Ramayana is both spiritual and socio-political

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RajivMalhotraDiscussion/conversations/topics/15103

Rajiv Malhotra responds (marked in blue or red) to a forum member's comments quoting Hindus who attack TBFS and clearly appear to subscribe to Sheldon Pollock's Hinduphobic ideas. Emphasis and highlights are ours. Also, Rajiv ji shares some important updates on the impact of the Swadeshi Indology conference series.
 
I came across a group of people, who subscribe to manasataramgini (@blog_supplement) line of thinking, with comments like these in the context of chapter 5 of the book "Battle for Sanskrit":

1) "....that the ramayana played a great role in moulding the nascent political consciousness of medieval Hindus against the evil of islam. this is something iirc rajiv malhotra or someone else had a problem with. IMO we should be proud of ramayana's role and openly state it was the great itihasa which inspired hindus to fight islam"

[Rajiv: Ramayana is both (A) spiritual and (B) social-political. That is the role of the Avatara and it also applies to Mahabharata. It is spirituality in action, the divine manifesting to play a role in the laukika realm. So his assumption about me is false. All my career I have tried to argue against the otherworldly interpretations and have showed that our exemplars were very engaged socially and politically. The problem with Pollock is his REMOVAL OF (A). His is a non/anti spiritual interpretation. That is the issue I focus on. My interpretation is that politics is there, however not in the secular sense, but as rooted in dharma. To understand my purva-paksha these lazy Hindus need to read more fully both Pollock and my rebuttal. They are too tamasic and want to cut-paste here and there either to dismiss it, or to claim it as their own for quick blogs/lectures.]

"RM attempts to dissuade the reader from thinking Ramayana had anything to do with modern Hindutva movement because he attempts to shun BJP/RSS/VHP and condemn their ways. Also the use of "secular" for vyavgarik realm is rather offputting".

[Rajiv: Wrong again. Pollock's claim I refute is that: (A) modern Hinduism is DISCONTINUOUS from past Vedic tradition, (B) that it was fabricated by Swami Vivekananda, (C) that this fabrication borrowed heavily from Christianity and the West, and (D) that this was done to overcome Vivekananda's inferiority complex.
Furthermore, the idiot is one more example of jealous Hindus always trying to create a wedge between me and RSS and/or with Swami Vivekananda.]

"i just feel that there is nothing wrong in describing ramayana as a book which teaches us to totally exterminate evil.. of which mohammedanism is clearly an egregious example. pollock might whine about it as he is a frigging yahoodi saboteur and has duty in defending his fellow Abrahamic Muslims.. but for hindus if the ramayana did indeed inspire anti Muslim violence then its a holier than holy book than what could be normally ascribed to"

[Rajiv: This person did not read Pollock or my response. Probably saw some 2nd/3rd hand commentaries of my work. The core Pollock thesis I refute is that Ramayana was not popular prior to Muslim invasion and Hindu kings popularized it artificially specifically to fight against Muslims. Implication of this claim is that it lacks any spiritual legitimacy, and that it is solely a decide to fight against Muslims.

Is the Hindu critic in above quote agreeing with this Pollock view? I find such shallow Hindu critiques too stupid but they are common, unfortunately.

 ]

Basically, allegation is that Rajiv is promoting Gandhian line of "Non-Violence". Wonder What Rajiv has to say on it.

Regards,

[]

Rajiv: Several points I want to make:
...Why is it not possible for experienced IKs to respond to very simple allegations? Am I supposed to play father figure for every IK? When will they grow up, take responsibility?
The individuals he quotes have been hounding me for long time. These Hindus are the 3rd front we have to fight - jealous, incompetent, opportunistic, lazy but over-ambitious, no tapasya, but lots of opinions. Pls do NOT drag me to have to respond to them. I need to move on in my research and have 15 books to finish, much deeper to go in my journey. The 1st front is western Indologists. 2nd front is Indian Left/sepoys. 3rd front is Hindu pseudo-intellectuals popping up everywhere but with little competence. Mostly a hit and run style all over the space.
The Swadeshi Indology conf is their opportunity to contribute serious scholarship if they have something important to say.
The SI organizers have an independent team of senior scholars who do peer review of every paper submitted. Neither side knows the other identity, so these are blind reviews. The problem is they find very very few Hindu so-called intellectuals to be able to write proper papers. Mostly opinions, too lazy and lacking rigor. The reviewers end up rejecting most papers received. This pisses off the old school Hindu established scholars, who are not used to being rejected. They assume accolades due to senior status or network of contacts, or some prestigious affiliations. IFI rejecting them causes anger.
What should IFI do? If it lowers standard to become popular, then it might as well fold up, because too many organizations exist holding conferences, meetings, seminars, etc already. But these lack original research as pre-requisite for presenting. This is the gap IFI fills.
Luckily, SI1 and SI2 are being v successful in training new, young scholars. These are mostly unknown names because they are not in the social media making noises with opinions. Very hard work with few solid successes each time. So it will be a while before we get the 108 we need.
SI1 papers are ready as a 400-page book to be finalized for publishing. All papers focus on Pollock - so the man opining above ought to have sent his paper to SI for evaluation.
SI2 will likewise turn into a major research book on Pollock specifically.
In addition, SI2 will have 2 major single-author monographs each a detailed academic analysis of Pollock on some specific item. One is in fact on Pollock's Ramayana. (100+ pages each and these will turn into two major volumes.) So in Si 1 & 2 we will have at least 4 major books coming out.
Starting with TBFS, this means we will have FIVE VOLUMES OF RESPONSE TO POLLOCK, from a team of 25+ scholars.
Never before has a team of solid scholars taken up one specific Western Indology school and give such a thorough purva paksha and uttara paksha. This is what Arvind Sharma told me when he complimented me for starting this initiative.
There are more concrete outputs coming with heavy impact that are to be announced shortly.
Next we will move beyond Pollock and deal with other Indology opponents one by one. This is what I am up to. I only respect scholars who are serious and not casually hitting out here and there. Hence other IKs should deal with them and not waste my time.

Don’t Cry Dona from Chicago

By Naveen Chandra

The article The Repression of Religious Studies by Wendy Doniger touches on many topics of which I chose to answer a few.

A. Intellectual Territorial Integrity Violations

Soon after Rajiv Malhotra’s seminal book, The Battle For Sanskrit, came out, scholars from various fields signed a petition to remove Pollock from the leadership of MCLI, among who was Makarand Paranjpe, a JNU professor of English. He answered in his erudite way outlining the reasons why this petition was signed. Either the Dona from Chicago didn’t read it or didn’t understand it or chose to ignore it or all the above, we don’t know. Didn’t she also do a similar thing in the past? Sheldon Pollock himself invaded the intellectual territory of others on August 27, 2015 when he signed a petition to bar Mr. Narendra Modi, India’s Prime Minister from going to Silicon Valley, which effort was characterized as “far Left” by the Silicon Engineers who signed a counter petition welcoming Mr. Modi, as “a very strong representation from faculty in engineering disciplines, who, arguably, are best prepared to comment on Digital India as well as the Aadhaar program.’ Obviously Pollock’s efforts were not on par with the engineers’ qualifications with the implication that he was not qualified to comment on Digital India.

Qualifications of Sheldon Pollock Questioned

1. Pollock’s previous experience with Clay Library has to be looked into. Translations by Doniger (“Harsh Ratnavali”) and Pollock ("Raghu Vamsa "and "Rasamanjari") were found to be have many pitfalls (https://hrdayasamvada.wordpress.com). His translation of a verse from Chandodogyopanishad was found to contain many errors (http://www.jagritbharat.com/index.php/bfs/browse-shashtrarth/1210-pollock-s-translational-woes-continue-12-errors-found-in-his-handling-of-a-single-two-line-sanskrit-verse.)

2. It is clear that Pollock is man of contradictions. For example in his paper published in 1985 he at one place says sastras are prescriptive followed by the statement later that there were professions which did not follow any sastras. Elsewhere he says at one place Sanskrit helped the languages of Southeast Asia followed by statement that Sanskrit killed those languages.

3. He works a theory, cites data supporting that theory and ignores data that don’t. His theory was that the sastras were repressive of the society. He says these texts are dogmatic, regressive used for political and social oppression, without providing any evidence. People read an Upanishad or one of the Darshanas or Geeta because they find them enlightening, freeing and progressive. He quotes Kautilya who showed disdain for sastras but does not follow up on this stream of thought and ignores it when concluding.

4. For a man who spent 40 years writing about Hinduism his knowledge of his subject matter leaves many gaps. He missed major paradigm shifts in Hindu philosophy - Vedas, Upanishads, Darshanas, Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dvaita each represented a change suggesting an evolution of thought. He does not mention this most important feature of Hindu philosophy.

5. He said that the worship of Ram is a ‘cult’ popularized around the 12thC to rally the masses against the Turkish invaders by projecting them as the demonic ‘other’. Is he suggesting that Ravana the villain of Ramayana was a Muslim? Even though Ravana was a Brahmin he did not escape punishment for his misdeeds. Historical evidences to Ramayana date back, as Nandita Krishna says, to Lumbini pillar erected by Ashoka in 249 BCE. Famous Sanskrit books such as Uttararamacharita by Bhavabhuti in 8th and Raghuvamsa by Kalidasa in 5Th based on Ramayana were written well before 12th century. In Sangam literature, in the book Puranaanooru, in verse 378, on page 604, there is a mention of jewels of Raman’s wife Sithai. This could have been anytime between 4th Century BCE and 5th Century CE.

6. According to him Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story in the world because it is a deep meditation on the fratricide in civil war. Mahabharata war was not a civil war. It was a war fought between two clans- Kauravas and Pandavas who were cousins not brothers. His admiration for Moguls is well known and he should know that the history of Moguls is the best example of meditation on the fratricide.

7. His opinion that Sanskrit is a ‘dead’ language whose revival was done by barbarous invaders coupled with carefully read this “The German Holocaust was inspired by the Nazis reading of Sanskrit texts” is not evidence based.

8. His statement that Rama didn’t have free will and was a fatalist to accept decisions made by his father assumes that Rama was incapable of making any decisions independently. The events in Ramayana show otherwise- his dealings with Sugreeva, Hanuman and Vibheeshana show him as a very sagacious person and his conduct in War show him as a capable leader and fighter. Sam Harris says,” Decision is already made before you are aware of it. We are not the conscious makers of our actions”, thus nullifying the concept of Free Will. Spinoza thought that there was no Free Will. Thus even the western opinion is divided on this issue. What is Pollock doing criticizing Rama for not having free will?

There are many other issues on which Pollock either does not understand Hindu documents or is willfully misrepresenting them for a higher goal such as breaking up of India. These are enough to show that he is not capable to run a classical library of Indian languages translated into English.

B. Need for Swadeshi Indology

The Battle For Sanskrit argues that South Asian Studies first carried out under the aegis of European Orientalism, and when money ran out there found a new lease under American Orientalism, is nothing but a mutual admiration society that has as put by an observer “little regard to due process, academic rigor and rational approach to theorizing”, as seen by allowing Pollock to formulate theories without evidence as shown above. His theory on oral tradition, his penchant for using outdated works in interpreting ancient Hindu books, his dismissal of ideas that run contrary to his theory without giving a reason or evidence, declaring “social and grammatical orders are related by their very nature” without proof, and his famous contradictions that go unchallenged all point to the breakdown of peer evaluation in the process of publications on South Asian Studies. Is this treatment reserved for Hindu studies alone? Will they make statements like these on other religions? Academic freedom allows classifying Ramayana and Mahabharata under mythology but no book under Islam, Christianity or Judaism is classified as mythology according to Rajiv Malhotra.

Ursula King spins a theory that Vivekananda borrowing ideas from the west such as compassion erected an edifice of modern Hinduism which otherwise did not exist before. This is well explained in Malhotra’s earlier book, Indra’s Net. In doing so he contradicted Adi Sanakara’s theory of attaining mukti from jnaana path alone. This statement became the lynch pin of the entire western Indology that relegates Hinduism to a meaningless conglomeration of a million unconnected narratives, ideas, processes, personalities events and places. In the worst case scenario these Indologists compare Hinduism to Humpty Dumpty put together by Vivekananda with glue of western ideas. For Ursula King nothing seems to have happened in Hinduism in the eleven hundred years from Sankara to Vivekananda which is either total ignorance or total willful misrepresentation of history to undermine Hinduism.

Besides Advaita in the eighth century two other equally important schools of thought emerged one in the eleventh century called Visishtadvaita proposed by Raamaanujaachaarya and the second one in the thirteenth century called Dvaita proposed by Madhvaachaarya. While Advaita in a nutshell says Brahman and Prakriti are same, only Brahman is Real, Ramanuja says they are both same and real, and Madhva says Hari and Prakriti are different and are real, Narayan and Hari respectively taking the place of Brahman in the two traditions. These fundamental differences are debated by scholars showing a robust evolution of thought in Hinduism totally ignored by western scholars. All three Achaaryas as they were known also gave Bhashyas to Upanishads and Geeta in accordance with their theories. Many other thinkers gave interpretations to the three theories themselves essence of which was there were many ways to attain mukti. Sankara wrote three great poems that are the source of puja even today- Bhaja Govindam, Mahishaasura Mardanam and Kanakadhaara stotram evidence that he advocated Karma and Bhakti besides Jnaana as paths to Mukti.

Those who criticize Hindu society for lack of compassion forget David Copperfield, Les Miserables, Count of Monte Cristo, Brothers Karamazov, Grapes of Wrath and others where Western Society’s inhuman behavior towards other human beings is portrayed in great detail. The violence that marked Europe is conveniently forgotten. The colonialism, oppression, suppression, slavery, imperialism are shoved under the rug from everybody’s view. Of all the societies in the past Hindu society was the most egalitarian and giving. Hindus didn’t borrow compassion from the west. The borrowing of compassion was done in the fifteenth century by the Jesuits who took it to Europe where it became digested and now passes on as a western commodity.

Great many western Indologists come with background of Theology, Seminary training and Evangelical fervor, Ursula King, Wendy Doniger and Richard Fox young being the prominent examples. Thus their interest in Hinduism is not limited to an objective study of but to nitpicking and putting down Hinduism paving the way to conversions.

These later day interpreters of Hinduism pay no attention to earlier thinkers like Bailey, Playfair, Voltaire, Hodgkinson, Thoreau, Durant, Emerson, Toynbee, Romain Rolland, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Goethe, Mark Twain and others who showered encomiums on Hinduism, but they instead push their critical view to damage Hinduism with sole purpose of . carrying on culturally genocidal conversion. In this they are ably led by Marxists like Pollock who cling onto outdated theories of class struggle that have failed in the erstwhile USSR beside other countries including India.

The contributions made by Hindus are never mentioned in California text books but only negative aspects thanks to South Asian scholars at Universities. Thankfully, there has been a growing chorus of Hindu voices complaining about this now. The utter failure of Max Mueller in writing the true history when added to the current crop make Hindus cringe at the prospect of foreigners writing their history. If somebody said to Gandhi,”France is ruled by French, Germany by Germans, but let us rule India, as we know better”, what would he have said. Furthermore all academic work done in India is ignored by American Orientalists on one pretext or other.That is why there is a need for Swadeshi Indology, a term and concept developed and proposed by Rajiv Malhotra.

C. Book banning case study; Satanic Verses

The author of The Hindus did not in her own words suffer from the case. The book was not banned. It was sold under the counter stealthily. She likes it that she has upped the Hindu objectors. She made money albeit immorally bordering on intellectual dishonesty, whereas Satanic Verses was banned. Does the author claim her book is comparable to Verses in literary values such as style, creativity and language? Why did Verses fail so much financially and faired so much worse politically but excelled intellectually? Why did her book an instrument in the hands of evangelists did better financially and politically but miserably failed intellectually? Does she stop to think? Which book will survive in the long run? Compare the magnanimity of Hindu objectors that allowed the sale of The Hindus to be continued to the dogged, mindless and vicious campaign that banned Verses, a great literary work. By the way on what side is she and her friends are on banning Verses?

D. What does Rajiv Malhotra say?

Rajiv Malhotra says of Pollock, “I found Pollock's modus operandi to be work back from a conclusion, offering selective references to support it, and oftentimes simply base it on an assumption with no evidence to back it.”

We saw above ample evidence for this. Malhotra asks questions such as did Sanskrit prevent anyone from learning, are Hindus fatalists, are sastras repressive, did Vedas prevent growth of knowledge, are the Rishis same as Christian priests of Europe of a bygone era, what is the true meaning of four ashrams, what is the true meaning of four purusharthas, does Karma prohibit meaningful engagements of individuals in making families and communities prosperous, is Sanskrit responsible for German debacle, is Hindu society chaotic, and many others and asks Hindus to learn about their history, practices and greatness much to the chagrin of South Asian Studies scholars who give answers denigrating Hinduism. Malhotra asks Hindus to do poorva paksha and uttara paksha to get to the truth much to the discomfort of American Orientalists. Malhotra brings to the attention of Hindus the works of Reinhold Guenendahl that refute Pollock but does not get the public exposure they deserve as the space is occupied by more wealthy Americans who control the media.

Naturally a truth seeker like Malhotra gets the ire of a prevaricating Dona from Chicago.

F. Brahmins Blamed Again
Dona from Chicago says the wealthy Brahmins in the US support Malhotra in his battle against her and Pollock. American Orientalists’ favourite target finds its rightful place in this write up. Is there any grain of truth in this yarn? Why didn’t the Dona from Chicago do some home work before she made this baseless allegation? American Orientalists have signed close to fifteen petitions against Hinduism, India, Modi and similar causes some time in the numbers that exceeded 500, including the Dona from Chicago. Many of these are also persons of Indian origin. Did she check how many of them were Brahmins? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to cry that Brahmins support Malhotra at the same time drawing huge support from them to her cause? She is promoting hatred which is illegal in the US and the FBI would like to take a look at her.

Conclusions: American Orientalists are outdated in their knowledge, are prevaricating, are hypocritical, are unscientific, are irrational, are promoters of hatred against Brahmins, are ignorant of Hinduism, lack academic integrity- these are only a few among other character flaws. I as a Hindu would not want them write about Hinduism.

The deepest Orientalist - By Prof. Makarand R Paranjape

This is a reproduction of an articles that first appeared in the Business Standard penned by Prof. Makarand Paranjape.

“From its colonial origins in Justice Sir William to its consummation in SS Obersturmführer Wüst [a Nazi official], Sanskrit and Indian studies have contributed directly to consolidating and sustaining programs of domination.”

—Deep Orientalism

The author, or should I say authority, behind these words is Sheldon Pollock, Arvind Raghunathan Professor of South Asian Studies at Columbia University, and Mentor-Chief Editor of the Murty Library. The Murty Library, with its generous endowment of $5.6 million has, however, been mired in controversy. A petition, signed by several concerned academics, asked for the removal of Mr Pollock from the project, as well as a re-think of its methods and goals.

If Mr Pollock’s condemnation of the Vedic-Shastric tradition as rigid and oppressive was injurious in The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History (1983), Deep Orientalism (1993), is even more insulting. Here Mr Pollock claims that German Orientalists and Sanskrit not only aided the “colonization and domination of Europe itself,” but in “the ultimate ‘orientalist’ project, the legitimation of genocide.” Sanskrit implicated in the extermination of six million Jews?!

Why should Mr Pollock give such extraordinarily evil agency to India’s “sacred” language, which he is elsewhere at pains to prove “dead”? In his oft-cited paper, The Death of Sanskrit (2001), he doesn’t so much prove that Sanskrit is/was dead. When he fails to “kill” it, he resorts to a strange sleight of scholarly hand: “Sanskrit had never been exactly alive in the first place.” Traditional Sanskrit scholarship in India being already destroyed, this attack on German Orientalism leaves only one powerful competing scholarly tradition standing: American Indology.

Reinhold Grunendahl critiques Pollock convincingly. Deep Orientalism has one unambiguous, if ambitious path: “‘Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz’ leads to the ‘New Raj’ across the deep blue sea.” But the “New Raj” of American Indology has one thing in common with the old Raj of British imperialism. Its Rajas and Nabobs, such as Mr Pollock, are increasingly funded by the “sweat, toil, and blood” of Indians, in this case, Indian “cyber-coolies,” who have made companies like Infosys rich. American Indology backed by Indian philanthropy is a lethal combination. It leads us to laud, fete, fund, and award Padma Shris to Mr Pollock and his ilk.

One thing is absolutely clear after the smoke settles in the recent crossfire over the Murty Library: American Indology today occupies an almost unquestionable authority over Indian traditions. Any move to critique its hegemony is met with multiple attacks against individuals questioning its methods and results, both of which are exalted to levels of near infallibility.

In this context, a passing but telling observation in Rajiv Malhotra’s The Battle For Sanskrit is worth recalling. Indian soldiers were recruited by the British colonialists to fight in over 100 battles against fellow Indians, not to mention other “enemies” of the British including the Afghans, Burmese, Chinese, Turks, Germans, and Italians. But they couldn’t raise a single battalion of the Chinese to fight for them, let alone against their fellow-Chinese. This should tell us something of the Indian mentality. Most of Mr Pollock’s “sepoys” are Indians themselves, either trained in elite American universities or sold on images of their past produced by American neo-Orientalism.

Let me offer one more example. In Ramayana and Political Imagination in India (1993), Mr Pollock argues that India’s multiple medieval Ramayanas actually served to create a “political theology” to demonise and attack those who stood outside its “sanctioned polity”. Bringing this theme up to date, Mr Pollock damns the Ramayana tradition as the “mytheme par excellence that reactionary politics in India today” uses “in the interests of a theocratization of the state and the creation of an internal enemy”.

Again, frustrated with the persistence of Ramayana, Mr Pollock concludes, “because of even the Sanskrit text’s instability…there may no longer exist any such thing as the Ramayana, if ever there did.” No surprise that Mr Pollock and his followers want to abolish the very existence of “India” as an academic entity substituting it by the meaningless epithet “South Asia” — south of what and for whom?

How deep an Orientalist Mr Pollock is clear only towards the close of Deep Orientalism. Given that both “history" and “object” of the “field of knowledge” called Orientalism was “permeated with power,” he declares that Orientalists are now at a loss because they “no longer know why they are doing what they do.”

But, apparently, Mr Pollock knows exactly what he is up to. He has re-invented Orientalism so that wealthy Indians endow his professorship, pay him for desacralising Sanskrit and secularising Sanskriti, signing anti-Narendra Modi political petitions, and hectoring the world’s largest democracy how it should conduct itself.

The writer is professor of English at Jawaharlal Nehru University

Ragini Sharma responds to Shatavadhani GAnesh

Here is another response to Shatavadhani Ganesh from Ragini Sharma.

Dear Ganesh,

I am writing in response to your recent review of Rajiv Malhotra’s new book, Battle for Sanskrit.  I am sorry to say, but Rajiv Malhotra (RM) certainly did not need or deserve, what appears to me, your dramatic put down. Your insinuation that he has been ‘unprepared’ or ‘hasty’ in the kurukshetra is simply ridiculous given that RM has spent 25 years doing his purva-paksh of western Indology. How many years, may I ask, have you spent in doing that? Your review comes across as passive-aggressive when you first chide him to not “act in haste” but at the same time you state that you “wholeheartedly applaud his efforts and we shall stand shoulder to shoulder with him.” I don’t know about others, but to me your response to RM’s major review of Pollock’s political philology is not one would expect from someone who claims to support RM.

I am unsure what you were trying to achieve or to prove by your extensive explanation of the qualities of a ‘great scholar’. Your insinuation that Malhotra is not a great scholar is not something one would expect from someone who is willing to “stand shoulder to shoulder” with RM. Your suggestion that in order to do purva paksh of Indology of outsiders, the insiders must first understand the full corpus of Hinduisms underlying philosophy seems to me a scheme for you to excuse yourself for not doing purva paksh of Indology yourself. Have you read Pollock’s work the way RM has? What is your response to Pollock’s political philology of Hindu dharmic texts? That is what RM’s sole purpose is – to engage Sanskrit scholars.

Your insinuation that RM suffers a “narrowness of mental outlook” is shameful given that RM has written four major books, is the main protagonist of another major book and thousands of tweets, blogs and articles in numerous spheres – a rather incredible depth of work. As well, RM has appeared in hundreds of interviews to engage with, explore and clarify why Hinduism is under attack from every side. There is a huge awakening among Hindus about the issues, threats and challenges facing dharma due to his hard work. Do you deny his major contributions or his influence?

That you are a varisht Sanskrit scholar is evident in your article but it seems self-serving rather that as a review of RM’s TBFS book. What I mean is that your article skirts around the main issue that RM raises – that of Pollock’s political philology. YOU DO NOT STATE WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF POLLOCK’S WORK and that makes me wonder if you have read Pollock’s work in the depth that RM has. Does your ego prevent you from giving credit where it is deserved? I could at this point cite a verse from the Bhagavad Gita on the perils of ego but that would be rude, just as you were to RM in this review.

You go on to say that Malhotra’s intent is “noble”. What makes you think that RM needs your approval of his intent? Who are you judge his intent and what is the role of intent in scholarship? Can we let his work speak for itself as should yours? RM has clearly laid out the purpose of his book in the concluding chapter of his book. Prominently he talks about the need for a “home team” of insider Sanskrit scholars, like you, to provide the uttar-paksh which he openly acknowledges he is not trained to do since he is not a Sanskrit scholar. He clearly stated that he is only providing the purva paksh in this matter.

Your lecture to him on Hinduism having a tradition of ‘dissent’ is well known to RM (he’s written extensively about it) and most others – that is not the point of RM book on Sanskrit. The point of TBFS book is to impress upon insiders that outsiders like Pollock, who do not have shraddha etc. have gained control on the discourse on Sanskrit and by extension, on Sanskriti. His assertion is not that outsiders do not have a right to write on Sanskrit/Sanskriti but rather that the adhikara to explain the meaning of the sacred Sanskrit texts such as the Ramayana belongs to the insiders. The need of the hour, according to RM, is for the insiders to provide a robust response to the outsiders about the meaning of dharmic texts such as the Ramayana.

The stark differences between the understanding of our dharma/Sanskriti by outsiders and insiders hit me recently when I viewed Pollock’s Tehelka video interview. In this interview he was asked how he came to develop an interest in Sanskrit. Pollock’s shocking response was something to the effect that he wished that Goddess Saraswati had come in his dream as his lover to entice him. I don’t think I need to process this further, you get the picture.

Also, I would like to add that in the appendix, in the section on “Partially incorrect claims” in which you have critiqued RM’s work, I draw your attention to your point #7 on the “four levels of speech”. You state that Malhotra’s explanation that there are four “levels” of speech is incorrect. You state.

They are not four ‘levels’ of speech but rather the four ‘stages.’ From conception to utterance, an idea is said to pass through four stages – paraa (before thought), pashyanti (thought), madhyamaa (on the verge of utterance) and vaikhari (utterance). The ancient seers were able to go from paraa to vaikhari instantly (see Vicaraprapañca of Sediapu)

 I would like to inform you that perhaps you are incorrect and RM is correct in his explanation. I say this not because I am a Sanskrit scholar but because of how His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has explained these terms, and I quote Sri Sri below.

There are four levels of speech:

1.           Vaikhari is the level of speech that we are all using now to communicate.

2.           Madhyama is subtler than Vaikhari, where you don’t need language to communicate, but just intentions or feelings help to communicate. It is like you would communicate with people who don’t understand your language or with babies who throw tantrums to tell you that they are hungry or sleepy, or communicate through different signs. Madhyama is subtler than speech, even animals and trees use Madhyama to communicate.

3.           Pashyanti is where you simply recognize the knowledge without words or language. It is like deep intuition. Sometimes, when you go deep into meditation, you may hear some chanting or words, or you might get some ideas. When ideas come without language, it is called Pashyanti. A seer would recognize a little bit of that, from somewhere deep. All scientific discoveries happen from the Pashyanti level.

Para, beyond Pashyanti, is the universal language or the source of all expressions. In deep Samadhi or total stillness, you are connected with Para. No verbal communication is needed. Actually, real communication happens from Para, it is just the vibration that communicates. All the other talking that we do, from the Vaikhari level, is only to keep the mind engaged. The mind cannot capture communication from the level of Para, only the soul understands it. Para is the language of the soul. The mind needs some entertainment; the entertainment of the mind is Vaikhari, the language that we speak.

This indicates that it is not essential that speech necessarily goes through the four stages as you have stated and instead, speech can be viewed as "levels". In this way His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's explanation is aligned more with the way RM has explained speech.

My intention here is not to put you down but to show that while you were so quick and loud in challenging RM on his interpretation of Sanskrit, there are others who are equally able to challenge your explanation. Such diversity of interpretations is welcome in our tradition!

The point that RM is making in TBFS is that the threat to Sanskrit and Sanskriti is from outsiders such as Pollock who have taken control of the academic discourse on the meaning of Hindu dharma shastras and that the insiders need to wake up and work together to provide a strong response and to reclaim the adhikar to speak for Hindu dharma, including Sanskrit, as the language of many our shastras.

From what I have heard from RM, he respects you as a Sanskrit scholar and he has invited you on numerous occasions to join the home team towards this collective yagna. I do hope you will join the ‘home team’ towards this worthwhile effort. Will you walk your talk of working shoulder to shoulder with RM? I do hope so. Om Shanti.

Warm regards,

Ragini Sharma, MSW, PhD Candidate

Divya J writes another blazing rebuttal on the views of Sheldon Pollock

Below is a post by Divya J, a member on the forum. She had tried posting a truncated version of the same under Rohan Murty's article in the Times of India. It was rejected. The full version is being reproduced here.

Sheldon Pollock proclaims that “the characters of the ‘Ramayana’ believe themselves to be denied all freedom of choice; … and consequently can exercise no control.” He laments the dire consequences our epics have had on our civilization and wants to set things right by liberating us Hindus from our fatalistic beliefs. If only we could see things through his lens we too would understand that we have free will and can exercise our agency. This attitude betrays a dismal lack of understanding about the very essence of our culture and traditions. As we would say back home, “after listening to the entire Ramayana, he doesn’t even know who Rama is!”

Before we get into how badly wrong Pollock is, it would be helpful to know a brief history of the idea of “free will”. Free will as a concept did not feature in the rich intellectual traditions of the pagan philosophers of Greece and Rome. Similarly, the idea of “free will” is completely alien to the Indian traditions which have always held a decidedly deterministic stance. Of course the western world uses the derogatory term “fatalistic” instead of “deterministic” when speaking of the Indians, but let's overlook that for now. One thing we do know is that the Indian philosophers excelled in their understanding of human psychology and spoke at length about a variety of mental states. They broadly categorized manas, buddhi, and chitta along with other more nuanced mental states and mental processes. Nowhere did they identify anything such as “free will”. Instead they came to the conclusion that we are not the agents of our actions and that the idea of agency is an illusion.

So why is Pollock so confident that free will exists? Whatever his secular pretensions may be, “free will” is actually a very Christian idea. It turned up in the literature around the 4th century after the birth of Christianity. Christian doctrine tells us that God created the world and that everything that happens in this world happens in accordance with His will. This claim, and every other claim made by Christianity, is presented as a truth claim. In other words, just as it is true that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, it is true that the Christian God created the world and governs it. Naturally this “truth” had its consequences and soon enough gave rise to what is commonly referred to as the “problem of evil”. If God is perfect and good and if everything happens according to his will, then how can we explain the fact that there is so much evil in this world? Enter, free will. The problem of evil was conveniently explained by the fact that God gave human beings the freedom to choose between good and evil. Because human beings are sinners they often choose to do evil. Therefore, even though God is perfect, there is evil in the world because of our God-given free choice. This explanation about the world is absolutely crucial to Christianity otherwise their doctrine of a perfect God falls apart. This Christian idea of free will has now become so deeply entrenched in the western psyche that it is taken for granted. “Freedom” and “choice” are words frequently used in the West as if it is the most natural thing in the world to be free and to be able to choose.

However, with developments in science, with the understanding that matter and energy are interchangeable, as a challenge to the notion of mind-body duality, and with developments in cognitive science and neuro-science, some western scientists and philosophers began to question the existence of free will. The debate has been raging ever since. In the overarching folk psychology of the West and among the religious believers, the concept of free will is very much alive. However, among the scientific community it is strongly disputed, if not outright rejected.

The question to consider is this: what exactly are we free from? We are subject to the laws of physics in the same way that rocks and water and mice and dolphins are. Yes we have a subjective experience of ourselves but this “self” of ours exists only because life exists. Otherwise, we are just what the universe happens to be doing in a place called the here and now that we localize for ourselves with the pronoun “I”. We split up the world into different parts and give different names to different things. We consider our “self” as being separate from the world and believe we go around doing things independently of the “world”. But as our sages have pointed out, this split of “doer-action-deed” is just our human perspective and is our way of making sense of the world. They try and show us that this is only a superficial understanding and that the separate feeling of “I” is only an appearance but is not actually real.

The same laws that govern the world govern our bodies as well as the thoughts and feelings that we believe to be inside of us. But there is no “inside”; there is no dividing line between us and the world. So in a way we are just like puppets, without any agency, but from another perspective, these laws of the universe constitute our very selves and determine how we act and react. We have the illusion of making choices and of being agents, but our wants, preferences, and needs are determined by the way the universe is. In reality there is no individual agency that is separate from the flow of the entire universe.

This idea that “I” am not the thinker of my thoughts and that “I” am not the doer of my deeds lies at the heart and soul of Indian civilization and forms its very foundation. It permeates our folk traditions as well as our intellectual traditions and our artistic traditions, and is woven into the fabric of all the metaphors all over the place. Our sages repeatedly tell us that the idea of subject-object-verb is an illusion and that the only way to lasting happiness is to understand this fact. Our traditions provide us with many ways and means to help us come to this realization. One of these ways is through the stories told in our itihasa and puranas. Our stories of Arjun and Rama, of monkeys and jackals, of sages and fools, convey these same ideas and have the same power to lead to enlightenment as does the chanting of Vedic mantras or the pursuit of logic.

However, this does not mean that once the sages had this realization they expected everyone in the world to stop in their tracks and give up on the world because we had no agency anyway, so why bother. They understood that such knowledge dawns at its own pace and that it is the human condition to live with some illusions about the nature of the self. So our traditions also teach us how to live in the world, in society and in communities and within families. The very same stories and rituals that help us in overcoming worldly illusions also teach us about living in the world since we are an integral part of the leela. What Sheldon Pollock fails to notice is that Rama was educated to live in the world, he was educated to govern, and he was trained for battle. He was taught the right manners and nurtured with the right attitudes towards the world and towards his family. And when the time came to go to war he did not just sit back and let the universe take its course. He consulted with his ministers, he strategized and planned, coaxed and pleaded, connived and cajoled and did everything it took, and in the end, after all this effort, he won the war.
Not only does Pollock suffer from a severe disconnect with the Indian traditions that he has been superficially immersed in for decades, he also betrays a lack of understanding of modern science. He seems not to have the capacity to distinguish a Christian idea from a scientific one. His beliefs about agency and free will belong somewhere in seventeenth century Europe. Oblivious of this, and armed with his “theories” he is trying to force-fit the presuppositions and prejudices of his own religion and culture on to our traditions, while claiming all the while how secular he is. There would be no problem if Pollock named his project “The Biblical Interpretation of the Ramayana”. But that is not what he is doing. The Indian intellectual traditions have a lot to offer to the world. If all Pollock can do is reproduce Biblical themes or Marxian theories it simply defeats the purpose.

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

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

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

The review can be read here:

A review of The Battle for Sanskrit

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

Her article can be read here:

Let's stop funding our enemies

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

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

You can read the article here:

The shallowness of Pollock's 'Deep Orientalism'

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

She has blogged at:

What Rohan Murty's comment really says

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

His article can be read at:

American Progressives also typify others

Reproducing a collection of reviews of TBFS from the Amazon site

Below is a chosen collection of reviews of The Battle for Sanskrit taken from the Amazon site where the book is being sold. We present here 4 elaborate reviews from 44. It is noteworthy that of the 44 reviews, 43 have rated the book with 5 stars and one review has rated it 4 stars. This is a phenomenal achievement. All the reviews can be read on the Amazon site.

Shyam, a top 500 reviewer has this to say.

Much needed detox. Having been fed the narrative of 'sanskrit is a oppressive language' used by brahmins to oppress others, it was refreshing to read this book. Not many know that (even I didn't 5 years ago) that ~80% of all literature in Sanskrit pertains to non-religious topics like science, technology, medicine, arts, social commentary and poetry. Very little is religious. Yet the leftists in India who had monopolized the discourse (still have) in academia and media have demonized anything of indian origin - just as would a conquering power. One key learning for me is the phrase Rajiv uses 'aestheticization of power' - a way to make power palatable. its used a powerful construct to demonize sanskrit in the guise of praising it as in 'such a great language yet it oppressed so many' that is so prevalent among many modern Indologists - sadly many of them naive Indian students of such Indologists like Sheldon Pollock. I think, rather hope, Rohan Murthy has the right intentions in hiring Sheldon Pollock but wish he had done some due diligence as he would do with any investments on behalf of Infosys. Not sure he is qualified to do that so he should have hired traditional sanskrit scholars to vet the output produced. Hope its not linked to Ford foundation as with his father and if his intention at least is pure, there is a chance he can learn and change - as I and others did.

The postmodernist Western worldview which has been blindly and lazily aped by indian academia and used as a lens to look at Indian history and culture is to blame for the sorry state of affairs that anything Indian has to be fought for - even to get a seat at the table where its being critiqued! Accused guilty without proof and spend all the time defensively to prove innocence.

This blind copying of paradigms is prevalent in other spheres too such as activism as naive and lazy Indian activists just pick what the West thinks as 'cool and feel 'global'. LGBT rights is not as important as food, water, shelter and security - as much as I run the risk of being called 'bigoted' or 'insensitive' for saying it. Such issues can be top priority for Western countries as they have solved these basic problems and have a pretty decent life for all. Sure, go ahead and take up a cause close to your heart but if you were genuinely trying to impact society there are larger issues - thats my point and its become 'cool' to take up such 'global' issues. Its sad to see Indians bashing their own culture to be certified 'intellectual'. Indian Indologists and social 'scientists' remind me of the story of a black kid who was adopted by a White slave owner family and turned out to be a more brutal slave owner when he grew up.

Lets use this detox from Rajiv and pledge to make sanskrit 'cool' as it once was. Suggest you read Michel Danino and Koenraad Elst too. Perhaps being non-Indian they will appeal to our conditioned minds than a Dharampal. Sad but true. its not easy to discard our inferiority complex overnight, I'm happy at least I'm aware I have an affliction and working to fix it.

How deep the 'brahmin, Hindu, Sanskrit' bashing ecosystem is has to be experienced to be believed. I recall an anecdote on UVS (UV Swaminatha Iyer, who is fondly called Thamizh Thatha - 'grandfather of Tamil') who used to spread Tamil village to village. Appreciating his efforts, it used to be written in tamil literature books 'though he was a brahmin, he was a good man' and it never roused anything in me when i read it in school. Such was my conditioning.

Rajiv, grateful for the knowledge. Pranaams.

An Amazon customer, on his "Reflections on The Battle for Sanskrit":

Ever since the superimposition of Westphalia concept of nation state on a formerly colonized state or newly liberated territory (i.e., India) from colonial subjugation, the debate whether this land is a single nation state or a state of many nations was kept alive by some forces. Such questions have always helped entrench the alien rule in India primarily by pitting one Indian against the other in the past. These false notions were cleverly constructed by the invaders and were spread systematically through their proxies.

A nation, whose populace is psychologically weak and is a victim of inferiority complex can be enslaved easily. Islamic & Christian subjugation of other cultures was done with relative ease, but when it came to India the foreigners could not apply the same methods with this civilizational state which they have applied elsewhere successfully. Hence, the Christian invaders systematically studied Indian civilization to manufacture perverted interpretations of sacred traditions and prove that Hindus were/are a bunch of barbarians and such barbarianism is inbuilt in their tradition.

The sacred tradition has been a single focus of attack for both the invading Abrahamic faiths since their arrival though the means employed by both of them is different. Leftists have joined the forces only recently and are doing a good job indeed. Islamic invaders employed a more violent method, mainly converting the local population through threat & coercion, or simply eliminate them if they resisted conversion to Islam. Swami Chinmayananda in one of his interviews to a group from Australia said that, “for 400 years Muslims have been demolishing temples in their attempt to destroy Hinduism but they have only grown their biceps and could not destroy Hinduism”.

But the missionaries developed sophisticated methods specific to Indian scenario. Missionaries have realized that if they ever have to destroy this tradition they first have to appropriate its important language which is central to their civilization, i.e., Sanskrit. Hence, a large group of scholars were sponsored by British to understand India’s culture through learning Sanskrit.

Even though the foreign colonial masters are no more in effective political control, their manufactured histories and vulgar interpretations have been continuously used by anti-national forces to disrupt India’s growth and unity. Among such groups, the political left is a peculiar one. Ever since the death of soviet empire their focus has been to divide India on some pretension or the other to make sure that their broader ideological goals are met. It is these communists who have helped Muslim league in partition of India in 1947. They have learnt from the erstwhile colonizers that to destabilize a healthy civilization it is required to understand the central components of its culture and tradition, only then it is possible to attack it.

Shelden Pollock is considered as a pioneer of a peculiar type of leftist school in which India’s so called liberals are active members. This school’s main task is to prove through their interpretations of Sanskrit texts that Hindu Civilization is inherently backward & primitive which encourages barbarism. So, they prescribe a special type of cleansing and claim that only they can do it.

It is in these trying times, Shri. Rajiv Malhotra – Indian-American researcher & scholar has mounted a formidable defense through his well-researched new book – The Battle for Sanskrit countering the arguments of a powerful leftist lobby. I have just finished reading it and cannot explain the sunshine I have experienced in words. Thanks to him, we now have a clarity on the subject.

Shri. Malhotra sets his agenda by posing a list of questions he is going to address in this work as a part of the title itself. So, reader has a clear idea and proper motivation to read it further.

Is Sanskrit:

Political or Sacred?

Oppressive or liberating?

Dead or Alive?

While outsiders like Shelden Pollock want to prove that it is political, oppressive and Dead, insiders are not doing enough to respond that it is sacred, liberating and alive. This work is primarily to awaken traditionalists (or Insiders) to rise up to the situation and provide intellectual responses to questions raised by the opposite side and highlight inconsistencies in Pollock’s scholarship.

Before delving deeper it is fundamental to understand the difference between term/s insider and outsider. In my reading it is clear that whoever believes Sanskrit is Sacred, liberating and Alive shall be considered as Insiders. It is entirely possible that the insiders can be foreigners and outsiders Indians. Outsiders share some other common characteristics, they are predominantly atheists, secularists and Communists (actually hardcore believers of Marxism). If we have to assess their commitment to the ideology, i.e., Marxism or communism they are no less than Jihadists or ISIS (Islamic State), just that Jihadists employ murderous violence whereas leftists employ subtlety and obfuscate their ulterior intentions behind liberal notions like democracy, human rights etc., when not in power. But don’t hesitate to indulge in violence when they command absolute power, China (Cultural Revolution) & Stalinist Russia are couple of examples of the recent past.

Shri. Rajiv Malhotra has done a great service by coming up with this work at a crucial time to provoke traditionalists to take up the task of doing Purva-Paksha, in which they were once experts. Though author identifies some 18 issues at the end of the book on which traditionalists ought to focus, I have picked a set of points that shall be of a great interest to all. All positions of outsiders on these items shall be intellectually challenged. Here they are:

The insistence to fit Indian civilization in to European experience: Scholars who are trained in western political thought superficially apply it to Indian civilization. Hence they are forced to uncritically use modernity, medieval, post-enlightenment & secularism and other irrelevant terms to explain historical events occurred in this civilization, which often leads to wrong interpretations.

Pitting Buddhists against Hindus: It is a lie which British colonialists manufactured to pit one group of Indians against others, to deepen their rule. Often Ambedkar is quoted as an authority and his experience & scholarship is cited as example to say that Hindu civilization encourages violence against Shudras. The million dollar question is why Ambedkar chose Buddhism instead of Islam & Christianity? Leftists feign ignorance on this topic.

Aryan-Invasion theory: Among a bunch of lies East India Company perpetuated to create a conflict between North and south Indians, this had a lasting effect, especially in the politics of Tamil Nadu. As a result of which a hate campaign was carried out by some political parties against a group of citizens. This theory has been scientifically debunked by many mainstream scholars, the foremost among them in my opinion is Shrikant G. Talageri who nails it completely, point by point. Pollock school continues to harp on this false theory for its convenience. The Word Dravida is used in Soundaryalahiri. Adi-shankara described himself as Dravida-shishu when he visited North, i.e., child of the land that is surrounded by water on three sides. No literature of India of thousands of years in any vernacular talks about this Aryan-Invasion theory. There is no corroboration from any other sources outside India to this effect. The argument that Aryans came from Central Asia and driven out Dravidians from north to south is a blatant lie.

Discounting the violent impact of Christianity and Islam on Hindu civilization: The genocide which Christian missionaries committed in Goa and a systematic elimination of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh in recent times offers us a glimpse of impact Christianity and Islam had on our civilization. When Pollock says that Muslim or Islamic invaders should not be blamed for India’s cultural degradation, it only highlights his prejudice against Hindus and selective blindness among other things.

Recklessly determined to discover barbarism in Sanskrit texts: This is an important plane on which our Home team has to engage outsiders thoroughly. Socialization of these outsiders in a different setup or simply because of being a victim of some ideological dogmas they could not or they don’t want to see the residual sacredness in Sanskrit texts. Let’s consider an example to understand what I am saying. How the death of Karna in Mahabharata can be interpreted by two groups? One could use it to inculcate values to all, this is a sacred approach whereas the others, i.e., outsiders would say that it encourages violence against Dalits and shudras. Sri. Saibaba of Puttaparthi describing the importance and values of good company says that “ it is only with good company you will come in contact with good qualities not with a bad company” he further says that “bad company is deadliest than a venomous snake, a snake would only bite when you step on it accidently or try to tame it, but a bad person injects venom every time you come in to contact with him, look what happened to Karna – The MahaYoddhha who is more powerful than mighty Arjuna, it is just because of his bad company ie., Duryodhana and sakuni he met a tragic end” (This is a loose translation of his speech that is published by Sanathana Sarathi monthly, Hindi edition, December 2015) But the same event will be interpreted by outsiders to say that since Karna was from chariot riders class Arjuna and Krishna killed him due to prejudice again lower class or castes. Hence, Mahabharata encourages violence against lower castes and Dalits etc. It is against lopsided interpretations such as these the insiders have to mount a collective defense. After all in a globalized world, how others think about us also matters.

Labeling the efforts to revive Sanskrit as Hindu revisionism: It is incorrect to say that Sanskrit encourages violence against minorities. There is a very big hypocrisy here. If we have to accept the arguments of Pollock school that any attempts to underscore the violence carried out by Islamic rulers for centuries against Hindus, it might turn Hindus against Muslims in the current day, because Muslims of the day have got nothing to do with those who have actually committed violence, then is it also not the case that the leftists effort to unearth atrocities of the past or blowing certain events out proportion will turn Dalits against Brahmins and other social groups within Hindu fold? If this is not hypocrisy then what else is?
It is important to show that Politics & sacredness are intertwined in Sanskrit and samskriti: The emphasis of sacredness is only to highlight the importance of morality & probity in conducting politics. If Gandhi says that he cannot imagine politics without religion he is essentially referring to sacred aspects of our Samskriti that is embedded in Sanskrit. It is important to note that barring few bare minimum things there is no insistence on following instructions, it is left to the choice of follower or seeker. Shri. Rajiv Malhotra says in Hindu civilization there is no central authority like Pope in Christianity and Caliph or Mullah in Ummah to enforce religious dogmas. Such an independence only proves that our Samskriti is not only sacred but also politically progressive and liberal.

It is important for the insiders to realize that they need not fear English language: It can be self-taught through focused study in short period. It is an underdeveloped language and relatively weak in vocabulary. Forget Sanskrit, it is not even qualified to be compared against some of the vernaculars of India which are highly evolved and rich when it comes to vocabulary and literary strength. For eg: Tamil and Bengali are such powerful languages, if learnt fully the beauty of expression by using them would put Shakespeares of the world to shame.

I totally support the author’s view that we should engage outsiders with all the respect they deserve, which is true to our tradition. It is only through a sustained dialogue we shall be able to fight the powerful cartel of outsiders who occupy a significant space in academia, media and other outlets that controls means of expression and act as gatekeepers of Indian knowledge.

Finally, insiders should learn to read between the lines, and understand true intentions of outsiders. If Pollock refines his responses to a specific audience and praises Sanskrit we should be able to comprehend as to what he really means. In the age of Kali, the fight between Dharma & Adharma is a constant one. Like a relay race if one has completed his lap the other followers of Dharma should pick up the mantle and do their bit. My concern is who will uphold the legacy of Shri. Malhotra and continue with the tradition of Purva-Paksha after him? This is a question all insiders should ponder over. The fact that insiders have not risen to such a standard so far is a matter of serious concern. The hope is that at least now insiders will heed to the clarion call of Shri. Rajiv Malhotra.

Pingali Gopal says:

Rajiv Malhotra has written a path defining book called ‘The Battle for Sanskrit.’ The book is important and disturbing at the same time, but is a must read for the Indian youth in search of their identities. The attempts of Western academia to separate the secular aspects from Sanskrit from the embedded spiritual aspects is plain wrong and unjustified. It is a very important book with regards to Hinduism. Almost all his books are like that. I feel that the Indian students need to study the books of Rajiv Malhotra, Swami Vivekananda, Arun Shourie, Ramana Maharishi to truly equip themselves with information to fight the inimical forces trying to undermine the integrity and strength of the country. He gives a very lucid response from the Hindu side with regards to Varna or the caste system, the single point of criticism of our great religion by everyone.

• Varna is a non-translatable term and attempts to translate it and put it in some rigid frameworks has caused confusion.

• It is a dynamic term and has been constantly negotiated and renegotiated in Indian history.

• A similar analogy is the concept of ‘rights’ in Western history with civil, economic and moral dimensions to that word, and has been repeatedly undergone changes in its meaning.

• Varna cannot be translated into caste, race, or privilege in simple terms.

• There are six levels of differences in the way Varna has been seen by tradition: 1. Historical changes have seen differing interpretations 2. Different texts have differed on the varna view 3. In the same text, varna definition has changed as per the context 4. In the same text, different people have interpreted varna differently as per the context 5. There have been gaps in actual theory and practice 6. There have been many social challenges and reformations throughout history.

• Varna is not a static classification system

• Shudras have built temples in which Hindus of all categories have worshipped.

• Shudras have been rulers and leaders of armies.

• Varna has been repeatedly redefined well within the Indian systems and today does not require foreign intervention to solve its social problems related to the caste system.

• The characterization of Western Indologists and Orientalists of Varna as something rigid, static, canonical, and homogenous is done using inappropriate theories because of their need to digest our civilization.

• MANUSMRITI is the text that has been over quoted and much maligned to make the case of support for discrimination.

• The above text places more emphasis on the duties of various varna rather than their rights and privileges. Duties or professions are used to classify the professions. A Brahmin was required to live simply, receive gifts from worthy donors only, had to be learned enough to receive those gifts, and was supposed to be a non-drinker of alcohol. He was also not supposed to rule. The Brahmins were not supposed to collect taxes on behalf of the ruler much in contrast to the practices in other religions where a priestly and a divine sanction was given to rulers to own the conquered far off lands . Shudras were assigned very distinct benefits. They could pursue any profession except those of Brahmins and Kshatriyas. He was not compelled on any specific rituals, food, and wine consumption. There was no requirement of penances for lapses in following the rules of Shastra.

• Furthermore, one can learn paradharma or the highest dharma even from a Shudra and hence, a Shudra can be a guru too. Adi Shankara in fact learns some highest wisdom from a Chandala. The punishments as per the text were not actually carried out. The punishment of the lapses in fact increases with the varna of the person, with the Brahmins getting the maximum punishment. The higher status was supposed to shoulder greater responsibility. Finally, the text advocates flexibility in its implementation. It allowed giving up dharma if it is denounced by the public. This implies that if the public denounce caste discrimination as is being done today, it should be given up. This implies a fluidity and context importance in the application of varna.

• Mahabharata dissociated itself from birth based varna. Yudhishtra says in the Mahabharata that there is always a confusion of ‘varna by birth’ because of birth from mixing of all Varnas. So, varna can only be from the view of profession and occupation rather than birth.

• There is evidence which shows that the shudras did have access to the Vedas and that the restrictions were contested and not absolute.

Panini did not create the rules of Sanskrit grammar, but only formulated the way Sanskrit was being spoken. There is now a very important and a powerful American Indologist who goes by the name of Sheldon Pollock, who is training an army of people both Indian and foreigners to capture the discourse on Sanskrit language. By posing as an insider and spending more three decades in the study of Sanskrit, he has been able to impress the Indian governments and various funding agencies to get huge grants. But, beneath the surface of superficial praise, there is a strong message undermining the entire culture and tradition of the country. He is using the language interpretations in a bizarre manner to create a sense of negativity amongst us.

Pollock says that Sanskrit grammar was oppressive. The oppression to Dalits, women, and Muslims is embedded in the language structures, he says. He also makes a theory which places Sanskrit as a dead language fit only to be studied. Sanskrit was spoken only by a few royals with the Brahmin followers and was not the language of the common people. Pollock’s theories are speculative and dangerous. He puts forward a theory that Sanskrit was used as a tool of oppression of the Dalits, women, and the lower classes by the kings and the priests. The expansion of Hinduism to far East countries was this strategy using Sanskrit as a major tool. Sanskrit ideology also was supposed to have given rise to Nazism because the roots of Sanskrit is exploitation and racism.

Hitler was influenced by a guy who had no clue about Sanskrit. All these are highly speculative coming from an American Leftist who probably hates the country, does not believe God, but loves the language itself. The love for the language is only for study purposes but is not accepted as a carrier of cultural tradition and spirituality for thousands of years. Ramayana and other poems are seen through his interpretation as a tool of exploitation by the kings and the priests and to rouse the people against the Muslims. The theories are so bizarre, but I am sure, would be loved by our own Left who do not seem to show any love for the country the country and do not know Sanskrit. They now have an English speaking elite American who provides them with all the ammunition to fire at the country. Intolerance seems to have suddenly make a mark in the country in a reverse manner strangely in the minorities and the leftists too. Pollock hates the BJP, RSS, and VHP combine, and in this regard, he makes his stand amply clear. No wonder, he is a darling of the Left in the country.

Sanskrit has been seen as a tool of exploitation by Pollock and blames the forward castes in hastening its demise. He also goes to claim that the British and the Muslim rulers actually helped to revive the Sanskrit language but was firmly opposed by the forward castes. Then, he makes the extraordinary statement that the language is dead and is fit for being studied as a classical language, something like Latin and Greek. Any language develops in the scheme of listening, speaking, reading, and then writing and in that particular order. The grammar comes last. One does not start to learn a language by first learning to write it. It then becomes a burden and cumbersome. By focussing on the grammar first, the natural spoken component of the language with the spontaneity simply collapses in the society. That is what was done by the British colonial rule and the Mughals in the process of ‘helping’ Sanskrit. That was the strategy of the post-Independence education policy thoroughly controlled by the Left wing forces of the country. In such a situation, Sanskrit became more and more separated from mainstream and became relegated to specialised studies. It could not become a language of popular conversation. The people were scared off the language as they were boggled with grammar rules and constructions of sentences. In such a situation, an artificiality creeps in and we have lost five decades in the process. Now, it is an uphill task of the country to get Sanskrit back into circulation and I am certainly glad that the students are eager to learn the language as a direct consequence of the book.

Sheldon Pollock seems to be a hate filled Leftist as seen in the analysis of Rajiv Malhotra. Rajiv Malhotra is like Arun Shourie while taking on the left wing forces. Most of his statements are backed by some real and hard core evidence.

The book is shocking beyond beyond belief and it is indeed a wake-up call to our intelligentsia and the students of the country. The Western forces in the garb of Indology are systematically undermining the cultural and the spiritual traditions of Sanskrit, which should be fought back in no uncertain terms. Buddhism was supposed to have galvanised the beginning of written Sanskrit and the its literature. Before Buddhism, Sanskrit consisted of only mindless rituals and mantras recited orally as per Pollock’s construction of a dim past. The entire evidence of written inscriptions associated with the Harappan and Mohenjo-Daro excavations, and the Saraswati archaeological evidence makes his claims about written Sanskrit as after the Buddhist era completely hollow and baseless. But, Pollock apparently ignores all such evidence.

The Jataka tales are attempted to be placed before the Ramayana, and in fact, the latter was inspired by the former. The rejection of Sanskrit by Buddha in favour of Pali; and by Jains in favour of Magadhi is constructed as being rejection of the Vedas. Buddhist teaching of the four and eight- fold path say nothing against the Vedas, and it is in fact, very Upanishidic in nature. A Ramana Maharishi never taught in Sanskrit, but he is a master. The language undertaken by a holy person is no proof of a rejection of previous systems. But, that is what is the suggestion of Sheldon Pollock and his ilk. Buddhism is constructed to be in stress with the Hindu thought, traditions and the Vedas.          

Later on, the Kushana and the Saka kings, supposed to have migrated from Central Asia, were more open to Sanskrit despite being Buddhists, and hence there was a blooming of Sanskrit literature in the early part of the common era. The theories are fantastic and weird to say the least but happen to be mainstream academic thoughts and opinions. These kind of ideas which also posits Ramayana as an example of atrocity literature against women and the lower castes, and later as a galvanizing force against the Muslims are exceptionally detrimental and brutal to the ethos of the country and its culture. The same idea when repeated by the influential coterie in various papers, literature, and academic meets become embedded as a truth in the minds of people. That is what is happening as the secular left liberals are gleefully accepting what is being churned out by such academicians.

Rajiv Malhotra’s book finished with the mind wanting more. Most of the book has been underlined, so now I am seeing prominently the pen and pencil marks, which is a bit unfortunate for future readings. The only criticism I can offer that it is centred only around Sheldon Pollock. The other anti-Sanskrit forces are hardly spoken off. A single man is probably not relevant in the scheme of things, but if indeed he is the main troublemaker preparing hundreds of people like him, then he becomes so. Rajiv is preparing hundreds of Indian and NRI youth in a similar way and hence, the battle lines are drawn.

Nobody has caused more damage to the Indian culture, tradition, and heritage than the Left liberal ideology. It is an ideology which has allowed our generation to grow with a sense of shame regarding ourselves. The Britishers and the Americans and for that matter, the Russians too grow up with a strong sense of pride despite the atrocities and the blunders in their landscape of human dealings. But, Indian history makers peculiarly concentrated only on the warts and always in the process of giving an extremely negative image of our culture, our traditions, language, literature, religion, scriptures, holy books. At every point, the Indians grow with a negative perception about all the above things despite we being the strongest in all of the above. The youth of the country are being led astray by such pernicious attempts. It is thankfully in such a scenario that some authors are coming up, who are taking up the cause of undoing the damage in a balanced manner without losing their cool. Every culture has its flaws and we are the oldest living civilization running continuously for 5000 years. Most of the older cultures have simply wound up. It is important for the present generation to aim for the future rooted in the present with the correct idea about our past and its richness without going into jingoism.

It is a remarkable book which would allow a person to grow proud of his culture and tradition bereft of jingoismand more importantly, without wanting to hate any opposing ideas or cultures This is the book's most wonderful achievement.

Another Amazon customer writes:

The book ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ informs us about modern Kurukshetra between American Orientalists like Mr. Sheldon Pollock, his team and our Sanskriti. This is about hijacking our Sanskrit and sanskriti. Many eminent Indian scholars, business tycoons are in awe of Mr.Pollock and ready to elevate their social status, prestige by offering millions of dollar for his work. Even our own Sringeri Math was going towards same direction. Shri Rajiv Malhotra intervened the matter and till decision is on hold. In the meantime, The Battle for Sanskrit has been published and we know how deep is the nexus to destabilize India through giving political twist to our own Shastras and Kavyas. Outsiders i.e. American Orientalists are injecting venom of Dalit oppression, hegemony of Brahmin and King over population of India, mainly Shudras by inventing a new concept ‘Aestheticization of Power’.

According to outsiders, Vedas are equivalent to mumbo jumbo and Kavyas like Ramayan, Mahabharata etc were written by Brahmins to aestheticize the king so that king could hypnotize common people and in turn Brahmins continued to live under king’s grace. This was the way Sanskrit propagated throughout Asia. There is nothing sacred in Sanskrit. It is already dead and it should be kept in museum only to analyse like Greek and Latin. Surprisingly, they are silent about Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, which are also very old language.

Shri Rajiv Malhotra refutes all these propaganda with his razor sharp intellect and provides numerous scopes to do ‘Purva Paksh’ on American Orientalists. Rajivji makes difficult concept of western thinkers like Benjamin, Vico etc very lucid so that we can understand the Kurukshetra. The writing of these scholars is very tricky as they could not be understood easily as it often contains double meaning. By superficial reading one can feel good that they are praising our Sanskrit and sanskriti, but in deeper they are blaming Sanskrit as a weapon of Indian Kings and Brahmins. Rajivji painstakingly explains all these in understandable way.

J.N University, New Delhi event proves the penetration of Breaking India forces. Books of Rajivji expose how from US, Indians could be controlled by colouring our Shastras, Kavyas. Mr.Noam Chomsky writes to VC of JNU, New Delhi asking why VC allowed police inside campus. Many eminent scholars, including Mr.Sheldon Pollock, from various US universities protest against Govt. of India and support JNU students for anti-Indian slogan.
Now this is our turn to reverse the gaze and decide who has the ‘Adhikar’ to control Sanskrit.

All the reviews can be read on the Amazon site.

Dr. Naveen Chandra's letter to Ananya Vajpeyi in response to her comments on TBFS

Dear Ananya Vajpeyi  Ph. D.

I looked at your letter making three points.

1.       You request support to JNU in its present predicament.

2.       You allude to Rajiv Malhotra’s plagiarism.

3.       You praise Sheldon Pollock’s scholarship.

While I expected a more profound analysis of The Battle For Sanskrit from a Ph. D. degree holder  like you or at least a rebuttal  of the statements attributed to Sheldon Pollock on Sanskrit and Brahmins,  especially considering that you are his student, I will settle down for the mediocre emission, and  I take it then that TBFS represents your guru’s stance on the crucial subjects of Sanskrit and Brahmins, let me proceed  with my own, a physicist’s,  consideration of what lurches in the minds of the hate mongers. I also include a Sanskrit poem at the end which your guru can get translated into English by one of the Indian slaves he employs. Stop stereotyping people, a despicable exercise of the West, and be original true to your sampradaya.

1.  56 Professors of Madras IIT said "We support intellectual freedom, and alternative views are a must for democracy and creativity. However, there is a deep distortion of the meaning of academic freedom.”

They have requested the President to take steps for saving educational institutions from the "scholarship of abuse, hate and discord" and restoring the atmosphere of sobriety, reflection and harmony necessary for genuine scholarship, Shreepad Karmalkar, a professor and one of the signatories, said in a statement.  In view of this statement I can’t support JNU as requested by you.

 2.  I have thoroughly examined the evidence on Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism, and have written three articles on the subject.  Please read them.

3.  Sheldon Pollock’s Scholarship:  All scholars make evidence based statements. Contrarily, if any person makes statements and does not provide evidence, that person cannot claim to be a scholar.

·         Pollock says a king patronized Valmiki. Can he provide the name of that king? Does Valmiki say in Ramayana anything about a patron king? How was the first Hindu poem written? One morning on the banks of Ganga Valmiki saw a couple of cranes mating, but the very next instant the male bird died, hit by an arrow.  He became angry and was overcome with grief.  He looked around to find out who had shot the bird. He saw a hunter with a bow and arrows, nearby. Valmiki became very angry.  His lips opened and he cried out,

मां निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः।

यत्क्रौंचमिथुनादेकम् अवधीः काममोहितम्॥'

mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṁ tvamagamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ

yat krauñcamithunādekam avadhīḥ kāmamohitam

You will find no rest for the long years of Eternity

For you killed a bird in love and unsuspecting.

This was the first Hindu verse, and the first Sanskrit verse. The natural chandassu was Anustup which he used for Ramayana rachana inspired by Brahma and getting the story from Narada. Do you see a king here? Why is Sheldon Pollock distorting history saying there was one, without providing a name?

·         Mauryan Emperor Ashoka sent his daughter Sangamitra and son  Mahendra to Sri Lanka to propagate Budhdhism.  Muslim hordes invaded India to propagate their religion and culture. Christians from Europe came and occupied India.  Name one Hindu king who sent Armies or led an invasion on a foreign country to spread Sanskrit and Hinduism.

·         Muslims killed 18 million Hindus, majority of them Brahmins and the Christians killed 7 million in Bengal famine alone under Winston Churchill in 1943 in a manmade Holocaust. Can you name a Hindu king who did anything closely resembling these massacres of Hindus by Muslims and Christians?

·         Sheldon Pollock says all Hindu art and literature developed under kings. Let me mention three great poets in Telugu language who refused any patronage from kings - Potana, Tyagayya and Shyam Sastri.  Potana (1450-1510) wrote Mahabhagavata inspired by Rama and dedicated it to Rama even though he was a Shaivite. He wrote:

ఇమ్మనుజేశ్వరాధములకిచ్చి పురంబులు వాహనంబులున్

సొమ్ములు కొన్ని పుచ్చుకుని సొక్కి శరీరము  వాసి కాలుచే

సమ్మెట వేటులంబడక సన్మతి శ్రీహరి కిచ్చిచెప్పె ఈ

బమ్మెర పోతరాజొకండు భాగవతంబు జగధ్ధితంబుగన్.

Refusing to give in to the lowly king, this Bammera Potaraaju dedicated his Bhaagavatam to Sreehari.  Look at the word Potana (Potaraju) uses to describe the kings “LOWLY”. He went on to become one of the greatest Telugu Poets.

·         Tikkana the greatest Telugu poet dedicated his magnum opus Mahabharatam to Hariharanatha a deity he created from the words Hari (Vishnu) and Hara (Siva) to promote harmony among the followers of these two.

·         Thyagaraaju, another great Telugu poet refused patronage of any king, singing his songs in the temples of Rama and likewise another great Telugu poet, Shyama Sastri, sang in the Kanchi temple. Both of them joined Muttuswami Dikshitaar to become Carnatic Music Trinity.

·         Thus there are many Telugu poets who dedicated their works to their favourite deity and not to a king. How can Sheldon Pollock say that all Hindu literature was patronized by Kings and get away with a blatant lie?

·         Three great Telugu poets Nanne Choda, Vemana and Ramaraja Bhushana were non-Brahmins.

·         Sheldon Pollock says Sanskrit was a reserved area of Brahmins. The greatest Sanskrit poets Valmiki, Vyasa and Kalidasa were not Brahmins. Valmiki was a hunter, Vyasa  was the son a fisherwoman Satyavati and Kalidasa was not a Brahmin. Even if Valmiki mentioned he belonged to Bharadwaja clan, does it preclude him being the son of a hunter woman?

·         Marriages between Brahmins and non -Brahmins were common. Vashista the Brahmarishi par excellence married Arundhati, a Dalit Kanya.

·         Sheldon Pollock says the subject material of all kavyas was kings. Here again he fails to produce fool proof evidence. Mrichchakatika one of the best Sanskrit plays and definitely the best known in Europe, had a poor Brahmin, Charudatta, as hero and Vasantika, a courtesan as heroine. The other roles were from lower classes who spoke all languages like Prakrit in addition to Sanskrit in the play.  A disregard to Natya Sastra that frowned upon.  Krishna Karnamritam, another kavya did not choose a king for hero.

·         Even Ramayana’s Aranyakanda, Kishkindhakanda, Sundarakanda and Yuddhakanda deal with rakshasas, vanaras and birds, and have no mention of a single Brahmin. The Guru Vishwamitra was not a Brahmin.

·         The other great playwright of Sanskrit Bhasa chose themes involving common people, against the stipulations of Natya Sastra. Not always  were sastras  obeyed as Pollock would have us believe. In Telugu,  Palkurki Somanatha wrote in Dwipada Chandassu, a disrespect to Lakshanika Sastra.

·         A strange statement is attributed to Pollock that Muslims and British tried to rejuvenate Sanskrit and Brahmins refused. I lived in Telangana under Nizam for 21 years before I left for Canada. Nizam did not give a cent for the development of Telugu, the local language let alone Sanskrit. Everyone had to learn Urdu.  In Pakistan Sindhi, Punjabi, Pustu and Balochi are not spoken today because of the domination of Urdu, according to Tarek Fatah. That is how Muslims treated other Muslims in a Muslim country.  Imagine the atrocities Nizam committed in Telangana against Hindus - rapes, murders and looting. Telugu language is full of poems describing the Nizam’s atrocities.  Not only Telugu, but there are similar poems in Marathi and Kannada languages also, as they were under the Nizam’s rule as well. No Marx, or no Pollock can say those atrocities did not happen.

·         In one of his papers Pollock complains the prayoga (experiment) was not developed in India as much as sastra (theory).  He should know better.  Hindus were best in three areas - metallurgy, textiles and shipbuilding. Did they get to be the best without prayogas?

·         Madhva based his Dwaita sidhdhanta on Pratyaksha (प्रत्यक्ष – perception), Anumāna (अनुमान inference) and Śabda  (शब्द - relying on word), a rationalistic approach unheard of in the Abrahamic religions or even in dogmatic Marxism.

 

·         Calculus was developed in India 250 years before Leibnitz and Newton by the Kerala school as reported by a Manchester-Exeter universities team. The Kerala school developed the Pi series and used it to calculate Pi correct to 9, 10 and later 17 decimal places. It goes on to say “….. there is strong circumstantial evidence that Indians passed on their discoveries to mathematically savvy Jesuit missionaries who visited India during the 15th century. That knowledge, the researchers argue, may have been passed on to Newton.

·         So called Pythagoras theorem, Pascal’s Triangle and Diophantine equations were known to Vedic people long before they were to Europeans. Zero, infinity, negative numbers , age of the earth, age of the universe , shape of the earth as being round as opposed to Biblical version of a flat earth, and plastic surgery are some of the achievements of Hindus so pre-occupied with power,  prashasti according to Pollock.

·         The plastic surgery developed by Susruta was practiced by potters, not Brahmins.

·         Soldiers were non Brahmins who spoke Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali.

·         Thus Hindu intellectual achievements spanned a spectrum of areas from arts, science, mathematics, technology, medicine, surgery, governance, metaphysics, philosophy, literature and others where non Brahmins made significant contributions.

·         Certainly we didn’t have kings like Henry VIII or other syphilitic monarchs of Europe.  Europe introduced syphilis into every country they travelled.  A major genocide of First Nations people in North America happened from other diseases carried in blankets brought from Europe. Let Pollock deny this!

·         It seems Pollock has Hindu phobia and Sanskrit phobia. One wonders why?  Hindus opened their arms to all refugees including Jews, Syrian Christians, Parsis, Buddhists and even Muslims.  India, a Hindu country had one time in the recent past, a Muslim President (APJ Abdul Kalam), Sikh Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) and Christian Congress Party President (Sonia Gandhi) - all minorities.  Can Pollock show a religion like Hinduism that showed so much tolerance to minorities?  We know what Christians did in Canada, in America, in Mexico, in Chile, in Australia –  genocide of unbelievable proportions. Even today in Canada the rapes and killings of First Nations women, children and men continue unabated, sometimes at the hands of the police.  In the USA,  police and Euro-Americans kill African Americans routinely.  Did Hindus do anything like it? Why oh, why, does Pollock hate Sanskrit and Brahmins so much? I think I know the answer.  He is directing his anger toward Hitler onto Brahmins and Sanskrit. Hitler admired Sanskrit, he took Swastika as his symbol, he admired Aryans and then he killed so many Jews. So Pollock hates Hitler who liked Sanskrit – ergo in his little mind Pollock has to hate Brahmins and Sanskrit. However unreasonable it may sound.  I just want to remind Pollock that Leningrad is no more Leningrad - it is St. Petersburg once again.  USSR failed, communism failed. Will Frankfurt school be any better?  No. It won’t be.  Al l Western philosophies share one thing common with Monotheism, even the communists and Marxists - the belief that <MY WAY IS BETTER THAN YOURS.  I WILL GO TO ANY LENGTH TO DEFEND IT - EVEN KILLINGS ON MASS SCALE> Now let me tell you why Hinduism survived - it accepted everyone with love, patience and tolerance, qualities absent in the West and in the middle east and in the Abrahamic Religions. Let Pollock consider this awhile.

·         I will stop here and let you apply the theorem to Sheldon Pollock of not furnishing evidence for his statements.

Following Valmiki who addressed the Nishada cursing him with no rest for ever for killing the unsuspecting male crane in the process of maithunam, I send the following poem to Sheldon Pollock for being so uncharitable to Sanskrit and to Brahmins.

रामायण कविता नाटक (कल्पित रचना )
This is a work of fiction. Main characters in this poetic play are from Ramayana. Any resemblance to actual persons is purely coincidental. The author  wishes to acknowledge with profound thanks the editing done by Dr. Ratnakar Narale.
Naveen Chandra Ph. D.
पात्राणि : वसिष्ठः, सूत्रधारः, दशरथः, कौसल्या, उर्मिला, लक्ष्मणः, विश्वामित्रः, दूर्वासः, मशकासुरः (पेल्डोन् सोल्लक:),  दुर्गा माता
संध्याकाल:, कोलंबिया-विश्व-विद्यालयम्
पेल्डोन् सोल्लक: :
संस्कृतं मृतकलेवरम् ! संस्कृतं भ्रष्टम् ! 
संस्कृतं कृयति परिप्लव !
रामायणम् अशुच्यम् ! रामायणं अनृतम् !
रामकथा निर्वीर्या, रामायणं बहु दुष्टम् !
दुर्गा माता :
पापी! प्रलापी! त्वं प्रसारयसि रोगम् !
तव दौष्ट्यं भीषणं दण्डं अर्हति !
भवतु मशकासुरः  अवद्य नरकः!
खादसि अवकरं दूषितान्नं किं सदा !

वसिष्ठ उवाच :
शुक्लाम्बरधरं विष्णुं शशिवर्णं चतुर्भुजम् !
प्रसन्न वदनं ध्यायेत् सर्व विघ्नोपशन्तये !
सूत्रधारः :
पृथ्वीकम्पनं भवति ! श्यामम् धरति अम्बरं !
उत्तुङ्गतरङ्गांबोधिः ! झञ्झामारुतं प्राणीति !
स्फुटति अग्निपर्वते धूम्राच्छादनम् च अनलः !
किं कारणं दुश्शकुनाय? कृपया वदसि महन् !
वसिष्ठ उवाच :
क्षुद्रो गर्वोन्नतभाषः अपमानं करोति रामस्य
अगोत्रिकः दुर्भाग्यश्च, नूतन-यार्क-निवासी
मर्यादोल्लन्घनः परमपातकः
वदति अश्लीलान् शब्दान्, लिखति अनृतवाक्यानि
असन्दर्भेण प्रलापान् संदिग्धमेधां
वाचालतः अनिर्णयायान् सिद्धान्तान् च

दशरथ उवाच :
सः दुष्टः मशकासुरः राक्षसः वाचालः दंभी च
करोति वल्गनाः
भारतखण्डनं  च भञ्जनम्
अबद्धचरित्रसृजनम्
कपटपाण्डित्यम्
पाश्चात्यविषप्रसारणम्
संस्कृतमात्सर्यपूजनम्
वितण्डवादविराजनम्
गरलभुजङ्गदंशनम्
मशकासुरवर्तनमेव
कौसल्या उवाच :
न पश्यति रमणीयाम्
अत्यन्तसुन्दरां रामकथाम्
मूढो मूढं व्यभिचारम्
अनृतभाषां वदति
अनृतां रचनां लिखति
अनृतं वर्तनं करोति
उर्मिला उवाच :
सर्वं पापं तव जीवनम्
व्यर्थं व्यर्थं तव जीवनम्
निन्दसि मधुरं संस्कृतम्
निन्दसि पवित्रं संस्कृतम्
देववाणीं निन्दसि !
पापं भूयिष्ठं तव जीवनम्
नास्ति नास्ति मुक्तिः तव अन्ते
अस्तु अस्तु जीवन सर्वं नष्टम्
वृथा वृथा तव कपटज्ञानम्
लक्ष्मण उवाच :
रामायण कथा परमार्थिका
तव बुद्धि मन्दतानूह्या
तव कपाले अनाचराः !
तव मेधायाम् अनादरः !
तव कपाले निस्सन्ग्रहम् !
तव मेधायां निस्सन्धानम् !
हीनं हीनं तव जीवनम् !
पापं भूयिष्ठं तव जीविते !
करोषि  त्वं  मिथ्या अन्वेषणं तव दुर्भाग्यम् !
हे! मशकासुर ! तव पतनं निश्चितम् निश्चितम्!
लाञ्छनम्  ते धिक्! धिक् !!
पतनं तथ्यं तथ्यं तव पतनं तथ्यं तथ्यम् !
पतनं तथ्यं तथ्यम् !
विश्वामित्र उवाच :
न जानाति वाल्मीकं, व्यासम् !
न बोधति भासं, कालिदासम् !
डिम्भकः अधमः ! दंभाचार्यः! मन्दबुद्धिः !
वृथा ! वृथा ! तव जन्म तुच्छं ! तुच्छं !!
छद्मपाण्डित्यं परमदारुणम्!
पण्डितनटनं पापकारणम् !
पण्डितनटनं पापकारणम् !
पण्डितखण्डितः तव सिध्धान्तः तथ्यं तथ्यम् !
भवतु भवतु भवतु तव नाशः !
वृथा वृथा तव जीवनम् !
छद्मपाण्डित्यम् परमदारुणम्!
तथ्यं तथ्यं तव पतनम् !
दूर्वास उवाच :
आङ्लेयो न बोधति सुन्दरां कविताम् !
देवभाषायां प्रकाशितां सुन्दरां कविताम् !
तव कपालं मात्सर्यभरितं !
तव कपालं शिलासदृम् !
नास्ति नास्ति विश्लेषणं तव मस्तिष्के !
किं प्रयोजनम् मोहभरिताङ्ग्लेयस्य !
किं परमार्थं पाश्चात्यदुर्मार्गे !!! 
रावण उवाच :
विधिलिखितं दुर्भाग्यं ललाटे
मूढ अचार्याभ्येयः  शिरोमणिस्त्वम् !
मूर्खचात्रेभ्यायः  अधिपतिस्त्वम्  !
अज्ञानतिमिरे  निवाससिस्त्वम् ! 
तव पतनं तथ्यम्
तथ्यं तथ्यम्
समाप्तम्

A poem, रामायण कविता नाटक (कल्पित रचना), written by Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra, retired scientist and educator, author, freelance journalist and speaker. Copyright©2016 Dr. Nellutla Naveena Chandra. chandraalex@hotmail.com