What the Buddhist translation project can teach Rohan Murty and the rest of us

By Rajiv Malhotra

The Buddhists have been diligently at work on a massive translation project that is expected to continue for a few generations. There is a lot to learn from this. Please visit this site for an idea of the well organized long-term Buddhist translation project: http://84000.co/about/vision

The translators are from across the world. So its not about ethnicity/race/citizenship. The point is that 56% of them are from dharma ashrams, and the remaining 44% are academics mostly initiated by Dalai Lama or some other major Buddhist guru. Hence almost all of them are insiders to that tradition.

The funding is from diverse sources of practicing Buddhists. There is no one money bag in control, nor one larger-than-life editor who decides and who is too big to criticize (such as Sheldon Pollock).

The standards, policies and ideological guidelines, are set by Buddhist insiders. Each translation gets reviewed to check for compliance with this.

The project is explicitly seen as having its central purpose to protect the spiritual legacy - i.e. no question of secularizing the texts or looking for "human rights violations" in them.

Note there is a similar very large project in China to build a library of ancient Mandarin works, another project in Korea for their legacy, in Japan, etc.

Why did Rohan Murty not survey similar projects before deciding how to proceed with his MCLI? Why has no journalist writing on the MCLI controversy mentioned these other role models we can learn from?

I thought it is standard practice that before embarking upon a massive undertaking that will last decades, it is a good idea to closely examine other similar projects.

I am so glad that Dr. Sampadananda Mishra, originator of the Vande Mataram Library initiative, is going to look at this Buddhist project for ideas.

Should our texts be called as 'Classical' and hence dead?

Should our texts be called "Classical" and hence assumed dead like Greek/Latin Classics?

This post has also been blogged here.

After a Change.org petition titled “Removal of Sheldon Pollock as mentor and Chief editor of Murty classical library” dated Feb 26, 2016, initiated by 132 human beings from diverse walks of life (including academicians from fields of Sanskrit, Science, Mathematics and others), with 15993 signatories (as of Mar 10 0830 hrs (GMT +5:30)), many popular media houses had carried a response, apparently from Rohan Murthy, which includes the following:

"It is quite rich to sit in the peanut gallery, pass comments and throw empty shells at those who are actually rolling their sleeves up and working on the ground...I want to hear in which book we have published, in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why."

Since what Rohan Murthy is purported to have said includes his generous consideration to hear “...in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why”, here are two lines (one from the website and one from all of the books):

• The Line 1 of MCLI’s 'Our mission': “To present the greatest literary works of India from the past two millennia to the largest readership in the world is the mission of the Murty Classical Library of India."

• The name of the library: “Murty Classical Library of India”

What is the problem and in what context? 

1. In Line 1 of the mission statement, usage of the word “Greatest” in the first line of “Our Mission” (without qualification of what constitutes “Greatest” and therefore presumably in the general sense of the word), especially in context of Sheldon Pollock’s introduction to the series “Why a Classical Library of India?” and more specifically, in context of the ‘nuance’ ascribed to the word “Classical”
by Sheldon Pollock

2. In the name of the Library, usage of the word “Classical” without including a * (or any other symbol) after the word or without adding something visual to indicate upfront, the highly nuanced (almost antonymic-to-itself, counter-intuitive. alternative) usage of the word “Classical”

Why is it a problem?

Is it not a problem (of misleading "the greatest readership in the world", for one) to go ahead and make a claim (with the weight of credibility such as that of Sheldon Pollock and the Murthys), of presenting the “Greatest” literary works of India, as part of a Library that includes the word “Classical” in its title, where what is implied by “Classical” is nuanced to such a degree by the General Editor (and author of “The death of Sanskrit”) Sheldon Pollock, that the word “Classical" becomes, in some strategically crucial way, an antonym of itself, both in the general sense of the word in every day life and in academia.

To better understand the implications of what is at stake in using “Greatest” and “Classical” in the same sentence (where one seems to mean what it generally means and where one deliberately defined to mean, in some ways, its own opposite), let us start by revisiting the meaning of the word “Classical”, in the general sense of the word (Oxford definition).

clas·si·cal

[ˈklasək(ə)l] ADJECTIVE

1. of or relating to ancient Greek or Latin literature, art, or culture: 
"classical mythology" synonyms: ancient Greek · Hellenic · Attic · Latin · ancient Roman


2. (typically of a form of art) regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style: 
synonyms: traditional · long-established · serious · highbrow


3. of or relating to the first significant period of an area of study: 
"classical mechanics”

In light of the above, the literature of Rig Veda (in Sanskrit), I opine, will be considered (by hundreds of millions in India and the world) “Classical”, on 2 out of  3 “Oxford" expansions above (second and third, to be specific), i.e., 'exemplary standard, traditional and long-established in form or style, of or relating the first significant period of an area of study', and certainly “Greatest", to hundreds of millions of Indians (particularly Hindus who believe in Vedanta)

Now, before getting to the rationale, included in Sheldon Pollock’s introduction, on what makes MCLI "a library of “classical” literature" and what makes "Indian literature “classic”", it might not be out of place to revisit:

> what the Minister of Tourism & Culture Ambika Soni told the Rajya Sabha as the criteria laid down to determine the eligibility of languages to be considered for classification as a "Classical Language” by Government of India, namely:

"High antiquity of its early texts/recorded history over a period of 1500–2000 years; a body of ancient literature/texts, which is considered a valuable heritage by generations of speakers; the literary tradition be original and not borrowed from another speech community; the classical language and literature being distinct from modern, there may also be a discontinuity between the classical language and its later forms or its offshoots."

> the languages declared "classical language" by Government of India (GOI), till date: Tamil (in 2004), Sanskrit (in 2005), Kannada (in 2008), Telugu (in 2008), Malayalam (in 2013) and Odia (in 2014)

Though the above criteria from GOI is for Languages and not for Literature, this was included above to facilitate each reader to quickly assess for oneself, whether or not GOI’s interpretation of the word classical is by and large in keeping with its general import.

As for Sheldon Pollock’s “Classical”, let us read first read an excerpt from his introduction in the MCLI website:

"The transformation of Indian languages in the modern period and the ever-increasing gap in knowledge of their premodern varieties explain MCLI’s cutoff point of 1800. But what makes this a library of “classical” literature? The word itself has its origins in a tradition very distant from India, namely Latin, and thinkers as diverse as C.-A. Sainte-Beuve, T. S. Eliot, and Frank Kermode who have tried to gauge the meaning of that term for our era have used the Western tradition as their touchstone. The key characteristics of their “classic,” namely “universality” and “perpetual contemporaneity,” turn out, unsurprisingly, to be Western, and hence not so universal or contemporary after all.

What do we think makes Indian works “classic”? It might in fact be their very resistance to contemporaneity and universality, that is, their capacity to communicate the vast variety of the human past.”

In his “brief reflection of the ideas of “Classic” itself, Pollock writes (see Crisis in the Classics) “I follow an entirely different logic, abandoning the “normative significance” of “classical” and the subjectivism and illegitimate generalization of the present that such normativity always smuggles in.”

In the same article, he goes on to add: “We may unhesitatingly grant the premise that classical culture, Sanskrit for example, offers at one and the same time a record of civilization and a record of barbarism, of extraordinary inequality and other social poisons. Once we all agree on the toxicity of this discourse, however, there will be contestation over how to overcome it.”

He then makes his position clear by stating “ In my view, you do not transcend inequality, to the degree it is a conceptual category taking some of its force from traditional discourse, by outlawing the authors and burning the discourses, or indeed by trying to forget them; you transcend inequality by mastering and overmastering those discourses through study and critique. You cannot simply go around a tradition to overcome it, if that is what you wish to do; you must go through it. You only transform a dominant culture by outsmarting it. That, I believe, is precisely what some of India’s most disruptive thinkers, such as Dr. Ambedkar, sought to do, though they were not as successful as they might have been had they had access to all the tools of a critical philology necessary to the 

task. “

Let us now refresh how we got to all this in the first place: Rohan Murthy asking “in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why” and the response articulated at the top of this piece (reproduced immediately below to help reader avoid going back and forth):

What is the problem and in what context?

1. In Line 1 of the mission statement, usage of the word “Greatest” in the first line of “Our Mission” (without qualification of what constitutes “Greatest” and presumably in the general sense of the word), especially in context of Sheldon Pollock’s introduction to the series “Why a Classical Library of India?” and more specifically, in context of the ‘nuance’ ascribed to the word “Classical” by Sheldon Pollock

2. In name of the Library, usage of the word “Classical” without including a * (or any other symbol) after the word or without adding something visual to indicate upfront, the highly nuanced (almost antonymic-to-itself, counter-intuitive, alterative) usage of the word “Classical”

Why is it a problem?

Is it not a problem (of misleading "the greatest readership in the world", for one) to go ahead and make a claim (with the weight of credibility such as that of Sheldon Pollock and the Murthys), of presenting the “Greatest” literary works of India, as part of a Library that includes the word “Classical” in its title, where what is implied by “Classical” is nuanced to such a degree by the General Editor (and author of “The death of Sanskrit”) Sheldon Pollock, that the word “Classical" becomes, in some strategically crucial way, an antonym of itself, both in the general sense of the word in every day life and in academia.

Perhaps the solution/clue to the problem of usage of “Classical” in MCLI’s title, lies in the one word that is common in two other titles - Wendy Doniger’s book “The Hindus: An Alternative History” and Sheldon Pollock’s paper “The alternative classicism of classical India” – the common word being: “Alternative”!

In avoiding the word “Alternative” in the website yet using the word “Classical” in the title of the Library, but cleverly changing its import to mean almost the opposite of itself (and implying “Alternative”); and even more cleverly legitimizing the need to change the import on the pretext of not applying a “Western” lens to an Indian context (to earn credibility), is perhaps where lies the root of the problem of “Murty Classical Library of India” using the word “Classical” as-is in its title and claiming to present “the greatest literary works of India”

In view of all the above, let us look at one serious implication – the existential crisis of the Rig Veda (in Sanskrit), in the MCLI world.

If Rig Veda is deemed ineligible to be part of the MCLI world, in light of the “alternative” import ascribed to the word “Classical” by Pollock, will not:

•  “The largest readership in the world” be deprived of top-notch translation of what UNESCO has considered “memory of the world”?
• MCLI be seen as “misleading” by millions, in usage of the word “Greatest” in its mission statement and the word “Classical” in its title without qualification?

If Rig Veda (in Sanskrit) is included eventually in MCLI, will not MCLI be subtly imposing the “dominant” chronology and force-fitting Rig Veda into the “…last two millennia” when the chronology from many of the traditionalists may vary?

In view of the existential criteria of a “memory of the world” Rig Veda in the MCLI world, and the political identity and purport that Professor Pollock has induced into some of the “Classical” literature by nuancing the word “Classical”, are the four questions raised by in the petition not legitimate?

1. How will certain Sanskrit words that are non-translatable be treated?
2. What will be the posture adopted towards the “Foreign Aryan Theory” and other such controversial theories including chronologies?

3. What will be assumed concerning the links between ancient texts and present-day social and political problems?
4. Will the theoretical methods developed in Europe in the context of the history of ancient Europe, be used to interpret Indian texts, or will there first be open discussions with Indians on the use of Indian systems of interpretations?

The petition begins with “We the undersigned would like to convey our deep appreciation for your good intentions and financial commitment to establish the Murty Classical Library of India, a landmark project to translate 500 volumes of traditional Indian literature into English. We appreciate the motives of making our civilization’s great literature available to the modern youth who are educated in English, and who are unfortunately not trained in Indian languages.” and the petition ends with “We urge you to invite critics of Sheldon Pollock and the approaches being followed in his project, for open and frank discussions. We are convinced that this would lead to a dramatic improvement in your project and also avoid any adverse outcome.”

Rohan asked to hear “in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why”: One answer is – the “Title” itself (for the as-is usage of “Classical”), and the first line of the Mission statement (for the usage “Greatest” and “Classical”). How about starting with “Classical”, Rohan? Should texts still being used in every day lives be called “Classical” at all?

Professor Gopinath answers questions from a journalist of Business Standard

Professor Gopinath, one of the prominent signatories to the petition that requests Rohan Murty to reconsider his choice of Sheldon Pollock as the General Editor for the Murty Classical Library of India, was sent a questionnaire by one of the journalists from Business Standard. His responses are reproduced below.

Pollock has been heading the Murty Classical Library for sometime now - why do you think his editorship is coming under fire just now, don't all of us have our own political views? 

 The issue has picked up only after the book ”The battle for Sanskrit” by Rajiv Malhotra (RM) was completed last year and now released. As recently as 2014, many were uncomfortable with Prof. Sheldon Pollock's (SP) way of interpreting texts but it needed someone with the required fortitude to really study the full corpus of his work to understand the issues (specifically his interpretive lens). The book itself was written by RM to put a cogent argument that Shringeri Matha should be careful about funding someone (to hold the Adi Shankara chair at Columbia U.) who has looked at Indian civilizational values in a highly jaundiced fashion. 

For example, in the section "For a Critical Indology" in his 1993 paper "Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj” where there is a serious effort to prove some causal connection with Sanskrit and the Nazi holocaust, he writes 

"Reviewing Indology in the way we have just done, we encounter a field of knowledge whose history and object both have been permeated with power. From its colonial origins in Justice Sir William to its consummation in SS Obersturmführer Wüst [“Nazi” Indologist], Sanskrit and Indian studies have contributed directly to consolidating and sustaining programs of domination. In this (noteworthy orthogenesis) these studies have recapitulated the character of their subject, that indigenous discourse of power for which Sanskrit has been one major vehicle and which has shown a notable longevity and resilience.” This quote may not be all that clear but what the last sentence is saying, in (highly) simple words, that the subject of study (Sanskrit) made its students (German Indologists) also into Nazis or provide legitimacy for Nazis. The big “elephant" in the room, the deep antagonism between Christians and Jews (esp repeated pogroms against Jews) for 2 millennia, is conveniently glossed over. What is amazing in the argument is its sheer mindlessness: there is inequality in the Indic tradition (no where else?), German Indologists (using the cooked up theory of Aryan race to score brownie points over other Europeans) fell for this inequality and Nazism followed. The historical and well documented pogroms against Jews by the Church all over Europe and Russia just disappears from the discussion. 

Furthermore, "Perhaps the western Sanskritist feels this most acutely, given that Sanskrit was the principal discursive instrument of domination in premodern India, …” He is certainly a feeling person compared to all of us. 

Also, many, many stmts of the following form where linkages are made betw Indic forms of thinking and Nazi thinking: 

"From such factors as the semantic realm of the distinction arya/anarya and the biogenetic map of inequality (along with less theorized material, from Vedic and epic literature, for instance), it may seem warranted to speak about a "pre-form of racism" in early India (Geissen 1988: 48ff.), especially in a discussion of indigenous "orientalism," since in both its classic colonial and its National Socialist [“Nazi”] form orientalism is inseparable from racism.” 

What is striking about SP is the almost complete erasure of the “elephant” in the room: British and US role in not stopping the Nazis till the war was forced on them (for eg. Chamberlain’s Munich treaty in ’38; this is also a credible allegation by the Communists of that era) and active collaboration by Vatican with Italian and German fascism. Instead, he spends 10’s of pages looking at obscure sources from “deluded" German indologists who are hoping to use Indian (Sanskrit) materials to show their superiority over other Europeans or provide some cover for Nazism! Or, find one (obscure) Indian author with prejudiced views (Bhatta Lakshmidhara) out of the many and make him the spokesperson for all Indians! 

I hope it is clear why some of us are leery of letting someone like SP speak for Sanskrit literature. If you want more details, RM’s book has a lot more detail. Luckily, the book is well written and easy to read. Since some of the materials are avlbl on the net (for eg. the above paper is at https://www.academia.edu/2242722/Orientalism_and_the_postcolonial_predicament_perspectives_on_South_Asia), you can check many of them for accuracy yourself. Nothing is made up except SP who presents different sides of himself to different audiences. 

I am not sure what his pitch at Shringeri is: 

that Sanskrit is responsible for Nazism? 

that Sanskrit is dead (see his paper “Death of Sanskrit” 2001)? 

that Sanskrit cosmopolis is oppressive (see his 2006 book)? 

> - The petition focuses on how Sheldon Pollock may not being able to do justice to Indian "ideals, values and sentiments". Considering these books are not interpretations but direct translations, should we worry about that? 

When I was a student at IIT (may be around 17 or 18 years old), I was curious how the Bhagavad Gita could be interpreted differently to result in Advaita, Dvaita or Vishishtadvaita perspectives. So I took 2 (or 3?) translations side by side (along with the Sanskrit text) one from ISKCON and the other one I think from an author from Raamakrishna Mission and laboriously looked at where they diverged. If one can get different perspectives on such a *widely* circulated text, one can imagine how much more easy to subtly interpret texts to push one’s viewpoint. I have also read DD Kosambi’s interpretation of Gita from a Marxist perspective: he sees a lot of “class struggle” as expected and also other highly “original”/creative interpretations (not listed here as my response is already too long…). 

Another example: Laal Ded (Lalla Yogini) in the 14th c. is claimed by Kaashmiri Hindus and by Kaashmiri Muslims as their own. The trick here is to selectively choose those vaakhs (“sayings”) that talk about Siva (“blue throated one”) or that use Persian words. Note that these vakhs were not really written down till the 18th c. and circulated as folk memory. As Kashmir became more Islamic, it is natural that some words may have got substituted with Persian words (and may be vice versa?). Same with Kabir. Now who gets to write the books is important. Is it a really an (unbiased) scholar or a person with an axe to grind? 

In S. India, there was a famous poetess in the 13th c. (Akka Mahaadevi) who wrote in Kannada and, as far as I can understand it, clearly was a Siva bhakta/lover (in the use of imagery just like Lal Ded). But there are many recent writings claiming that she was against the "religion of the day”, etc. I would call this as a “creative" interpretation and followed by those who look at anything Indic as toxic. Since such writers are in influential places (in Indian and outside academia), their views have a salience that traditional peoples' do not have. 

So the issue is whether someone has a point of view that would be pushed inspite of evidence. Unfortunately, SP seems to be that kind of Sanskrit scholar (note the discussion above wrt Nazism). Note that his own guru (doctoral adviser), Prof. Daniel Ingalls (at Harvard), had a deeper and better appreciation of the Indian tradition (he studied, for e.g., Tarka shaastras with some Kolkata tarkikaas/panditaas; contrast this with SP’s interlocutors who were more in the social/artistic/political spheres such as Girish Karnad, UR Ananthamurthy, etc). I would go ahead to say that I may not be that uncomfortable if Daniel Ingalls (or similar caliber) were to head the project (but he is no more). But I still would argue that since traditional Indian scholars have been given a raw deal in the past so many decades, anyone funding such projects should first look at local intellectual resources (traditional scholars) and help them (with funds, livelihood and managerial/technical help as necessary) and if this is not feasible then to look outside. I do not think any due diligence was done.

Note that if there were many projects and SP’s is one of the many, I would not be highly alarmed. With the serious lack of support for Sanskrit in the country, one well funded and motivated project can poison our understandings for generations. 

The claim that there are no Sanskrit scholars in India who can do it is absolutely false; one of the more tricky technical shaastras Neelakantha Somayaaji’s astounding book on astronomy (Tantrasangraha written 1500 CE) has been translated recently in 2010 (using earlier work of KV Sarma 1977) and annotated with detailed explanatory notes by Profs K. Ramasubramanian (prof with a doctorate in physics) and MS Sriram (prof in theoretical physics), both signatories to the petition.

There are also subtle aspects when such works are funded to “outsiders”. For example, I am not comfortable reading Sanskrit texts in Roman. Because Indian languages are close to being phonetic, Devanaagari or Telugu script, etc are more suitable. I have looked at some volumes of the Clay Sanskrit library series (edited by SP with money from an erstwhile millionaire stock broker/Sanskrit lover from NY) and invariably there is only Roman! So essentially, many Indians will not be enthused (leaving aside the Anglophiles in the country) with such productions as it is meant only for the *West*. I cannot read them without a sense of feeling violated. The Murtys funding SP seems to make the asymmetry worse longterm. 

Another example: The many Telugu poems in Roman is a torture for me to read in "A Poem at the Right Moment: Remembered Verses from Premodern South India” by Velcheru Narayana Rao (Vēlcēru Nārāyaṇarāvu), David Shulman

> - Have you got a chance to read any of the Murty Library books? If yes, what do you think of them? 

I have ordered some but they have not arrived yet. However, I have looked at earlier attempts such as the Clay series (with SP as General Editor). Also the U Chicago project on Mahabharata, edited by J. A. B. van Buitenen (JABvB), etc which is a bit disturbing. In the 1st few volumes of JABvJB at least, terms in old English power structures such as feudal barons have been used as a translation for kshatriyas. This transplantation of alien models into the translations is bothersome. 

In the Telugu translation for one book Manucharitra in the Murty Lib, some have already pointed out the following errors: (see http://beingdifferentforum.blogspot.in/2016/03/errors-in-mcli-translations.html for more details) 

"God Brahma is translated as 'the Supreme Lord' or 'the God creator', which at best is an approximation and simply does not convey what the author had in mind. In another phrase, 'Konda Chiluva' is translated as 'Boa Constrictor'. For the uninitiated, there were never any boa's in India, so please read it as python. 

A verse 'Ghora Vana Pradesa' is translated as 'God Forsaken Place'. Sorry, this is junk. There is no such concept as 'God Forsaken' in Indian culture [where God is everywhere!]. The phrase literally translates to 'A dark and deep forest'. “

> - Can only Indians be the guardians of classic Indian literature, does not a man who has studied the field for most of his life not work in the field? 

As I already indicated, SP is highly political in his thinking. His goal is to “detoxify” Sanskrit given that it could in principle give rise to Nazism and other horrors (the Western world is off the hook for the 2 large scale murderous world wars). It is true he is a scholar (prof at Ivy School) but that does not necessarily mean appropriate for a Murty Library. As I already mentioned, I would not have a serious problem with someone like Prof. Daniel Ingalls, SP’s own thesis advisor. Lifelong study in certain areas may not necessarily mean an impartial perspective that is evidence based. 

> - I believe some of the petitioners are coming together to form the Vande Matram Library on the lines of the Murty Library, please comment. 

Having seen a few attractive volumes of the “Culture and History of Mathematics” published by Hindustan Book Agency without any large funding (AFAIK!), I do not see any problems per se if a competent set of scholars set down to do the job if provided reasonable funds and good managerial oversight. I would really welcome it if it empowers the seriously disenfranchised traditional scholars both of Sanskrit and languages such as Kannada, Telugu, etc.

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

Members of online satsang respond to Rohan Murty's TOI article

This is the article by Rohan Murty which had many members responding to it. We reproduce here some of the responses.

Mallika says:

This is a terrible initiative. Because according to Pollock (i)According to Pollock there is nothing spiritual about Sanskrit Literature, Sanskrit is political and an instrument of oppression. (ii) Again according to Pollock Ramayana was popularized in 11 - 15 centuries to oppress the Muslims. Even though Ramayana was popular a 1000 years earlier. Should this sinister version be popularized is the Q?

Navita pitches in:

Please do square this circle - Your Editor, Sheldon Pollock, believes :

- That Sanskrit shastras are regressive, dogmatic texts that are mentally and intellectually imprisoning and stifle individual creativity
- The shastras are a tool for political and social oppression, and should only be studied by scholars like himself for the purpose of uncovering such evils and liberating Indians
- The worship of Ram is a ‘cult’ popularised around the 12thC to rally the masses against the Moghul invaders who were projected as the demonic ‘other’
- The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story in the world because it is a deep meditation on the fratricide in civil war
- Sanskrit is a ‘dead’ language and it was in fact the barbarous invaders who sought to revive it
- the German Holocaust was inspired by the Nazis reading of Sanskrit texts

In the context of such negative views about the Sanskrit shastras how do you expect there to be any confidence the Murthi Classical library will do justice to the vast treasure house of deep vedic knowledge and the accomplishments of ancient India? Please do acquaint yourself with close reading of Sheldon Pollock’s actual works (and not just the accolades of the mutually self-praising cabal of Western Indology).

Hemakanta adds his voice:

We appreciate your intentions of carrying forward our culture and heritage for the benefit of future generations. You belong to a family having the gene and blood of great Rishis and son of the mentor of a great and prestigious Corporate House of India.

However You have not done proper due diligence while appointing Mr. Scheldon Pollock as chief editor of such a prestigious project.

(Mahatma said: "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any." )

With the result now you have been “blown out of your feet” contrary to the advise of Mahatma.

(I look forward to working constructively with anybody — be they ethnically Indian or otherwise — as long as they are honest scholars of the highest caliber interested in advancing the same visions articulated here.)

Mr. Scheldon Pollock’s nature, qualities , intentions and associations are well exposed now. There is no need to repeat them here, as you are well aware of them by now.(Particularly with his association of recent activities at JNU)

(At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500 volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting translation. )

For a big Pot of Milk few drops of poison or salt will do to break the Milk in it.

“The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights”

Yes. Vedic culture is universal and embraces whole humanity.” sarve janaaH sukhino bhavantu “ is the basic principle of sanaatana dharma.

Bhagavaan in Bhagvadgita also said that no one has right to follow adharma or act against sanaatana dharma and survive. Hence Bhagavaan proposed to Arjuna to fight against adharma.

With the result the Great people/legends like Bheeshma, DroNa , KarNa had to perish and Aswatthaama had to loose his face and fame.

Mistakes do happen when we try do some good work.
“gnaatasaarOpi khalvEkaH sandigdhE kaaryavastooni”

Knowledgeable whosoever while doing great things doubts and mistakes do happen.

A wise man is one who realizes this and correct his actions and steps.

For the question of protecting Dharma , no false prestige please.

dharmO rakShati rakShitaH.

Sahanaavavatu sahanau bhunaktu sahaveeryam karavaavahai tEjasvinaavadheetamastu maavidviShaavahai.

Om shaantiH shaantiH shaantiH.

Ashok says:

I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.

These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.

The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.

It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.

You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.

Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.

These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.

The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.

It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.

You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.

Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.

Satchidananda says:

The article makes nice points, but only thing is Rohan himself is guilty of not following the title. Rohan acknowledges that these Classics (not dead like Roman or Greek) are treasures for humanity. Rohan or Pollock did not preserve them over the millennia. A traditional ecosystem did. So why are Rohan and Pollock so averse to the traditional views. Why should the classics be viewed only under the distorted western lens. Pollock's legacy of removing paramarthika or calling ramayana as socially oppressive tool are neither works of scholarliness nor great revelations. If they have been to the mountaintop, they must realize so did all these great scholars from India who have traditionally preserved over millennia. WHY IGNORE THEM? How can one who is bent on distorting the views of an entire civilization claim that he alone is the most able person? Rohan is on record claiming that all Indians are unfit. What qualifies Rohan to even make such a claim? A person with so much bias and prejudice is made as the gatekeeper to the classics and Rohan cannot argue that these biases will not be part of translation. A person who has double face and talks something to popular media and writes profusely against the very literature and people described in it cannot be trusted. Rohan can do all this media blitz but money can only buy so much credibility. Peanut gallery knows more than you do. The tragedy is the author of the article is invoking Gandhiji, when his favorite ishta devata, Rama is being trashed by Pollock and the very author is doing prashasti of him. What an irony. No one denies that Pollock and his team has put hard work. But can the same defenders give a guarantee that his biases are not part of the translation. Why can't Pollock have an in camera debate on these issues with Rajiv Malhotra? Why can't Rohan include the traditional scholars, who are not yet converted by Pollockism to give balanced views on the classics? Why insist that all Indians are not fit to translate their own classics? If the treasures are belonging to humanity, doesn't it make all Indians a bigger inheritor of this heritage? Why insist that only Pollock has the only scholarship needed to translate? If he wants to claim Pollock is smarter than Rohan, he is free to, but to make such outrageous claim makes Rohan more stupider than the all paid media can portray. DOES ROHAN WANT TO BE THE PAPPU OF MURTHY FAMILY? He seems to be showcasing it more with the paid media articles for if he opens the mouth, only peanut gallery stuff comes out. Money can buy more advertisement like these articles but not wisdom. Sorry Rohan, if you follow dharma, wisdom will automatically accrue. You are not doing justice by letting twisted motivated translations silence the traditional views of millennia and legacy of the greatest civilization on this planet. SATYAMEVA JAYETE

Indian public disagrees with Rohan Murty's defensiveness

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

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

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

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

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

JP weighs in:

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

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

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

Srinath chips in:

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

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

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

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

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

Subramanian says:

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

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

Harish opines:

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

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

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

Prof Lal comes in:

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

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

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

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

Mallika writes:

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

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

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

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

Arun joins the discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hari's comment made to ET is reproduced below:

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

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

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

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

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