is like a cancer eating us from within.

Response 4 from Rajiv is a set of research papers by people who have argued against Prof. Rambachan's position on Hinduism. Rajiv has made available to the forum members papers from T.S Rukmani, Arvind Sharma, Jonathan Bader, Comans, Kundan Singh. This is for serious readers to understand where Rajiv has drawn his references from which he has also cited in Indra's Net.

Response 5:

A common ploy by Christian critics of Hinduism has been to accuse it of being world negating. They cite advaita texts to claim that the pragmatic dimension is irrelevant to Hindus because life is an illusion, anyway. Hence, they argue, the Christian missionaries must provide human rights, food, shelter, education, scientific progress and so forth, because the Hindus are not interested or capable to look after their own suffering lot.

This view has caused considerable harm to Hindus. We need more teachers to argue back that this is a false premise. I have been doing this arguing back, but I shall show that Shri Rambachan is unhappy over it.

I see the vyavharika (worldly realm of life) as being important and connected to the parkarthika (transcendental realm). I never dismiss one or the other. (My forthcoming book criticizes the interpretations of Sanskrit texts by Sheldon Pollock, another powerful scholar who is undermining our tradition while appearing to be reviving it. He, too, disconnects parmarthika and vyavharika, and then he can attack them apart separately. I argue strongly that this separation is a distortion.)

I consider various Hindu paths as vyavharika approaches to start wherever a given individual happens to be, and then to lead him/her towards parmarthika. Even though moksha is the final goal, most of us in this life start at a lower level of consciousness. This is why Hinduism has vyavharika practices such as dance, music, yoga, Ayurveda, yajna, karma, and so forth. These are user-friendly starting points. They are very important.

In Indra’s Net I point out that it is a bad strategy for our teachers to limit themselves to teaching moksha, and sidelining the vyavharika aspects. After all, Hinduism is the art of living and all aspects must be understood and practiced. This is why it is important to also teach artha-shastra, dharma-shastra, niti-shastra, and so forth. We should not limit the teachings to moksha-shastra, by which I mean a certain interpretation of Upanishads that is in vogue today.

The point I make is that 99% of the Hindus today are not going to attain moksha in this life, and most of the Hindus don’t even want to, or care to know about it. What about them? What does Hinduism do for them? We cannot, as Christians accuse us often, ignore these non-moksha dimensions. We cannot accede this ground of daily living to the Christian missionaries to take over. Hinduism must be taught broadly and not moksha-centric.

In this context, I wrote the following passage in Indra’s Net:

“But most Hindus are not pursuing moksha per se in any lineage. Their relationship with Hinduism is much more mundane and concerns legitimate pursuits (purusharthas) that are more pragmatic than moksha. I find it problematic to represent Hinduism in international forums that aim to undermine its legitimacy on the grounds of disputes among lineages over technical issues of moksha; issues that do not affect the practice of Hinduism by its vast majority of followers today.” (Indra’s Net, page 55)

Shri Rambachan twists my notion of presenting Hinduism in a broad-based manner in modern discourse. He makes it sound as if I am anti-moksha. He is being manipulative when he writes the following:

“By sidelining the centrality of mokṣa, we run the risk of reducing the meaning of Hinduism to group identity and a political agenda. If contemporary Hindus are not interested in the meaning of mokṣa, as Malhotra claims, this is no matter for complacency. It reflects a failure on the part of Hindu teachers and interpreters to properly articulate its enduring meaning in our contemporary context.” (Swarajya, April 30, 2015)

But I have never tried to sideline moksha. He is not doing proper purva-paksha of my work, because he is not supposed to misrepresent my position. Nor is he right in saying that we either get moksha or we get “a political agenda”. This is so typical of the binary dichotomies he learned in the Western academy.

My point in Indra’s Net is that to evaluate Swami Vivekananda’s unity of Hinduism, one must appreciate that he is helping Hindus across a vast spectrum, and not only the 1% pursuing moksha. These vyavharika dimensions are where Swamiji’s teachings of yoga, karma, bhakti and other paths come nicely together. Whether a given practice by itself brings moksha cannot be the sole criteria for evaluating it.

Once Shri Rambachan accepts this point, he would have no choice but to criticize the neo-Hinduism doctrine forcefully. That doctrine essentializes the entire tradition as world negating, and hence they accuse Swami Vivekananda of fabricating/manufacturing Hinduism. This is why they call it neo-Hinduism, i.e. something newly made up during British times. Shri Rambachan is once again evasive of neo-Hinduism by framing the issue as a binary moksha versus politics choice.

Response 6:

Shri Rambachan seeks to confuse readers by over-emphasizing one aspect of his personal life – where he claims to have taken sannyasa and become qualified as an Acharya. But he wants to deflect attention away from his other side, which is what I have mentioned, and which is the one relevant here. That other side is his academic career and the way it has been intertwined with his links to Church groups and Western institutions engaged in religious matters. The mere fact that he evades these is itself troubling. What is he trying to hide? Upon examining this second side one realizes that his frequent and long drawn out references to his life as a Hindu in Trinidad and in Swamiji’s ashram serve as diversion tactics. It is important to bring out the other side as that is where his academic writings are located.

Had he done his PhD in a traditional Hindu institution, it would have been a different matter. But given that his PhD advisor for many years and the most influential mentor in setting up his academic career is a well-known Christian theologian, he cannot simply hide that under the rug as he tries to do. I am referring to Ursula King, in UK.

He says that he does not explicitly mention Prof. King’s work except in two places. But absence and silence does not mean lack of influence. How could a young man from a poor country, a former British colony, go to live in UK and work for many years for his Master’s Degree and then his doctorate under a powerful Christian voice against Hinduism, and not get any influence from her and her cohorts? And why does Shri Rambachan want to extensively discuss one aspect of his autobiography but not another?

Why am I considered to be making ad hominem attacks just because I point out such influences upon him? After all, it is a standard analytical approach in the academy to discuss the socio-political influences upon a thinker whose work is being discussed? Shri Rambachan extensively discuss Swami Vivekananda’s works in the context of the various influences acting upon him. He exaggerates the Christian and Western influences on him. But when I discuss the Christian and Western influences on Shri Rambachan’s own life and career, he calls it an ad hominem attack. What is he wanting to hide here?

I am convinced that he wants to hide the links with the neo-Hinduism camp. He avoids discussing the doctrine of neo-Hinduism and refers to it as something that “Mr. Malhotra claims”. Forget me, what does he think of it? As a Hindu voice, surely he cannot simply ignore it. But he does ignore it in his entire work and even now in his latest articles.

In fact, he ought to be discussing the neo-Hinduism doctrine if he wants to write about my book, because that is the sole target of my book. It says so clearly. Yet Shri Rambachan is completely silent on it.

Is he helping his neo-Hinduism cohorts by deflecting attention towards himself – that he is this humble Hindu who is being ‘victimized’ by the like of me? Is this a way to get readers’ attention away from neo-Hinduism and towards his personal life? Who is pulling his strings to encourage him to do this? If we take him at face value, he is a good Hindu wanting to promote its positive qualities. In that case, he ought to have written a scathing criticism against the loud champions of neo-Hinduism. Instead of doing this, he is in alliance with them. This became clear and explicit when in 2012 at the American Academy of Religion annual conference in Chicago, he teamed up with Brian Pennington to lambast my earlier book, Being Different.

Indra’s Net names the major voices of neo-Hinduism, quotes them extensively to explain what their doctrine is, and how it is linked to Shri Rambachan’s main work. Besides the originators of the doctrine such as his mentor, Ursula King, Indra’s Net cited extensive quotes from several academic voices that are powerful Hinduphobics today. These include: Brian Pennington, Brian Hatcher, Gerald Larson, Sheldon Pollock, Jack Hawley, Romilla Thapar and Meera Nanda, among others. At the very least I had hoped that Shri Rambachan would denounce all those scholars in no uncertain terms. But he has not done that. Suspicion is called for in such circumstances.

These so far have been Rajiv's responses. This post will be updated as further responses from Rajiv come in.

Ignorant Hindu leaders invite Rambachan to represent Hinduism

Have they read Indra's Net?
March 2015

The attached invite:


for a May debate between Hinduism and Catholicism features Anantanand Rambachan representing the Hindus.

But he is the same person featured in my book Indra's Net as espousing the thesis of Neo-Hinduism, according to which modern Hinduism is:

• An artificial construction done by Vivekananda
• Is incompatible with vedanta. 
• Was done by Vivekananda because of his inferiority complex from the West. 
• This modern Hinduism is based on appropriating critical elements from Christianity. 
• Hence it is more properly called Neo-Hinduism. 

He is positioned as a leader in the academy spreading this Neo-Hinduism thesis. He is also the official (honorary) Hindu appointed by the Vatican. Can he speak for both sides?

For the record: He is probably a good human being on a personal level, and this is not any ad hominem against him personally. But his life work (from his PhD onwards) has been on this thesis that creates internal conflicts within Hinduism, especially between Shankara and Vivekananda.

I have said that such internal debates have always been there, but there is not in our best interest to go to vatican and educate them and other anti-Hindu academics on how to defeat Hinduism. Rambachan has supplied the arguments being used to undermine the legitimacy of modern hinduism.

The Washington DC Hindu leaders doing this are known to me and support my work. They ought to have organized a debate in which Hinduism is represented by someone else. Encouraging a scholar who speaks from both sides is a bad idea.

Rambachan also has said many great things about Hinduism. He criticizes evangelism, for instance. But many Jesuits also criticize proselytizing. The Good Cop face does not offset the damage done by the Bad Cop side of the same person.

These Hindu leaders are unaware of the strategy of the College of Catholic Bishops in having such "interfaith" events. The poster talkes of promoting "common interests" - but do you know what these are? It is the digestion of Hinduism.

I just want to put this on the record for people to ponder. I come across such half baked Hindu leadership all over India, USA, etc. Am I wasting my life?


Rajiv ji followed up after his India trip with this additional comment:

For an honest debate, there cannot be a conflict of interest between the debaters. Rambachan has worked for the Vatican's interfaith organization as their official Hindu face. How can he be "our" representative? Its like allowing the opposing cricket team to appoint our captain. He has been extremely cozy with Francis Clooney for decades, and now these two men will pretend they are really debating "against" each other?

Why cant the Vatican debate with me, for instance? What did Sant ji learn by watching my recent debate in Houston with a prominent Christian theologian? Was Rambachan selected based on any such prior experience in public?

Secondly, the debate Rambachan must be invited ought to be on his Neo-Hinduism thesis. Instead, this setup proposed in DC will hide that side of his work, and let his Neo-Hinduism go on. That would be a way to detract away from my Indra's Net book.

My sense is that this move is Vatican's way to protect their "Hindu asset". They want to restore his credibility among Hindus.

RISA's Token Hindus

This thread encapsulates the continuous attempts made by a section of the Western Academia to interpret, appropriate in ways that are convenient to them, ideas and developments that happen in the Hindu fold. They typically employ a reductive Western lens to analyze and 'deconstruct' events happening in the Dharmic world. Furthermore, they also act as gatekeepers, by not letting in the voices of practicing Hindus, and more importantly, any dissenting Dharmic. For example, the so-called 'RISA list' is barred to any practicing Dharmic who disagrees with this fabricated consensus, as Rajiv Malhotra does. Hence a person practicing dharma and coming from it is deprived of a seat at their own table where ostensibly, the freedom of speech is championed. On the other hand, we observe that token Hindus who are 'useful' for furthering this cause of western universalism are indeed welcomed at the table, and is one of the key talking points of this post.

A RISA list mail from Fred Smith was shared by Indrani:

Several people have asked me off list to compile the sources reported and to summarize the very preliminary findings from my question last week regarding an apparent convergence between followers of Vivekananda, even Gandhi, and the RSS.  I regarded these three as strangely matched bedfellows and wondered how to interpret it, if indeed my observations are valid at all. What I discovered is that Vivekananda, and even Gandhi, have been gradually appropriated into the culture of the RSS, and that this has been building for many decades. Also, however, mediate forces have emerged to both facilitate and transform this image. I was not aware, for example, that the well-known monument to Vivekananda found at the southern tip of India, at Kanyakumari, was constructed by the RSS in the late 1960s. (I visited it many decades ago and was not at that time aware of the politics involved in its construction.) For this and the activities of the Vivekananda Kendra regarding yoga, see Gwilym Beckerlegge, “Eknath Ranade, Gurus, and Jivanvratis: The Vivekananda Kendra’s Promotion of the “Yoga Way of Life,”in Mark Singleton Ellen Goldberg, Gurus of Modern Yoga, pp. 317-350 (OUP 2013). In addition to the citation in my original posting of the piece by Pralay Kanungo, seee his “Fusing the Ideals of the Math with the Ideology of the Sangh? Vivekananda Kendra, Ecumenical Hinduism, and Hindu Nationalism,” in Public Hinduisms, ed.  John Zavos, et al. pp. 119-140 (Sage, 2012). This excellent volume is worth our attention.

I am also struck by the way new but mediate ideologies are influencing the body politic and sectarian affiliations. An example is the influence of Lingayat gurus in Karnataka who seem to draw from both sides, from their own space in the middle, as well as from local political arrangements. For this, see Aya Ikegame, “The governing guru: Hindu mathas in liberalizing India,” in Jacob copeman and Aya Ikegame, The Guru in South Asia: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 46-63 (Routledge 2012). Her work is well worth following. I suspect that local configurations and affiliations are present in many states in India that most of us are unaware of.

John Cort reminded us of the posters and hoardings of a muscular macho Vivekananda in Gujarat as recently as this year, used as props by the BJP. Consistent with this, Adam Bowled noted, is a report in the Hindustan Times “that the BJP government in Haryana has appointed Dinanath Batra to guide a committee of educationists in Haryana. The accompanying photo shows Dinanath Batra in an (his?) office with a statue of Vivekananda in the foreground.” http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rss-ideologue-dinanath-batra-to-guide-haryana-on-education/article1-1285430.aspx

Robert Zydenbos suggested we look at “an in-depth chapter on Vivekananda” in Hans-Joachim Klimkeit's _Der politische Hinduismus_ (Harrassowitz, 1981), which, Robert says, “is still the standard work in German on the subject.” Robert also suggests that Vivekananda’s appearance at the Chicago Parliament of Religions in 1893 has been overplayed by Hindu nationalists, at least from the European perspective. OK, go ahead, blame America :-)

I agree with Pankaj Jain and everyone else that it’s not a good idea for scholars to reduce Gandhi or Vivekananda to any political agenda. Jeff Long emphasizes this point: “We need to be careful to distinguish between these uses and the self-understandings of these figures in their respective contexts.” Nevertheless, such noble aspirations have not prevented these appropriations from becoming a regular feature of political practice in India. I agree that the search for a new indigenous hermeneutic and epistemology is a worthy endeavor, but the primary thrust of the efforts I have encountered are preoccupied with rejectionist discourse coupled with the use of highly selective evidence with which to build their theories, compounded with insufficient deep knowledge of both texts and the history of intellectual debate in India (for the latter, see the vigorous and readable work of Larry McCrea).

Several people on and off-list brought to my attention Jyotimaya Sharma’s recent book A Restatement of Religion: Swami Vivekananda and the Making of Hindu Nationalism (Yale University Press, 2013). but James Madaio does not believe that Sharma has adequately addressed how the right has “diachronically appropriated figures like Vivekananda into their rhetoric and 'mediascapes',” even as he demythologizes Vivekananda and neo-Vedantic inclusivism. Madaio notes, perceptively: “It does not seem a coincidence that the (often impassioned) issue of who Vivekananda was is anachronistically caught up in the right's (selective) appropriation of him and, in turn, the left's intellectual critique.”

Jon Keune mentioned the common ground between Gandhi and Hindutva. For this, see Arundhati Roy's introduction to the annotated edition of Ambedkar's annihilation of caste:

http://www.amazon.com/Annihilation-Caste-Annotated-B-R-Ambedkar/dp/1781688311/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415811796&sr=1-1&keywords=arundhati+roy+ambedkar

Also: http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Need-AmbedkarNow-Urgently/289691

Amod Lele refers us to his master's thesis on the rise of state-sponsored Hindutva with Singapore's Confucian experiments:https://bu.digication.com/amod_lele/International_development

and his article, "State Hindutva and Singapore Confucianism as responses to the decline of the welfare state,” in Asian Studies Review 28 (2004): 267-82.

Other sources that list members noted were:

Joe Alter’s Gandhi’s Body and his many works on yoga and Indian masculinity;

chapters 3 4 of Peter van der Veer’s Imperial Encounters, in which he discusses Vivekananda’s rejection of muscular Christianity even if muscular Hinduism developed later;

Arafaat Valiani’s work on Gandhi, masculinity, and performative politics in Gujarat, Militant Publics in India: Physical Culture and Violence in the Making of a Modern Polity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011);

Anup Kumar points out that in spite of the high profile of the hard edge of Hindu nationalism, most Hindus still identify with a softer, gentler Hinduism, and that “we are dealing with our own cognitive dissonance in face of the renewed focus on Gandhi by the BJP.” Similarly, Raymond Williams reminds us that in the early decades of Indian immigration to the U.S., Vivekananda was extolled as the Indian spiritual exemplar countering western materialism. How times have changed!!

Finally, and most recently, this from the NYTimes a few days ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/a-fighter-for-religious-tolerance.html?mabReward=RI%3A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

Rajiv's reply to this was thus:

• Fred Smith is well known in Hinduism studies, and I have had many dealings with him and his students/cabal over 2 decades. I will give some background so readers have a context for what he says above. (This perspective I can offer is an example of "getting out of my comfort zone" numerous times.)
• His position above is what Indra's Net criticizes as the Neo-Hinduism theory of Hinduism - i.e. looking for evidence to depict modern Hinduism as a political fabrication by Vivekananda, Gandhi, etc. to unite Indians against Brits, which later fell into the hands of the Hindutva to use against Muslims minorities.
• If he were a good scholar, he would refer to my book and its counter arguments, and address my issues directly. But he cannot face that, so he simply ignores IN. He mentions various experts who I have already dealt with and criticized. So he gives a one sided view.
• Robert Zydenbos, Gwilym Beckerlegge, Mark Singleton, Ellen Goldberg, Amod Lele - these persons he cites are especially nasty anti-Hindu persons I have dealt with before.
• Pankaj Jain (named by him) was my follower/supporter for years; told me he got inspired by my work to leave IT and enter a career in Hinduism studies; got my help to enter Columhia U's MA program; got much mentoring my to understand the issues. But once he went for his PhD to Univ. of Iowa, where Fred Smith rules, he flipped sides completely - I was to be avoided in order to suck up to Smith cohorts. Upon entering the job market as a junior prof, he realized he was a nobody; so he started lobbying with the Hindu diaspora for support to boost his career. Many knew him from the earlier days, and stayed away, seeing him  as untrustworthy. But several went around campaigning for him seeing him as a goody-goody face to help us. Eventually most of these supporters also left him, and now he is sitting in a corner of the kurukshetra with nothing important to say. Neither here nor there - inconsequential.
• Pankaj and Jeff Long are cited by Smith to make it seem he has also mentioned the "Hindu side" and hence he is balanced. But neither is strong enough or creative enough, so they are "useful" to serve in this role.
• On Jeff Long, I refer you to three urls where we had prior discussions on him, right here:
• http://beingdifferentforum. blogspot.in/2013/08/did- jeffrey-long-out-rajiv- malhotras.html
• http://beingdifferentforum. blogspot.in/2014/04/the-role- of-prophets-in-judaism-and. html
• http://beingdifferentforum. blogspot.in/2013/09/bhagavad- gita-is-not-bible-of-india. html
• Another product of U of Iowa Fred Smith was Makarand Paranjape, a prof of English at JNU who likes to presents a pro-Hindu tilt. He has had to dance between working w me and appeasing his academic sponsor Fred Smith. He has agonized over this, at times telling me that his open association with me has cost his standing with them, and they stopped inviting him every summer to give lectures in USA like they used to. That's what this "intellectual freedom" amounts to. In any case, Makarand has been largely on the sidelines of important debates for the past decade, and writes relatively non-controversial stuff. This despite the fact that his mentor at JNU was Kapil Kapoor, a no-nonsense, fiery speaker solidly on our side.
• Fred Smith has crisscrossed both sides of Hinduism, presenting himself as insider or outsider depending on what best suits his interest in a given situation. He is now translating the last 5 vols of Mahabharata for the Univ of Chicago - this is planned to become the international standard on Mahabharata. (Its initial volumes defined the lens: [kshatriya] was translated as "feudal lord" and shudra as "slave". The editor James L. Fitzgerald said the text should be seen as "God's genocide". You get the picture. )

To join the discussion, please sign up on the yahoogroups site and follow the thread here.

Now on the subject of Swami Vivekananda who is the subject of much study as shown above, here's a paper by Rajiv Malhotra which was published in the official RK Mission book commemorating his 150th anniversary and released by the President of India.

There are multiple posts in the Rajiv Malhotra yahoogroups forum where practicing Hindus share relevant  and useful points of view on Swami Vivekananda's message from a dharmic perspective.

Is ISKCON being digested into Judeo-Christianity?

This thread deals with the concept of digestion explained in the book Being Different. The importance of this work is evident by the fact that we keep returning to its fundamental concepts to explain events that are happening around us. It would be beneficial to first read this prior post that summarizes all previous threads on digestion.

The discussion below was set in motion by Rajiv posting this link regarding the attempt at digestion taking place within an ISKCON formation in the USA.

Rajiv stated:

This trend is how uturns and digestions work. The person wants to have it both ways. He also wants to cater to "mainstream white americans" who are Judeo-Christians.

What is outside their comfort zone must be removed. Done in the name of "going mainstream". Many confused Hindus support this.

Krishna responded:

I went to the source and read about Howard Renick, a PhD from Harvard has used Hindus and his academic background wisely to make a claim that he is the expert in Vaishnavitism. I make this observation based on a research publication he wrote and is available in one of the links.

Second, this evangelism part is very disturbing. It is clear case of totally assimilating into Western ethos. Food, clothing, music and the methods of preaching the religion is going to change a lot. Obviously, within few years it will become the fastest growing / evangelizing Hindu religion of the West.

Since they are also building a massive temple in the suburbs of Kolkota, we have other issues coming up. Ownership of ISKCON and the role of Hindus in the organizational set up now and in the future. Indians made enormous contribution and sacrifice towards the success of the project. 

Maria had this to say about ISKCON:

ISKCON in the West and by Westerners is already pervaded by western ethos. I would say it has been since its very beginning. Now they are only taking it a step further.

ISKCON in the west is divided into two parts, one, the smallest, consider themselves Hindu. They would have more to do with a hindu outlook of the world, in which respect towards all the paramparas and towards all deities is there. But I am sorry to say that this is the tiny minority. The vast majority have only replaced the western word and meaning of "God" by "Krishna" as a monotheistic monolitic Unique Supreme, distorting the sacred scriptures to the extent of saying that Bhagavan Vishnu is an avatar of Shri Krishna, for example.
 A real hindu as far as my understanding reaches, would revere all deities as different aspects of the Ultimate Divine, even having their own istha devatha, and would never try to impose their view on others. With westerners hare krishnas, it is exactly the opposite of what they do, regarding all Devatas as "minor gods" and following their own exclusivist view on Krishna. 

Tushar elaborated on the ideologies of ISKCON as he saw it. he says:

I have read ISKCON books and they are all translations and purports by Srila Prabhupada who is very much an Indian Guru.

All these translations and purports are preserved and unedited. So, I feel there is no distortion of scriptures because his purports are very clear and unambiguous.

Besides, in all Vaishnav schools,  (Four sampradayas, viz, Rudra, Gaudiya, Sri, Nimbarka), it is believed that Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna and not otherwise. Hence, I feel that ISKCON believing that Vishnu is an avatar of Krishna is justified, since ISKCON is also one of the Vaishnava schools.

Besides, there are several evidences in Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam to support the above statement.

Also, ISKCON believing that all other Gods are smaller Gods(Devtas) is also supported in Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam and several other scriptures. Infact, worship of Devtas instead of worship of Krishna is discouraged in Bhagavad Gita, if not prohibited.

I tend to agree that there might be changes in the way the Hare Krishnas live to adapt to the environment in  which they are located. However, I am not sure of any U-turn happening.

At this point Rajiv Malhotra said that the disagreement that many people felt with ISKCON was due to the Vaishnava texts that they followed. He also said that his next book would deal with some of these difference under the head of "Level 2 access to Ishta-devata". Rajiv also added that the three main traditions viz Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shakta with their numerous sub-systems did not agree with each other on many things. He however said, it was his endeavour to delve deeper than the common understanding to arrive at the foundational unity which would help establish their mutual respect.

Chittaranjan elaborates on what he sees as the ISKCON ideology

A real hindu as far as my understanding reaches, would revere all deities as different aspects of the Ultimate Divine, even having their own istha devatha, and would never try to impose their view on others.  With westerners hare krishnas, it is exactly the opposite of what they do, regarding all Devatas as "minor gods" and following their own exclusivist view on Krishna. 

The concept of Vishnu being Supreme and the other gods being subservient to Vishnu comes from the philosophy of Madhvacharya's Dvaita Vedanta. This kind of hierarchy of the gods is known in Dvaita Vedanta as Deva Taratamya. The Gaudiya tradition (to which ISKCON belongs) borrows the concept of Deva Taratamya from Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta but replaces Vishnu as the Supreme with Krishna (and indeed regards Krishna in a peculiar way as higher than even Vishnu). 

I agree with you though when you say that ISKCON in the West is pervaded by the Western ethos; but the concept of Krishna being Supreme and other gods being lower in the hierarchy actually comes from the Indian Gaudiya sampradaya itself.

Sant had sent the original link that Rajiv had posted, to a concerned official at ISKCON and what follows is a reply from the ISKCON official [Reproduced as is here]

Dear Sant,

Namaste. Hare Krishna.

Thank you for sending me the article, "Hare Krishna Gets Evangelical”, from the Washington Post. I would like to make a few comments. 

First, the opinions expressed in this article do not represent the official position of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, or ISKCON. You will notice that only a few persons were quoted in the article, some of whom are not even ISKCON members. 

In particular, the statements minimizing Indian culture and its importance to the Hare Krishna society do not reflect the policies of ISKCON. 

I am the Minister of Communications and Chairman of ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission, and I don’t agree with much of this article. The majority of ISKCON members and leaders would disagree strongly with many of the opinions presented therein.

But, ISKCON is a large international organization and there are differences of viewpoint within our society. Just as America has diversity and India has diversity, so does ISKCON. 

And, as is often the case, the media is attracted to minority opinions and controversial statements, and not always interested in understanding or presenting a balanced perspective. 

Anyone who has visited an ISKCON temple anywhere in the world knows our temples are filled with people—native and Indian born—wearing traditional Vaishnava Hindu dress, singing Sanskrit and Bengali bhajans, and serving Deities of Radha-Krishna, Sita-Rama, and Sri Caitanya at one of the highest standards of traditional worship found in the world. 

It is interesting too, that even the photographs in the article show men and women of ISKCON dressed in dhotis and saris and wearing traditional Vaishnava tilak on their foreheads. Something that few people outside ISKCON and outside India still do—at least on a regular basis.

I write today from Russia. This very morning I attended an ISKCON temple with nearly one hundred Russian-born Hare Krishna devotees. All chant the maha-mantra daily, all study Bhagavad-gita, all are strict vegetarians, all aspire to visit India to worship in Vrindavan, Tirupati, and other holy places—and most were dressed in traditional Indian/Vedic dress. 

ISKCON’s connection and roots in Indian culture are solid. Yet, as a global Vaishnava society that is attracting millions of people to practice bhakti-yoga and give their lives to Lord Krishna, it is natural that some ISKCON members will not adhere to traditional Indian style of dress or culture. That type of diversity is natural in the free expression of what is today a global religious society. 

That said, let us remember that knowledgeable people give great credit to ISKCON as one of the pre-eminent organizations transmitting the core principles, traditions and culture of sanatan-dharma all over the world.

Thank you.

Anuttama Dasa

International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

Chairman, Governing Body Commission, and

Minister of International Communications

Rajiv, in response to the above mail had this to say:

My own experience with the few ISKCON leaders I know agrees with this post. 

One of our best supporters has been Jagannath Priya ji in Mumbai who is ISKCON leader. Others of ISKCON in Mumbai have also helped me and are firmly embedded in Hinduism along with its full Indian cultural context. They have hosted me, gone around out of their way helping me in numerous concrete ways and continue to do so. They are also solid Indian patriots.

At the same time, the key factors differentiating ISKCON from most other major movements today is that each ISKCON group is separately incorporated and they do not report to one central headquarters. I am told there is a central committee but its unclear how much authority it can assert. Those organizations with a living guru can hold together and this was the case while Prabhupada was alive. But after he left some of the multiple ISKCON groups started wandering away in their own directions. 

One of the worst digesters of ISKCON into Judeo-Christianity is the head of the Center for Hindu Studies at Oxford. Since I have examined his positions in particular I can support my claim. There was also a major paper written by some other western leader in ISKCON who wrote about how its tenets can and should be digested into Judaism.

So it seems the western and Indian leaders and groups within ISKCON are going in different directions. I would not paint all of ISKCON with one brush and make it look homogeneous.

I would like to invite JP ji for his perspective because as an insider of ISKCON and also a solid Hindu, his perspective is important. 

Sai went on to explore the Centre for Hindu Studies at Oxford after Rajiv mentioned about them in his response above. Sai came up with this observation:

This the faculty and admin page for OCHS, I dont see even one 'Indian born but UK resident' (or) 'UK born Indian' in this page. Perfect atmosphere to take U-Turns. How can some institute of such repute not employ a native of Indian origin in the admin group for Hindu studies? Very organized inculturation. 

This is what S. Rishi Das, Director, OCHS has to say about his ISKCON involvement.

Joining a Hindu movement in the Ireland of his time did not feel like a courageous act for Rishi Das. Of his first encounters with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) he said:

They were speaking Christianity but not calling it that. I knew I had met the people I was to practice with. My desire was to be a Christian. I had to struggle with the fact that I found it being practised to the highest standard by non-Christians.^[39]

Christianity practiced by non-Christians??? Can he not draw lines between Nicene creed and Gaudiya Vaishnavism??? 

Sai's mail triggered reflection by Dushyant again on how ISKCON viewed itself. In his response below he elaborates on how the need to preach/evangelize, enshrined in the views of ISKCON made it a prime target for digestion/inculturation:

In the history of ISKCON, the need to preach to everyone (West included) has existed since the time of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda (Guru of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON). Under British rule, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura had also sent few of his follower Sadhus to the Europe but did not receive much of a success to further their mission.

This zeal of preaching to the west was, unfortunately, never met by a same amount of rigorous efforts to understand the Western Point of view (Purva-Paksha). Because of their virtually non-existing Purva-Paksha (but firmly established in Gaudiya Vaishnavism) ISKCON, eventually, adopted to the evangelical methods of preaching to the Western People (and also to the Indians). 

The evangelical preaching methods brought with them the Western categories and ISKCON had to mold/dilute (or digest) it's various cultural and societal Indian ethnic stands according to the Western cultures where they were operating. On the other hand, in order to prove more Indian, ISKCON insisted on the lifestyle of Indian culture such as Sarees, Dhoti-Kurtas, Tilak, exclusively Indian cuisines to offer bhoga to Krishna etc. The lifestyle did provided ISKCON an Indian appearance but without a solid Purva-Paksha (in comparative religious studies) and hence the preaching requirements in the West slowly digested Gaudiya Vaishnava categories.

As it is also mentioned in this thread (and I personally know about it) that, although, ISKCON do have a Governing Body Commision, it does not dictate the view of an individual follower; moreover each Temple is an independent center. Followers who come from Abrahamic backgrounds, bring with them their own cultural categories of defining things and usually, simply, replace their Abrahamic philosophies with the Gaudiya Vaishnava one. 

For example, in the US their views on sex and marriage are the same as the hardcore Christian ones. Again as example, their views on euthanasia, abortion, social development etc. are same as the Church's stand on the issues. Although, formulated with in the Western categories itself, their opposition of scientific point of views (especially on Evolution and Origins of the Universe) is so zealous and passionate that it reminds me of persistent Christians who would knock on my door twice a week to deliver the "good news" (who are also passionately against any opposing views than their own).

As a historical trait within the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and sampradayas of presenting other devi-devatas as subordinate and representatives of Krishna; ISKCON have extended this privilege to Jesus and Muhammad too (who are accepted as the messengers of "God" or "Krishna" and, as ISKCON says, who taught according to time, place and circumstances; which is itself an Indic idea). One can confirm this by talking to any ISKCON devotee about their stand on Jesus and Muhammad. 

On an extreme note, in order to preach in the West, you may find few of the devotees describing the early Christians as early Western Devotees of supreme God Krishna (because Jesus is suppose to be a messenger of God/Krishna). It is also accepted that Jesus and Muhammad are the "Jagad-Gurus," although they do insist that the "Jagad-Gurus" are needed to be understood through a "Mahanta-Guru" (a living spiritual masters) to remove the distortions in order to follow Jesus' or Muhammad's "original teachings." (for reference please see translation by the "Rays of The Harmonist" team from Śrīla Prabhupādera Upadeśāmṛta)

In conclusion, I agree, that, ISKCON is not a monotonous culture and is quite diverse. As also mentioned by Rajivji that the Indian devotees in India (and many NRIs) are firmly Hindus and patriots. On the other hand, many Western and NRI ISKCON devotees shy and shun away from the word Hindu (even in their preaching) and do describe themselves as not-Hindus but "Hare Krsnas".

Dushyant further goes on to analyze why many westerners eventually leave the ISKCON movement. His analysis is represented here. He starts with a line from Sai Kiran's mail in the thread:

"...I found it (Christianity) being practised to the highest standard by non-Christians." 

That's how ISKCON presents itself in order to preach, that, it is a some sort of fulfillment of Christianity and Islam. ISKCON maintains that a person can be simultaneously Christian/Muslim and can also be a Hare Krsna through chanting Hare Krishna mantra (notice that they don't say that the person can be a Hindu but Hare Krsna). 

Although they don't realize that in Islam and Christianity you cannot maintain dual membership and because of that rigidity a person has a greater pull towards Abrahamic religions. A big number of ISKCON devotees eventually leave it after years of practise. There are many examples in ISKCON where people left it and retained their native religions. These people, then, criticize ISKCON and also the Hindu practices and philosophies. 

Shaas, another forum member feels that while it is perfectly acceptable to accord preferential status for one's Ishta devata, ISKCON calling Gods other than Vishnu or Krishna as demi-gods is very un-Hindu like and makes the formation itself very evangelical.

Jagannath ji from ISKCON replied as Rajiv requested him to and he had many things to say on the issue:

We need to first understand the issue with its respective context. This has been one of the most profound contributions by Rajiv ji  in Dharma perspectives- Purvapaksha and Contextual understanding of Dharma.

Hence, before I present my views I wish to explain a brief history of how ISKCON was setup and that will give clarity in this issue. In 1965 at the age of 70, when Srila Prabhupada first went to the US he was discouraged by everyone from India and US, including his own Godbrothers. He had NO ONE to start his movement. He began by spending time doing kirtans under a tree in downtown Newyork, living by begging etc. Hippies, homeless, druggists etc only were the first audience. Prabhupada converted “these hippies” to follow highest standards of vaishnavism. Some became leaders, some Sannyasis too who later opened temples all over the world, and spread the teachings of Gita and Bhagwatam globally. Later many others joined. Many of these western leaders/followers of ISKCON were well versed with Gita, Bhagwatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita, and also very sincere individual practitioners, but did not understand nor had any “experience” of the overall Vedic culture, its diversity and its application. And many don’t understand even now. Many westerners (not all) of ISKCON, because they lack a personal exposure and experiences of Vedic lifestyle and culture, they tend to accept only as much as was told to them by their specific guru or teacher and reject everything else. Yet when they do/did it, they follow it in their earlier evangelical Christian and Muslim psyche – Im the best and everyone else is inferior. So when they learn about Krishna, that’s how they apply it. So that creates a sense of fanaticism in some too. Some assume that they have a mandate to lead and steer based on little knowledge in some scriptures. Some Indians too think that way.

Unfortunately nowadays Indians themselves do not understand. I must say, before Rajiv ji brought out perspectives many too dint understand how to “position” ourselves clearly on Dharmic views, and Im sure many in the forum would agree to this. In “all” my interactions so far with various very big “leaders” of various Hindu religious and social organisations, books like BD and IN are an eye opener. This shows how much awareness is needed in these subjects. Hence to expect everyone to be born or be aware of such mature perspectives is absurd. We need to collectively work to push these concepts. 

...I feel that to truly understand the word "diversity" one needs to travel within India, not just at tourist places or airports, but by interacting with local temples, local people etc where you can see a vibrant diversity in each aspect of Dharma. Mind boggling diversity amongst same streams of Shaivites, Smartas, Vaishnavites can be seen all across India. 

I tend to agree with Anuttam’s mail. ISKCON is a highly diverse organization, highly decentralized and very different style of governing. Some are inspired by ISKCON, they split later but maintain standards, some split and deviate…, some are well intentioned but less informed, all look the same externally. Yet ISKCON is also one of the very few organisations with very high standards in terms of Eating habits, Sadhana, Deity worship, Pilgrimages, Kirtans, etc. But it certainly isn’t perfect in the Absolute sense.  Having said this, I dont expect many in ISKCON, especially westerners to understand this view due to their limited exposure on this subject. That doesnt provide an excuse though.

From my honest view, it needs more improvement, and lots and lots of it, than what can be see from outside. But there are very few organisations who even come close to what ISKCON has achieved so far globally and the rigorous effort it continues to put to promote certain basic tenets of Sanatan Dharma, popularly known as Hinduism.

Hence, it is important to see that the various sampradayas of Hinduism strive to find the intrinsic foundational unity that binds them with mutual respect and do a thorough purva paksha on those trying to digest them. It is only when this is done that Hindus can avoid the far too easy traps that they fall into allowing non Dharmic faiths to inculturate and eventually digest them. Indra's Net, Rajiv's book dealing with the open architecture nature of Dharmic faiths, provides defense mechanisms for Dharmics to counter such attempts from history-centric Abrahamic faiths.