Question: Why are you targeting Sheldon Pollock personally, i.e. one man?

An important point that we want people to understand. Please read the following FAQ closely. Also read the comment by Sonal Mansingh.

Question: Why are you targeting Sheldon Pollock personally (i.e. one man)?

Answer: We are never targeting anyone personally, but critiquing and responding to their ideas. We see these ideas as a serious school of thought and not as one person’s. Before choosing a target for purva-paksha and uttara-paksha, one must ask the following kinds of questions:

·         What is the specific harm being caused to us by a given target, which we hope to undermine?

·         What further high-value targets become within our range once we have successfully engaged this target?

·         What does our team gain through this fight, in terms of learning new sophisticated methods?

·         What would be the demoralizing effect on the opponent’s supporters, and how would this boost the morale of our support base?

·         How did our tradition respond to similar situations?

Such an inquiry led to the following position regarding the above question.

1.      Following the purva-paksha system:

a.      The purva/uttara paksha system of argumentation on behalf of one’s tradition requires naming the opponent, citing his/her specific works and then giving a sound, logical critique. It is not done by sweeping generalizations of opponents. It is essentially a “case studies” method in which specific instances of differences get argued with specific opponents (similar in some ways to the famous Harvard business school case studies approach). While a general treatise with critique can be ignored, a direct critique of named opponents who have stature is non-ignorable, which is important.

b.      There is a difference between doing a purva-paksha and developing a new shastra/siddhanta on a given subject. Before a new shastra can emerge, one must first clear the table of existing theories by doing specific purva-paksha on the major ones. This is how the system of knowledge continually renews and refreshes itself. Ignoring the opponent was not seen as a worthy thing.

c.       The target should be a leader representing an important school of thought, one with lineage, followers and traction. In other words, we like to critique an entire ecosystem.

2.      Harm being caused that we must remedy: Sheldon Pollock is not just an individual but also the leaders of an important school of thought causing the following problems that are very serious, concrete and immediate:

a.      Harmful content and substance: There are vast and deep problems with Pollock’s positions, and they often remain camouflaged beneath his surface praise and emotional appeals. The book, The Battle For Sanskrit (TBFS), started exposing these. The first Swadeshi Indology conference (SI-1) validated these concerns and added more substance to the criticisms. The next conference is going to take this criticism to a much higher level. For specific issues with his scholarship, the reader is referred to TBFS and the SI-1 web site. But as a sample, he alleges that: (1) the Sanskrit tradition from its beginning has been socially oppressive, (2) shastras by design have prevented creative thinking, (3) Sanskrit texts contained toxins that influenced the Nazis to commit the holocaust, (4) the Ramayana contains seeds of violence and this has been provoked against Muslims, (5), mimamsa was developed in response to Buddhism, as a way to codify biases, (6) rasa entered late in the tradition, and even later it was reinterpreted (by Rupa Goswami) to introduce sacredness, (7) kavya has from the beginning been a device for kings’ projection of power in an aesthetic manner; and so on.

b.      Hijacking Sringeri: Prior to TBFS, he already had provisional commitment from Sringeri mattha to set up Adi Shankara Chairs in US Ivy Leagues, with Pollock himself in charge of selecting and directing the academic programs.

c.       Hinduphobic parampara: He has trained and influenced one of the largest and most influential group of students and peers. His importance through his writings is well attested by the Western academic establishment. These followers include many sepoy scholars/journalists whose works are filled with venom against Hinduism. Many who wonder “why bother critiquing Pollock?” must wake up and discover that many individuals they are fighting are trained by him and/or operating under his ideological influence. Rather than fighting isolated instances, we must get to the roots of the system that produces such instances.

d.      Official recognition & infiltration: His followers have infiltrated the official establishments of higher learning, media and education, and he has received official awards. This has made his positions officially endorsed in India. Hence they need to be examined closely and evaluated objectively.

e.      Murty Classics Library: A direct and immediate consequence of TBFS was a major petition against the MCLI, which triggered response and counter-response from both sides. This brought to the surface the previously hidden faces of Pollockism. In fact, the recent Vande Mantram Library initiative is an example of a direct result of the awareness created by TBFS.

3.      Knowledge being acquired by our scholars and further purva-paksha opportunities:

a.      Because very few of our traditional scholars have done purva-paksha on the latest Western Indology, this work has required them to learn about many areas of Western thought, research methodologies and institutional mechanisms. Some of these insights may help us upgrade our competitiveness in the global discourse. This knowledge better equips us to encounter with many other Western schools besides just Pollock, from a much deeper level than our scholars have done in the past.

b.      Subsequent purva-paksha targets under consideration include: Romila Tnapar, Wendy Doniger, Western(ized) feminists, to name a few. In each case, we wish to adopt a focused and sharply targeted approach in order to maximize the impact on the ground.

4.      Psychological warfare:

a.      By toppling the leader of a school, the followers of that school get demoralized. New recruits into their program become harder to attract. This already happened to other intellectual leaders we targeted in the past.

b.      Simultaneously, we are witnessing a boost to the self-confidence of our young scholars. They are becoming fearless and better skilled at debating in open forums.

c.       An important quality to cultivate is being non-ignorable. This cannot be achieved by criticizing dead scholars (who will not talk back), dead empires, marginal players, or over abstracted and over-generalized opposing views. To trigger lively debate that can transform the discourse requires one to name names, be direct and sharp – precisely the qualities exhibited in our tradition of debates in the past.

5.      Waking up some tamasic, lazy and pompous “insiders”:

a.      It is our experience that many “insider” scholars, including and especially some with big reputations and high society profiles, are pathetically out of touch with the latest scholarship, lazy to do any new reading in a serious manner, and even deficient in analytical/debating experience to engage Westerns with confidence. Some of them are also sold out through various forms of patronage. Hence they tend to be cynical about such attempts as the Swadeshi Indology movement where hard work and original, non-emotional scholarship is being required for membership.

b.      The strategy adopted by SI is to welcome all established scholars on the terms of rigor and objectivity, rather than mental blockages or emotions. Many senior scholars are already solidly in the SI movement and their leadership is given paramount importance.

c.       The good news is that we find the new, young scholars to be very enthusiastic and competent in this pursuit. This fits well with our goal to develop next generation specialized teams of scholars with different kinds of subject-matter expertise.

d.      The old-school scholars who did not make much impact but spent their energies traveling for events and enjoying the limelight, now feel threatened by a new stock of scholars that are bypassing them. There is also blatant jealousy on display at times. We do not want our scholars to get discouraged by this, and one purpose of writing this is to prepare them for such cynicisms.

Now, here is some additional context.

• When I was researching on Pollock in 2015, I went around many senior scholars in India for leads, help, sources, etc. Did not want to rediscover what was already known to our people.
• Result: Very disappointing. Hardly any serious work had been or was being done, little interest to get off their rear ends and work hard, lots of bombast/ego, pride, emotions, etc. 
• But not surprised because i have been through this inertia in India for 25 years on various topics.
• Basically our "scholars" want to get maximize personal benefit with minimum effort/investment of their own.
• Case study: One retired Delhi U prof who is well known as natya shatra "expert" (though scantily published) wanted to save himself the effort of reading Pollock. So he felt that giving me enough chai and a samosa at India Int'l Center cafeteria would allow him to pick my brain while he and his wife would sit and take notes. This would let him beat me by getting a quick blog out of his own. Serious books are unnecessary as per this lot, because it is too much effort. Result is that the western Indologists call the shots when it comes to prescribing books in colleges worldwide even though the subject is Indology.
• I told him he would have to wait for my book to come out first, as leaking out the critical research and responses by me would not be appropriate. In the end he and his wife gave up trying. 
• Within a couple of weeks from this "samosa-based research" attempt, his article suddenly appeared in IndiaFacts attacking Pollock and Rohan Murthy. Note that when I met and told him about Pollock, he had only hesard about him tangentially and lacked even the basic idea of what Pollock's work or controversy were about. Now he was writing like an overnight "expert". However, as expected, there was no substance in his article - merely emotional allegations based on how everything wasgenerally wrong with the West. So no need to spend effort reading Pollock.
• Fast forward several months. My tbfs book comes out, gets rave reviews by top Sanskrit scholars in India, there are 25 events, lots of awareness. This man wants to ignore all this material because it is overwhelming to him. He now wants to make it seem that it was unimportant (because he could/did nothing about the topic).
• Next comes a big surprise. Last week there was some meeting in Delhi to create a rival to Murthy Classics Library - an initiative inspired by tbfs and the subsequent petition against MCLI. One of the speakers presents a summary of the Swadeshi Indology movement. Guess who is the top cynic speaking out against "conferences targeting Pollock?" Its our DU friend who last year was desperate to get masala on Pollock so he could put out a very rapid article critical of Pollock. Contradicting his own previous desires/article, last week he argued: we must not attack one man's work. He gives every reason not to be so focused in conferences. 
• Of course, our team of three SI scholars argued back and explained the importance of specialized. focused analyses.

In light of this, I decided we must do a FAQ on why we targeted Pollock per se, not personally but as a school of Indology. 

The link above takes you to a summary of the importance of specializing. Some of it is taken from TBFS.

I hope serious scholars will take the time and study it. This issue is important for us to debate. As I noted in this attachment, Indian scholarly events are too unproductive, more like flea markets with substandard speakers regurgitating their same old material for many years.

As you can see, so much of our fight is internal, with our own people.

regards,

rajiv

Smt. Sonal Mansingh, who is a famous performer and expert on Indian Nritya/Natya responds:
Rajiv
Apropos ur 28th August mail: this Naatya Shastra 'scholar' has threatened to expose classical dancers who according to him,  know nothing abt it. He is more aggressive now than before having been brought as Exe Trustee of most prestigious Govt cultural organisation. In any case, Pompous pretentiousness is the hallmark of most scholars & academicians, Indian or non-Indian. Sincerely
Sonal Mansingh

Rajiv: Sonal ji, I have always considered the performers (and you are among the foremost of this era) as our exemplars, not the cynical bookworms sitting on the sideline passing comments...
 

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

Petitions are alright but much more is needed

I saw a petition by a group of pro-Hindu scholars giving their critique of the leftists. I signed it even though I was not asked to be involved in drafting it or even made aware of it ahead of time. But I also posted the following comment:

"I have spent the past 25 years on a full-time basis to pursue this research and writing that would correct our history. Scholars on our wavelength need to come together not just in petitions, but also in the kurukshetra supporting those among us who fight the tough battles with their necks sticking out, and without any official support or protection."

In private emails I explained that it is not enough to complain in the abstract about "those people". Why have our people not produced book-length purva-paksha on "those leftists" one by one? There is little game-changing impact long term by merely putting out short pieces that have a limited shelf life. Take the top few scholars on the other side, and each deserves a comprehensive response point by point. Each such book ought to be designed to ignite a debate on that particular scholar's work and provide ammunition for our side. Why is this not being done by more scholars?

'Invading the Sacred' did this type of analysis, and Vishal has followed up with a subsequent one of his own. BI, IN and my forthcoming book each takes on a mighty opponent cabal and gives my responses in considerable detail. Shourie did this in his book 'Eminent Historians' - he took a few top Indian historians by name, and went through their writings in detail, quoting specific issues and giving his responses. Why have more Hindu scholars not done this? 

To topple a hegemonic discourse that has become established and robust, one must do heavy lifting scholarship. This is very hard work, requires personal risk and sacrifice. It cannot be muddled up with political correctness or "feeling good". The kurukshetra involved very heavy weaponry and dont go to battle with small arms.

On top of this, when someone like me does this kind of work, I find myself alone and often sidelined rather than supported. Why is that? Instead, people who ought to support me bring me "homework" to do this or that task, as if I am a Google-driven drone waiting to get commands I must respond to.

Worst of all, there are isolated camps of Hindu scholars each doing their own thing, often excluding each other. There are both individual rivalries as well as certain institutions that have a policy of excluding those who are not formal members of their "group-think" apparatus.

A prominent BJP leader (anonymous) spoke with me yesterday that he has examined how the Congress over the past 50 years evolved and mastered a complex and sophisticated mechanism to nurture intellectuals on their side. They even supported writers who are not officially affiliated with them, but whose ideology is broadly aligned. They had multiple forums, platforms and mechanisms, some official but many unofficial, to create a large army of intellectual kshatriyas on their side. He said that when he tried explaining this to his party, there was no appreciation for such a need, much less any commitment to do this. It seems our people want the result and output, but are not investing in the trees that bear such fruits.

He also pointed out that Congress not only tolerated dissent by free thinking intellectuals, but in fact actively encouraged many views just to create a vibrant atmosphere (or at least make it seem so). A non-researcher/writer is never respected as a leader by others who are solid researchers. Its like only a medical doctor can lead a medical establishment, only a military man can lead an army. Appointing political ideologues to run intellectual movements is what is being tried again and again, but this always fails.

So a solid purva-paksha of the leftist side must also examine their formal and informal institutional mechanisms. This is much harder work than making a few speeches, blogs and petitions.

Also, I find some of the "activists" involved in our movements to be working on both sides. One of them saw me at a literary fest last year, and walked away because various leftist scholars were present in the lounge. Later, he approached me very privately when nobody was watching, and apologized. He said he did not want to "alienate the mainstream" by seeming "controversial". I find this disgusting, and told him to get lost. Another similar person I had approached this past summer when I was being unfairly accused, and he wrote back saying that "it is not my style to get involved in public", but that privately in his heart he was with me. This is hypocrisy and duplicity. Yet such persons line up to be counted as pro-Hindu activists when it suits their interest. Many are merely mercenaries looking for the latest travel sponsorship or other form of patronage. In this respect they are the same as the leftists - opportunism taking priority.

I propose the following principles as discussion points to bring our intellectual voices together in a constructive manner:

1. There should be a Hindu Literary Festival (maybe with a better name) held annually, where all pro-Hindu scholars (and some purva-pakshins we have criticized) get invited. Nobody with serious credentials as a writer should be excluded. Note that "literary" means these ought to be producers of knowledge in extensive written works, not celebrities, netas, speech-makers, or old guard who are not active producers now. A few celebrity/neta names are ok to include so as to attract media attention, but not too many. This line of work should become professionalized and not some loose hobby to "feel good".
2. The core home team must consist of researchers and writers with a proven track record. Then come bloggers and mouse-clicking activists, and others in the parade. But dont let this latter category upstage the researchers-writers, because any intellectual movement must be founded on tough scholarship and not on self-serving noise-making.
3. Like NATO in military and the leftist scholars in the intellectual battlefield, there must be a pact that an attack on any one in the core team is an attack against all. Everyone must be required to stick their necks out and fight back. Every army worth its salt has a policy not to leave a wounded soldier behind, no matter what the cost to protect him. Otherwise morale would be low and everyone would be risk averse, fearing that if he got hit then his own cohorts will abandon him. An army that abandons its own wounded will surely lose. I felt like an abandoned wounded soldier last summer when I had to call fellow Hindu writers and almost beg for support. There was no standing support system like the leftists have. When I fight at great risk and cost to my personal life, everyone wants to share in the results, and they even claim credit. But when its their turn to help me, many of them refuse. (I am grateful to the large number who DID help me. I am referring to the larger number who refused, by citing various excuses.) I have faced this type of betrayal numerous times in the past 25 years. This is why I do not trust certain people, even  if they publicly pretend to be great dharmic/nationalistic people.
4. Collectively we must try to produce 5 solid books annually that are each a purva-paksha on a prominent opponent individual, school of thought or institution. Maybe we will start with fewer in the initial years, but we can grow our quality and capacity. Each such book requires a long term research project by whosoever takes it up. Important to avoid "quick" works that we already have too many of. Each such book is a milestone that must be supported by our community in various ways. Otherwise, you are not nurturing the hard working type of person we badly need on our side.
5. Let us have a Hindu Writers Guild. These would be folks who may not necessarily be writing book-length research works (yet), but who commit to write 5-10 articles/blogs annually as part of their team work. Every few months we would pick an important issue or topic of relevance, and the members of the guild would each write in their own name and voice to contribute to it. Besides posting these on mainstream media outlets to the extent possible, these would also get compiled on a special site we would maintain with a professional web management team. Look at the big stories we faced in 2015. How little coordinated writing there was. Contrast this with the way the leftists put out a tsunami of media presence in each case. We have random individuals while they have experienced organizations. We must learn from them in this regard.
6. Develop a formal consensus on the minimum set of positions we share in order to be members. In other words, what is the common set of ideological positions required ti be an "insider"? I find that too often we base our evaluation on someone's personality and being "a nice person", rather than on a substantial position. (For instance, 2 years back a major book whose ideological positions would fail my core requirements, was promoted across India by a prestigious Hindu body. They had not done due diligence. When I pointed out the serious  issues, it created animosity towards me, and hence they continue to avoid me. Our movement is too much a matter of being in the good books of gatekeepers. This should change to ideological alignment and not personal relations.)

We do not have broad forums for such meta-level discussions. Reacting to one episode at a time does not comprise strategy. It is fire-fighting at best. Please note that my intentions in writing this are constructive. It is because I deeply care and I am so thoroughly invested in this cause that I write this way. I hope there wont be petty personal attacks on me by Hindus who feel we cannot have such brainstorms openly. Such closed minded attitudes are what alienate serious intellectuals. We are on solid ground given the strength of our civilization. This type of discussion is what the purva-paksha tradition is meant to do for us.