The Translation Problem

A forum member DJ writes:
Folks, I've been meaning to write this for months, given the importance of this topic. I think we need to tweak our understanding of this matter because it is way off the mark right now. The so-called translation problem is even worse than we think it is. It is not a problem involving words and meanings but is more of a theoretical problem that relates to the entire framework that shapes the way we think.

Ever since our colonization we have taken on the Abrahamic way of talking without really understanding what we are talking about. This has been one of the greatest failing of Hindus. While our enemies were busy studying us to death, we sat back and did not care to understand what their religion and culture were all about.
As a result of this, we adopted their way of thinking so that now we no longer have an intuitive understanding of many of the words in our own languages. This is especially true when it comes to talking about human psychology. We are as clueless about words such as manas and buddhi as as anyone from the West who wants to study our traditions. When it comes to words like these we do with them exactly what we do with words like deva and puja.  We map them on to certain words in English and understand them in the way that the West has taught us to understand them. This is what is so insidious about the translation problem. It is not confined just to translation into English. It encompasses the way we talk in our native Indian languages. The framework of the western cultural experience has been so dominant in the last 300 years that language-use in Hindi, Kannada, Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi, Sanskrit, and every other Indian language has been distorted.

Please remember that many of these words have to do with basic human psychology. These are words that we use to talk about ourselves, our friends, husbands, wives, parents, kids, and other human beings. Therefore, we cannot sit back and proclaim that there are many Hindu experts and scholars who do know what they are talking about. Given the fundamental importance of a vocabulary that allows us to talk about ourselves, we cannot sit back and rely on a community of specialists. We must be able to relate to these words as we live and breathe. Even if our experts tell us what these words mean, how do we understand them in ourselves? Is my desire for a dosa an expression of my manas or my buddhi? When I want to punch somebody, what prevents me: buddhi, chitta, manas, dharma, or, to use Christian terminology, the conscience? What if my buddhi and manas both support me in wanting to punch someone? What then is the difference between the two? What do I need to train if I want to improve? How do I identify that entity? How do I know what trains it? Your experts, it turns out, will have to appeal to the words I already know in order to explain to me what buddhi or manas is. Merely knowing a word cannot help me identify it in myself. Our approach to studying human psychology was different from the subject 'psychology' that is taught in schools and universities.

Distortions in our understanding of our own traditions had already started with the Islamic colonization. They became more systematized when the missionaries and European scholars began with their translations. The next level of distortion started when Indians themselves adopted this way of talking in English. Finally, distortions occurred when Indians then translated their way of talking in English back into the Indian languages. After all these distortions, there is no way of telling how the cognition of Indians has changed in the past few centuries. In many ways we are as clueless as anyone from the West who studies our traditions. What they learn from studying Patanjali is also what we learn by studying Patanjali. This is the reason why earlier generations of Indians did not object to the translations the British came up with. It’s because our understanding of Ishwara is as shallow as our understanding of God.

This problem cannot be solved by merely retaining words in our own language. As a first step we have to understand the culture that inflicted this framework that we have become trapped in. In other words, the so-called translation problem is a theoretical problem, and as long as we accept the theoretical framework provided by the West, whether it involves religion or cosmology or whether it has to do with human psychology, we will not be able to solve the problem.

We need to develop alternative theoretical frameworks to rival those of the West. Our frameworks may well be superior when talking about human psychology, let’s say. They may not be adequate when talking about the cosmos. Accordingly, we can adopt, adapt, or discard our frameworks. Meanwhile, just quibbling over the meaning of what brhamanda exactly means is a useless exercise. What may have been cutting edge at the time of Aryabhata and Agastya may not be relevant any more. The fact that we are willing to accept every bit of knowledge that was produced 5000 years ago without any critical reflection is further proof of the fact that we are so out of touch with our traditions. It is not about studying some ancient text but really understanding their approach to knowledge. With all due respect, merely using Sanskrit words in some contexts is a useless exercise. If we really understood what we were talking about, we would be able to express it in any language.

Rajiv Malhotra responds:
Indeed, the mis-translation is not just of words but the ideas behind them. Once you require the original word to be retained, you also force people to think what the words mean more deeply. Because puja is not same as prayer, it compels the person to learn what puja is, where and why it differs, and why the difference matters a lot.
The Sanskrit non-translatables initiative started in BD has far reaching implications, beyond just preserving certain words. Each word is an ecosystem of knowledge, a signpost to deep structures. Once we get critical mass on board this venture, it will snowball in many directions. But first lets take issue with common translations we find our netas, gurus, purohits doing all the time. Build from there. This is one of several initiatives in parallel to take back control of our civilization. The SI2 conference will have many outstanding papers on such matters.

Forum member YKW  adds:
Rajivji has very rightly said that the mis-translation is not just of words but the ideas behind them.  Emergence of Aryan Invasion theory to an extent is the result of such a mis-translation and mis-interpretation of Vedic works. Substituting mere dictionary equivalents for words and Ignoring the method and interpretive principles of ancient rishies while translating the multi-dimensional and symbolic language of the Vedic texts made them unintelligible and beyond human comprehension.   Such a mutilation and bungling with the the Vedic language due to ignorance or by choice also kills the very spirit of the profound ideas contained in the ancient texts. It was Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati(1824-83) who in recent times pointed out that how misinterpretation of the texts led to several misconceptions/misgivings which finally ended into many obnoxious customs and evil practices in the society.  Hence, the need to put things in the right perspective.

I am giving below few  examples of  mistranslation and misinterpretation  from the book "Original Home of the Aryans" which is english translation of the work 'Aryon Ka Aadi Desh'. The book is written by Swami Vidyanand Saraswati(former Principal, Arya College, Panipat and Fellow Punjab University), pub  by Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi, Ed.1987. Excerpts from the book:

"Griffth in his note on the Rigvedic hymn (1-10-1) writes:  "The dusky brood: The dark aborigines who opposed the Aryans," i.e., the dark coloured aborigines who opposed Aryans are called Dasa or Dasyu.  In order to prove the aborigines as dark-coloured he refers to the six mantras of Rigveda (1-101-1; 1-130-8; 2-20-7; 4-16-13; 6-47-21 and 7-5-3) in which the word Krishna has been used.  As a matter of fact different types of colours are mentioned in  these mantras and not human beings.  Skandswami has interpreted Krishna-garbha as black clouds.  That is why in the Vedas the so-called leaders of Dasyus, Shambhar, Chumuree, Dhumi, Varchin, etc. are classified as different types of clouds." 

"On account of lack of knowledge about the poetic description in the Vedas, the foreigners have distorted the meanings of the words. The foreigners have tried to show that the aborigines were phallus-worshippers.  They have based conclusions on the word Shishan-deva which is used in the Vedas to denote persons who are lusty and sensuous.  Yaskacharya has interpreted this word as abrahmacharya i.e., who does not observe brahamacharya.  This word occurs in the Rigveda (7-21-5 and 10-99-3).  In these mantras prayer is addressed to Indra that evil persons should not cause impediments in their noble works.  These mantras have no reference to worship.  Sensuous persons of any country, time and society are shishnadevas." 

"The word anas is used in the Vedas.  The foreign scholars have interpreted it as "without nose or with flat nose."  Their view is fallacious.  The word "nas" does not mean nose.  it refers to sound.  The Hymn in which this word occurs in the Rigveda (5-29-10) speaks of clouds: the word, therefore, in the context means clouds which do not thunder.  It has no reference whatsoever to flat nose or noselessness." 

Swami Vidyanand further remarks  that the camp-followers of the Western scholars continue to see through the eyes of their western masters.  The great exponent of Indian culture,K.M. Munshi has written quite diabolically about Aryans and Rishies and described them beef eaters, drinkers, gamblers, etc,  in his book Lopa-Mudra.  In the preface to the book Shri Munshi has stated that whatever he has written in the book is based on Rigveda. However, when Swami Vidyanand asked him to  quote the mantras on the authority of which he had written all this in his book - he wrote back as under in his letter dated 2nd February, 1950. 

" I believe the Vedas to have been composed by human beings in the very early stage of our culture and my attempt in this book has been to create an atmosphere which I find in the Vedas as translated by Western scholars and as given in Dr.Keith's Vedic Index.  I have accepted their views of life and conditions in those times." 

Talking about the pernecious effects of mis-interpretation and mis-translation, Swami Vidyanand Saraswati  further says that by adopting literal meanings of words instead of etymological or derivative meanings,the Vedas have been shown as a book of facinating stories.  In this way our brains have been stuffed with rocks of faithlessness in the Vedas.  (Note: The above english translation of the book Aryon Ka Aadi desh i.e.,- Original Home of the Aryans by Swami Vidyanand Saaswati is out of print, however, Hindi enlarged edition , pub.by Arya Prakashan, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi is available).

How I prioritize my work, battles, feedback, critics

By Rajiv Malhotra

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

Principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This blog initially appeared here and is penned by Megh Kalyanasundaram

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence 1:

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

Evidence 2:

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

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

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

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

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

•The politicizing of the genre of kavya;

•The outright dismissal of the positive value of shastra;

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence 1:

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

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

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

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

Evidence 2:

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

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

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

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

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

&

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

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

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

Krishna Chivukula responds to Shatavadhani Ganesh's article on Rajiv Malhotra

Below is forum member Krishna Chivukula's response to Shatavadhani Ganesh's critique of TBFS.

SaG Quote:Malhotra’s intent is noble (and something that we too share) but his understanding of the nature of sanatana dharma as a transcendental system is flawed. He aims to show that Hinduism is exclusivist in its own way and its exclusivism is somehow better than other exclusivist faiths like Christianity or Islam (see his previous book, Being Different). His line of reasoning would reduce this battle to a Communist vs. Theologist type scuffle (and yet he accuses his enemies of being anti-transcendence; see pp. 97, 116). His approach goes against Gaudapada’s observation – “Dualists have firm beliefs in their own systems and are at loggerheads with one another but the non-dualists don’t have a quarrel with them. The dualists may have a problem with non-dualists but not the other way around.” (Mandukya Karika 3.17-18)

There is enough in this opening line to consider SaG an insider. Therefore, formally it also qualifies him to question RM's understanding of Sanata Dharma. What follows is inconsistent. RM devoted a whole book, Indra's Net, to show why it is not exclusivist. SaG must take a more complete approach to studying RM and his works. To many current Hindus, RM's works must be treated as sound bases of Hindu understanding, and qualified insider expositions of Sanaatana Dharma. This reduction of RM's works to some dvandvas such asexclusivist vs non exclusivist or Communist vs. Theologist is unfair. As Einstein said "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler"

SaG Quote:Malhotra’s understanding of Sanskrit and Sanskriti seems second hand since he puts a premium on form (rupa) as against content (svarupa) and uses pseudo-logic instead of non-qualified universal experiential wisdom to counter the enemies (see pp. 44-49 for an elaborate but hazy diagnosis of the problem).

This interpretation of RM's understanding of Samskritam/Sanskriti is not relevant to the discussion in the book. This is another instance of SaG losing sight of RM's intent in this work. RM has demonstrated phenomenal application of western logic to develop a lethal attack model against the Western Indologists. I see his work as the function of German panzer spearheads of the Wehrmacht of early WW2 – lethal clearing of the enemy defenses and prepare ground for the long term occupation. SaG must join the long term forces, dig in, and establish firm defense lines for the future. He (RM) has never claimed to be a know all and has always invited quality debates with open arms. Sniping does no good to anyone.

SaG Quote:Further, he is also confused with some of the basic terms like sastra, kavya and veda. The irony is that Malhotra himself doesn’t know as much formal Sanskrit as the Indologists he is out to battle. Now, this is not a problem for a spiritualist who is unaffected by form. But Malhotra is fighting the battle on the arena of form, so he has no option but to become thorough with Sanskrit and Sanskriti in form.

RM has openly admitted that his knowledge of Samskritam is not where it needs to be. Not sure what the whining here is about RM's staunch defense of samskritam. He is not proposing to battle these Indologists himself and is advocating a qualified team of insiders. What is so wrong there?

SaG Quote:"For Malhotra, the starting point of this battle is European Orientalism. And since he tends to ignore the strong internal differences – often clubbing all insider views as ‘the traditionalist view’ (see p. 6, for example) – his argument is rendered weaker. In the Indian tradition, different schools of Vedanta – advaita, dvaita, dvaitadvaita, shuddhadvaita, vishishtadvaita and others – revere the Vedas equally but claim that the ..

This is exactly what RM means by Traditionalists not understanding English! SaG fails to see RM's thrust in the book.

SaG Quote:Also, his suggestion for the revival of Sanskrit is to produce new knowledge in Sanskrit. Is this even practical given that scholars from many mainstream non-English languages (like Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, etc.) are finding it hard to make a name for themselves in the academic community, which is under the firm grip of English?

This worries me most about this Scholar. This one paragraph will want to make me not call him by the Samskritam word "पण्डितः " . True पण्डिताः are not worried about fame or making a name. पण्डिताः produce knowledge to defend dharma.

SaG Quote:When Malhotra speaks about American Orientalism appropriating the Indian Left, some of his claims sound like conspiracy theories. Further, he seems to be ignorant of the voluminous writings of D D Kosambi, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, R S Sharma, and Rahul Sankrityayan, who opposed Sanskrit and/or Sanskriti long before this supposed American collusion (and even when he mentions Kosambi and Sharma, it is in passing).

A lot of truth unfortunately is stranger than fiction. BTW, RM has acknowledged the volume of DDK's writing and his intellect. Argument is about how all of that empowers Breaking India elements. SaG and many traditionalists have no clue about American propaganda machinery and its sophisticated power.

SaG Quote:Tucked away in the second chapter is a veiled disclaimer – “Both Indian and Western scholars have extensively criticized the European approaches towards India that prevailed during the colonial era.” (p. 52) but this cannot, sadly, absolve Malhotra of his blatant disregard to the past masters (in spite of his ostentatious dedication line to “our purva-paksha and uttara-paksha debating tradition…”) Not stopping at ignoring the remarkable scholars of the past and present, in several places in his book, Malhotra directly accuses Indian scholars of either being unwillingly complicit with the enemies (p. 68), or being irresponsible (p. 15), or being uninterested (p. 44), or being unaware of Western scholarship (p. 1). He lacks empathy for the numerous scholars who are deeply involved in their own research – be it a specific aspect of Sanskrit grammar, or the accurate dating of an ancient scholar, or preparing a critical edition of a traditional text. And to top it all, Malhotra writes in several places that he is the first person to undertake such a task (see pp. 27, 44, or 379, for example), which as we know is false.

I have seen no "blatant disregard to past masters" in any of RM's works. Indra's Net assiduously works to defend Shankara and Vivekanda alike and in fact delves into the underlying unity in the works of those two "past masters". There is also no denying that a lot of Scholars of the past were responsible for teaching the William Joneses, Mullers and the other European Indologists for making a name. They were scholars, notपण्डिताः. The Kshatriya in RM is doing today what the older generations failed to do - defend the ideological ground. If what RM says is known to be false (as the claim in the last line says), SaG should prove it.

SaG Quote:The assiduous efforts of Malhotra in writing The Battle for Sanskrit bears fruit in one department – a meticulous analysis of the works of Sheldon Pollock. While it is the saving grace of the book, it is also an indicator of Malhotra’s obsession with Western academia, to the extent that the reader gets the impression that Hinduism will not survive unless Western academia views it in a better light.

While this reflects the grace of an insider, the ignorance of the Western Academia within the Indian Intelligentia is producing a mutant sepoy community of the Ananya Vajpeyi kind. These are Breaking India forces that only a few true Kshatryias understand better than the scholars - RM is a modern IK. He is not advocating to see Western Academia in better light - he is showing logically that it is not a force you ignore. Pretty soon you will left with a noxious environment where Hinduism is dead if you do not defend it.

SaG Quote:The battle for Sanskrit and Sanskriti is not a new one. Sanatana dharma has survived years of onslaught from many quarters in many guises. But this doesn’t mean that we should ignore the current threats. Malhotra has given a new shape to the debate and because of his influence, this message has spread widely. As he himself writes, it is hoped that more Indian scholars will get on board and provide fitting responses to Malhotra’s red flagging of problematic areas in Pollock’s discourse.
This is one of the many instances of Malhotra’s monolithic view of Indian culture and tradition.

Huh! So there have been battles before then, Mr. SaG? Has SaG fought any of the “not new” battles for Sanskrit? Even as a foot soldier? SaG knows nothing about such battles with Academia for he is holed up in his merry arrogance of gross literary entertainment and glowing in the laurels fools shower him in. Is he really capable of reading through one paper of Pollock? Granted his English may be a couple of grades better than then kitchen grade that 90% English-knowing desis know, but that is hardly enough to sift through Pollock's language (which I think SP uses to mask logic, but that is RM's job). And, how is RM's a Monolithic view of culture and tradition? Another case of lamenting if very childish and futile, by a deeply peeved “drunk” Scholar.

SaG Quote:The four ‘levels’ of speech (p. 108)
Malhotra’s explanation is incorrect (and he doesn’t give any references for this too). 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 Krishna Bhat).

Above is an example of a totally irrelevant digression from the topic of the book.

SaG Quote:Malhotra’s pseudo-logic is like the trap of Nyaya that later advaitis fell victim to. See Shankara’s comment on nayyayikas in his commentaries on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad and the Brahma Sutra. [..] Nyaya operates at the level of adhibhuta, but Vedanta operates at the level of adhyatma.

What is psuedo logic? At least name the fallacy here, SaG - I would like to learn!

SaG Quote:The same applies to the Western Orientalists or the Indian Leftists, who are crass materialists. And why should we use Western jargons and systems to study Indian works? We must work out our own way. [followed by BLAH BLAH BLAH!]

This is silo mentality that RM is cautioning against. Coupled with the previous statement in his Conclusion [The battle for Sanskrit and Sanskriti is not a new one. Santana dharma has survived years of onslaught from many quarters in many guises.] this is pure taamas.

There is a lot more in this writing that proves beyond doubt SaG is upset he will end up being a foot soldier even if he chooses to be an insider. SaG is very concerned he will not get the fame of having started this battle with the Western Academia even though he is a scholar of Samskritam. May be this IK just called him out of some self gratifying Avadhaanam revelry and told him he is only drunk with Samskritam, not serving its ultimate cause. Shame!

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?

Response to Aatish Taseer ad hominem on Rajiv Malhotra

In an earlier post, Megh had compellingly rebutted the biases and opinions of journalists of Outlook magazine.

In this post, he offers a rejoinder to Aatish Taseer on his ad hominem attack on Rajiv Malhotra. The Open Magazine article written by Taseer is dated 2014. However, that is no excuse for the vicious personal attack mounted by him.

Here is Megh's response which is reproduced from his comment below the Open Magazine article by Taseer:

Extract 1 from Aatish Taseer’s statements:
“…They’re not scholars; few of them have even a passable knowledge of Sanskrit;”
One (Oxford) meaning of the word ‘Scholar’ is "a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic”.

By the above definition, would Mahatma Gandhi, with no formal qualification in humanities, with no formal career as a ‘distinguished academic’ and with no formal certified specialization or original publications in Sanskrit, be considered ineligible by Aatish Taseer and his distinguished bretheren, to comment/observe on Bharat, about Bharat, about Sanskriti, about Sanskrit?

By the above definition:
> would widely regarded historian Will Durant (neither an NRI nor an Indian and with certainly little/no published original scholarship/expertise in the language Sanskrit or scholarship in Sanskrit) be feared, dismissed or considered ineligible by Aatish Taseer, to observe, as he (Durant) did in his book ‘The case of India’ “India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages...”
> and did Will Durant’s expertise in Sanskrit (or the lack of it) come in the way of the wide acceptance of his works by many across the world, including a subset of the world – the western academia?

If many in the world have few problems considering Mahatma Gandhi and Will Durant eligible to study and write about Bharat (i.e. India), Sanskriti, and/or Sanskrit with (or without) their apparent qualifications as a Sanskrit scholar or just a scholar, should not Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who with over 20 years of specialist experience and original scholarship [including the 2016-Amazon-best–seller book “The Battle for Sanskrit” ((in ‘Languages and Linguistics category)] be allowed to present his point-of-view? His views include observations of Sanskrit as ‘Sacred, Liberating, Living’ vis-à-vis observations of Sanskrit as Political, Oppressive and Dead (separately in various works) by Sheldon Pollock, who is:
➢ Author of “The death of Sanskrit”
➢ Speaker of the statement “The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story, I think, in the world because it is this deep meditation on the fratricide of Civil war”
➢ General Editor of Murthy Classical Library of India (MCLI)
➢ And a self-declared secularist funded by an Indian, to interpret and propagate literature that is sacred to millions.

Objective observers of the world, India, History and Sanskrit are urged to:
a) consider these two varying positions ‘Sacred, Liberating, Living’ vis-à-vis Political, Oppressive and Dead’ reflect on it and take informed positions/views (if at all) 

b) and verify for oneself, the "eligibility criteria", before forming an opinion about the same.
Vande Mataram! (from the 'peanut gallery', and I hope that does not sound different or mean something else because it is from the 'peanut gallery').

Extract 2 & 3 from Aatish Taseer’s statements:

“These monkeys, they want the white man to tell them that India—which Malhotra couldn’t bring himself to live in—was once the greatest country of all.”

“determined to coerce Western academia into telling them the few banalities they want to hear: things that warm their little NRI hearts: the Aryans did not come from elsewhere but sprang up out of the soil of India; Sanskrit is not one of many Indo-European languages, but the mother of all languages…”

Some observations/responses to the above 2 extracts:

I did not know what to laugh at – Aatish Taseer’s ‘scholarly’ usage of the word ‘Monkey’, or his ‘expert conclusion’ of what ‘they’ want, i.e. per him “white man to tell ‘them’ that India…was once the greatest country of all”

I believe I find his expert conclusion more worthy of the first response because why would someone want something that has already been done?

Sample this (as-white-as-it-perhaps-gets with other shades too) list of observations from a Spanish-muslim-judge, American historian, French writer, German scientist, Japanese scholar, French-born-turned-Indian citizen, Chinese scholar:

SAID AL-ANDALUSI (1029-1070) - Judge for the king of Muslim Spain and author of Kitab-Tabaqat-al-Uman or "Book of the categories of Nation"

[Translation]

"The Indians among all nations, through many centuries and since antiquity, have been the source of wisdom, fairness and moderation. ...They have acquired immense information and reached the zenith in their knowledge of the movements of the stars (astronomy) and the secrets of the sky (astrology) as well as other mathematical studies."

WILL DURANT - American historian, writer, philosopher

" India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy.

Perhaps in return for conquest, arrogance and spoliation, India will teach us the tolerance and gentleness of the mature mind, the quiet content of the unacquisitive soul, the calm of the understanding spirit, and a unifying, a pacifying love for all living things."

ROMAINE ROLLAND - French writer

"If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India."

ALBERT EINSTEIN, German scientist

1) "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."

2) "When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."

MARK TWAIN - American author

1) "So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked."

2) "India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most astrictive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only!"

HAJIME NAKAMURA - Japanese scholar

"The Indians are highly rationalistic, insofar as their ideal is to recognize eternal laws concerning past, present and future. ...The Indians are, at the same time, logical since they generally have a tendency to sublimate their thinking to the universal... Without Indian influence Japanese culture would not be what it is today."

MICHEL DANINO - French-born turned Indian citizen

"Western civilization, not even three centuries after the Industrial Revolution, is running out of breadth. It has no direction, no healthy foundations, no values left except selfishness and greed, nothing to fill one's heart with. India alone has preserved something of the deeper values that can make a man human, and the world will surely be turning to them in search of a remedy to its advanced malady."

LIN YUTANG - Chinese scholar

1) "India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian nights, animal fables, chess, as well as in Philosophy, and that she inspired Boccaccio, Goethe, Herder, Schopenhauer, Emerson and probably also old Aesop."

2) "My love and true respect for India was born when I first read the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata...the literature of the world has not produced a higher ideal of womanly love, womanly truth and womanly devotion."

That Mahabharata:

➢ Which has been credited by Chinese scholar Lin Yu Tang as one of the sources that gave birth to his “love and true respect for India”

➢ Which houses the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, considered by hundreds of millions of Indians and non-Indians as a source of Sacredness, Liberation and certainly a very living treatise

➢ Is referred to by Philology scholar, General Editor of MCLI and author of “The Death of Sanskrit” – Sheldon Pollock – as “...the most dangerous political story, I think, in the world because it is this deep meditation on the fratricide side of Civil war”

➢ Is originally in the language Sanskrit, a language pronounced ‘political, dead, oppressive’ by Pollock (in separate works, interviews) and considered ‘sacred, living, liberating’ by author of 2016 Amazon-best-selling-book “The Battle for Sanskrit” Shri Rajiv Malhotra

It is this Shri Rajiv Malhotra, who:
> was born in India,
> raised in India,
> is author of path breaking, well regarded and best-seller books like “Breaking India” and “Indra’s Net”,
> funded widely respected efforts in Indology
is being referred to Aatish as “…Malhotra couldn’t bring himself to live in” India.

Aatish might perhaps do well to reflect on:

➢ what prompted our beloved past President ABDUL KALAM to lament "Tell me, why is the media here so negative?…We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why?" in order to attempt answering his own question “…when you start to refashion the past to fit the needs of the present, you must ask yourself why?”. He could, of course take inspiration from Harvard Law School that seems to have started “to refashion the past to fit the needs of the present” by changing their logo recently!

➢ And what historian Romila Thapar herself said “that the Aryan theory while prevalent at one point holds no ground because the scientific evidences have shown that no such thing had happened in the past”.

Dr. Nityanand Mishra replies to Ananya Vajpayee on TBFS, Pollock

A strong response by Dr. Nityanand Mishra to Ananya Vajpeyi's ad hominem attack.

Dear list,

While Niti Central (which recently shut down) and Swarajya are certainly pro-right/conservative magazines (just like The Hindu is left-leaning/liberal), but to describe them as ‘propaganda’ would be an exaggeration, just like calling The Hindu as ‘communist’ or ‘Chinese mouthpiece’ would be (in fact, the Friends of Tibet society actually calls The Hindu ‘a mouthpiece of the Chinese communist party’, this was covered by Pradip Ninan Thomas in his book ‘Negotiating Communication Rights: Case Studies from India’). In a recent article, the Financial Times described the Swarajya magazine as ‘conservative’.[1] Even Sreenivasan Jain, a journalist with the NDTV (whose political leaning are no secret), described the Niti Central as a ‘right-wing site’ in an article in 2013.[2]


As for Mr. Rajiv Malhotra’s latest book, it has already received attention in India, in both the academic sphere and outside, way beyond websites like Niti Central and Swarajya. I shared a link to the review of the book by Bibek Debroy in the moderate/centrist OPEN Magazine. The book carries a quote by Prof. Arvind Sharma (Birks Professor of Comparative Religion, McGill University) on its front cover. It has earned praise from Mahamahopadhyay Dayananda Bhargava (renowned Sanskrit scholar), S. R. Bhatt (Chairman of ICPR), K. Ramasubramanian (Sanskrit scholar and signatory #1 on the MCLI petition), Roddam Narasimha (aerospace scientist), and Dilip Chakrabarti (Professor Emeritus, Cambridge) among others. Some leading educational institutes in India which have hosted Mr Malhotra since January include the JNU, Ramakrishna Mission (Chennai), Vedic Gurukulam (Bidadi), Art of Living Ashram (Bangalore), Chinmaya Mission, IIT Bombay, TISS, IIT
Madras, and Karnataka Sanskrit University.

As for attention outside the world of scholars, Mr. Malhotra's book was launched by very well-known personalities: Subhash Chandra (Chairman of the pro-right Zee Media) in Mumbai, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (eminent spiritual leader and humanitarian) in Bengaluru, and Dr. Najma Akbarali Heptulla (Minority Affairs Minister, Government of India) in Delhi. Prominent journalists and authors who have discussed his book include Madhu Kishwar (pro-right academic and author), Amish Tripathi (best-selling author), and T. V. Mohandas Pai (Chairman, Manipal Global Education).


I need not add that the book is selling well (it is a category bestseller on Amazon India) and Harper Collins would be happy with their investment.

I doubt if all this attention can be ‘staged’ or ‘managed’. There is an elephant in the room. Love him or hate him, Mr. Malhotra is becoming too notable to ignore.


Regards, Nityanand


[1] Amy Kazmim (February 21 2016) India divided over right to political freedom. Financial Times.


[2] Sreenivasan Jain (June 29 2016). Response to Niti Central article on NDTV's Ishrat Jahan report. NDTV.

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-March/042858.html

shared on the forum by Vishal

Talk at TISS - An experience to remember

Below are the posts from two of the organisers of the Rajiv Malhotra "The Battle for Sanskrit" book talk event yesterday, 29 Jan 2016, at TISS in Mumbai. There are many takeaways from this post and hence it is reproduced here in full and almost as soon as it has appeared on the forum. 

Aditya writes:

Rajiv ji has often chided us and calls us Emotional Fools. % times I had to change the tone of this mail to sober it down.

There were several lessons to learn:

1.  First of all, I observed that Rajiv ji was fully equipped with all facts and figures and anticipated the hostile audience brilliantly. His homework was superb. 

He utilized this opportunity to not only place his views but was well aware of the reach of you tube video. 

Now the brilliant part was that he actually said this " I will use this excellent opening that you have given me" and he went on to do just that. 

As soon as he said above words, we (his shishyas / fans  / readers) were jubiliant and this was the loudest clap I have ever heard.  Lefties were stunned and silent when their trump card turned out to be damp squib. They were actually in minority in that hall, because many people came there.  

2. Second, his calmness and unperturbed demeanour was quite reassuring. Not once did he become emotional but stuck to facts.    

Today's event was a lesson in how to turn adversity onto opportunity. 

3. Not letting control go till his points were made: There were repeated attempts to intervene. He did not give ground. In a calm and studied manner he explained various points one by one. We were having a time of our life. Cheering and savouring each moment we could not but be amazed at his control.

4. Finally the bogey of Intolerance was at full display. When Commies lost argument, their tolerance vanished rather quickly!! They started to panic and create ruckus. But there was no conviction in that. 

Finally I want to say that this event was crucial because it was in a domain controlled by leftist bastion. Our supporters in TISS campus are outnumbered by a ratio of 9:1. It is kudos to the organizing team of TISS that they insisted on inviting Rajiv ji against all odds. 

Simultaneously Rajiv ji was also very keen to have this talk. He was very well prepared. This preparation was infact was a live workshop for some of us on how to be IK. 

Do not miss this video at any cost.

Lata writes:

been in TISS for 30 years not employed, but in various other capacities, first time someone from saffron brigade "allowed" to speak. the student showed immnese courage, at first didnt want to file FIR, finally mustered courage and has filed FIR at Tromaby, but believ me our kids are running scared. both the boys girls. thankyou rajivji for the talk, feel this is a gamechanger feel the students who organised should be truly saluted as to pickup courage in the face of goondaism, physical psychological threats it takes real courage to host Rajivji. and believe me, I have been at the receiving end a lot of time.

also I was with the students, she was not molested, but manhandled and in lot of pain. courageous student and her girl friends particularly. also they got hassled because the event was being recorded. why the fear i wonder! on girl even came to the bookstand and said she will burn the books. truly sad, this indoctrination, they are just like jihadis. One student asked a question calling himself Rohith vemula

Lata later adds some further news that is quite disturbing. She writes:

dont celebrate so soon most people dont know what's happening. The commies have got their act together again threatening students who organised the talk, and they unlike us supported by a powerful lobby. we only armchair crusade. not one supporter there when student who was manhandled filed her case. and now TISS is filing a case on her. so much for these poor guys sticking their neck out. Anyway I am in close contact with this girl and supporting her, working out strategy. but she is shaken angry, and our students are a strong resilient lot.

Here is the video of this watershed lecture at TISS

Correspondence between a visibly (going by the tone of her email) shaken Lata and the diirector of TISS who wrote to Rajiv expressing regret for what happened at the campus.

Director TISS said:

Dear Rajiv ji
Greetings!
Thanks for your talk at the TISS campus yesterday (29th January) evening. I was away from Mumbai and thus missed your lecture.
I was informed at about 8.30pm - as I was at the airport - a few students behaved in an inappropriate manner.

Such behaviour is against the principles upheld by the institute - listen to and understand differing perspectives without prejudice. This principle was breached yesterday. I am sorry for the incident.

The environment in academic institutions in the country is disturbed and we shall try to get the situation normal.

With regards

S. Parasuraman 

Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences

To this Rajiv said:

I have received the following email from the Director of TISS. I am impressed by his candidness, and his desire to address the issue of breach of standards at his prestigious institution.

Lata was not at all convinced. She said:

Sorry I am not impressed by this defence. Sorry Dr parasuram, your Institution has been taken over by a handful of Jihadis who speak for all of TISS. in fact how is it that your student Union  has sent a letter to the students that they did not invite Rajivji, you'll are not on the same page. Plus the manhandled lady student is fearful as she is being [pressurised by your faculty to drop the case, and the SC atrocity case threat also has been issued. 

not only was yesterday event beautifully preplanned by the Goondas, but even their shadyantra today, why is this letter only to Rajivji, why not to the public & your students (who are running scared, think in filing an FIR your student has shown great courage in the face of serious physical & psychological threat) as your Student Union leader (Name withheld since a student) has done. looks like Ambedkar Union (that too a handful) running the institute. 

 I have been associated with TISS since 32 years & known you since 1990 as my teacher first & a fellow educator. you have been extremely supportive over the last 20 years. especially with my Phd. if you remember even when we invited Gurumurthyji, posters were torn off and we got threats. but like Rajivji yesterday, gurumurthyji also had full house.

It is only in the last 10 to 12 years esp after the BJP govt in power that this kind of goondaism & indoctrination has happened. I am deeply distressed that my ALMAMater which has had a huge role to play in my growth as a human being, a hugely premier institution fall to such pathetic levels of an invited guest being called "Thief", plagiarist, heckled, girl student manhandled, another girl threatend to burn books at the counter. if you'll educators refuse to see the writing on the wall Rohithmurder & TN Tiple suicide is just tip of iceberg. students are there to learn and not be agents of the West for a fellowships/foreign trips. 

I hope you will see my critique in the angst of educator who is clearly saddened & distressed at the state our children & youth are in. my only interest & Mission statement as you know is the wellbeing of our children (all indian children, not just Dalit/Muslim), I look at this as huge intellectual bankruptcy and the Rajivji Breaking India prediction frcutifying.

The Director TISS responded thus:

You are using some sweeping conclusions.

I have set up a committee to review the issues and suggest suitable action.

Mr Rajiv Malhotra was invited by a forum of the institute and not by the Students Union. I received a request from the forum to invite Rajivji and I approved the request and instructed them to take care of all aspects. Once I came to know if the behaviour I wrote to Rajivji expressing my regret.

Some form of polarisation is evident and we have been talking to the student body to not to politicise the issues. It has been tough job dealing with the divergent views of different groups among the students. Last year we cancelled talks by scholars from within and outside the country on Kashmir and Leftwing Extremism. The campus certainly got no Jihadis - we work very closely with law enforcement agencies and TISS security to keep a careful watch of unwanted elements. The Security of the Nation-State is paramount. 

Thanks.

A despondent Lata responded with:

ear Dr Parasuraman, 

I respect your assessment of the situation but a few points to say that the conclusions are not sweeping but very responsibly made:

1. A lady student has been manhandled, majority of the students are fearful and a committee is on without the victim. also sure the committee will be full of Leftists. She has not been spoken to. instead of supporting her threats have been made with SC/ST atrocity act. also the girl was in tears, she felt as HINDU received no support fm anyone.
2. the other forum who invited Rajivji were forced to do so as the Student Union only invite people who represent their selective agenda, the campus is already politicised. 
3. We after Rajivji (who has nothing to do with politics but is established scholar) left were heckled as BrahminWadi, pushed around with RSS Murdabad slogan. I AM NOT CONNECTED WITH ANY POLITICAL OUTFIT yet was abused and pushed around. as an indivdual & Hindu dont i have a redressal forum & feel as impotent & helpless as the Lady student.
4. One student came to the counter and told him I will burn all your books". this is the language of the Jihadis in terms of fundamentalistic thought like with Taslima Nasreen/JoeDcruz. sorry this is not "listen to and understand differing perspectives without prejudice."
5. Talks on Kashmir & Leftwing Extremism yet  teesta setalvad ilina sen sudheendra  Kulharni of the so called liberal brigade invited, YET                     S Gurumurthy or Rajiv Malhotra or MadhuKishwar  banned by the Students Unions/TISS
6. most importantly they threatened the recording person, the cops had to come in, what are they afraid of? is this freedom of expression? what are they hiding? at no other venues has rajivji been banned. 

I understand its a tough job as all our  jobs & responsibilities, that's precisely why I am voicing my opinion, its about reimagining futures not about Hindutva/RSS or brahmanwadi, the discourse  yesterday was not only frightening, but intellectually bankrupt at the same level of Sakshi maharaj or Owaisi

I only hope considering what TISS stands for this matter is understood from all perspectives and every Indian's voice is hear and RESPECTED especially of our WOMEN, who as Anita Desai said are the Keeper of our tales. 

Lata finally ended with a very sad observation:

also would like an end to this conversation as feel its pointless, finally as a Hindu I will discrimated/threatened, abused/patronised/my gods abused and most imp not heard as only the Dalit nonHindu is important in India "Nation state"