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.

Prof. Ramasubramanian of IIT Bombay responds to critics of the petition

Rajiv Malhotra: Since Prof Ramasubramanian is named as the first petitioner, it is important to hear his side. Unfortunately, his side never got covered by any mainstream media. I re-post his response below:

At the time of filing this report, we understand that Prof. Ramasubramanian's response has not been posted to the mailing list in the Indology Discussion Forum by Dominik Wujastyk as requested by Prof. Ramasubramanian. 

Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Against the petition against Prof. Pollock
To: Dominik Wujastyk

Cc: Mandyam D Srinivas
Dear Prof. Wujastyk,

Thank you for your mail concerning the petition calling for a reconstitution of the editorial board of the Murty Classical Library of India. I am grateful to you for your kind words of appreciation on the work of our group on the Indian tradition of Mathematics and Astronomy.

At the outset let me clarify, as I have done elsewhere too, that I was not the prime mover behind this petition though I fully subscribe to it as a signatory. It was by error that the petition was uploaded in my name at change.org, an error which has been corrected subsequently.

I also appreciate your kind gesture to enclose the mail that you had sent to the Indology Discussion Forum in response to some of the issues raised in the petition. I just arrived in New Zealand as a visiting Erskine Fellow in the Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury, and it took sometime for me to settle here. I also had to give a couple of lectures, and hence the delay in responding to your posting in the Indology Forum.

The following response is prepared by me in consultation with my colleague Prof. M .D. Srinivas (cc-ed). We would greatly appreciate, if you could post this response in the Indology Discussion Forum.

Thanks much, and
Best regards,
-ram.

--------------------
Response to Prof. Wujastyk's posting in Indology Discussion Forum
--------------------
We are surprised that Prof. Wujastyk's response to our petition is totally silent on the main issue raised in the petition, which is that Prof. Pollock has been a prominent signatory of two statements which have strongly condemned the actions of the authorities of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the Government of India in taking constitutionally mandated legal actions against the anti-national slogans raised by an unauthorized assembly of protesters at the JNU on the 9th of February 2016. While castigating the actions of the democratically elected Government of India as an “authoritative menace”, these statements do not condemn the protesters who called for the dismemberment of India and abused the Supreme Court of India for “judical killing”. Clearly Prof. Pollock and others who were signatories to these statements have no respect for the unity and integrity of India which has been won after a long struggle of the Indian people against colonial rule. We are at a total loss as to how Prof. Wujastyk could miss this central issue which was the `"main context" of this petition calling upon the Murty Classical Library not to be mentored by academics who have an ideological and political bias that does not allow them even to respect the unity and integrity of India.

In the following, we shall only briefly respond to Prof. Wujastyk's point that the petition has misconstrued the views of Prof. Pollock on “What South Asian Knowledge is Good For”.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ mesaas/faculty/directory/ pollock_pub/What%20is%20South% 20Asian%20Knowledge%20Good% 20for.pdf

He has referred to the following passage cited in the earlier version of the petition from the 2012 Heidelberg lecture of Prof. Pollock: "Are there any decision makers, as they refer to themselves, at universities and foundations who would not agree that, in the cognitive sweepstakes of human history, Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has lost? ...That, accordingly, the South Asian knowledge South Asians themselves have produced can no longer be held to have any significant consequences for the future of the human species?”

Prof. Wujastyk would like us to believe that, Prof. Pollock is only presenting the above statement as a पूर्वपक्ष (purvapaksha). Sorry, if it were so, all the theses presented in पूर्वपक्ष have to be completely refuted before presenting the सिद्धान्त. Prof. Pollock has only begun with what he believes is a "statement of fact" that the leaders of Western academia are unanimous in their conviction that “Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has lost” and that South Asian knowledge "has no significant consequences for the future of the human species".

If this were to be a पूर्वपक्ष in Pollock's paper, the rest of the paper would have been devoted to the खण्डन (systematic refutation), of this पूर्वपक्ष in its entirety. Here, we do not even see Prof. Pollock expressing his deep shock or strong condemnation that such a Western supremacist view is prevalent in the exalted circles of Western academia.

It is true that Prof. Pollock does concede (these are the examples that Prof. Wujastyk also cites) that there are some South Asian “forms of knowledge that may be thought of to possess a truth value for the contemporary world (the nature and nomenclature of nominal  compounding or aesthetic response) or at least a truth value for some people in the contemporary world (the benefits of yogic asanas and pranayama)”. However it is Prof. Pollock's considered view that the “greater part of South Asian achievements and understandings” have “no claim whatever ... to any universal truth value in  themselves, and precisely because they pertain to what are specifically South Asian modes of making sense of the world.”

Prof. Pollock is indeed very forthright in expressing his opinion that he does not believe that “South Asian contribution is the most important ever made to world knowledge” and that “What the region does provide is a record of achievements of human consciousness” which “allows us to frame a strong hypotheses about the nature of that consciousness and the conditions of its  transformation”. These need to be studied “in and of themselves” and not because they “enable us to live intelligently in the world."

Clearly, Prof. Pollock sees little role for “Indian knowledge” qua “knowledge” in the contemporary world or for the future of human species. Its relevance is mainly as a historical expression of human consciousness which could help “us” (namely, the Western academia) to learn something about the nature of that consciousness. After arguing for such a thesis (सिद्धान्त), it is indeed ironical that Prof. Pollock makes a claim in the end of his talk that "our understanding of 'usefulness' and 'truth' [of South Asian knowledge] has grown substantially in the time since Marx and Weber".

It was this thesis that was summarised in the petition by the statement that Prof. Pollock holds the view that “the shastras generated in India serve no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express themselves.” It is indeed a fairly accurate summary of the thesis presented by Prof. Pollock in the Heidelberg lecture.

As regards Prof. Pollock’s 1985 paper, we would also not go into details, except for drawing attention to the following pronouncement in the abstract of the paper:

“The understanding of the relationship of Sastra (“theory”) to Prayoga (“practical activity”) in Sanskritic culture ...Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them. “

Any scholar who has studied the standard texts of Indian sciences such as Jyotisha or Ayurveda would not fail to see how these texts advise the practitioner of their sciences to be acutely aware of the limitations of the theories expounded in the sastras which are only thought of as means (उपाय ). The Jyotisha texts emphasize the need for continuous examination (परीक्षा ) of the procedures taught through observations. The Ayurvedic texts, as Prof. Wujastyk is indeed well aware, go to the extent of declaring that “the entire world is a teacher of the intelligent” and that the “Sastra is a light which serves to illuminate. It is ones own intellect that perceives the correct course of action.” In his monumental work Narayaniyam, Narayana Bhattatiri succinctly summarizing an important section of Bhagavata observes: 

त्वत्कारुण्ये प्रवृत्ते क
इव नहि गुरु: लोकवृत्तेपि
भूमन् ?

Prof. Pollock only betrays his deep prejudice against the Vedic culture when he concludes the abstract with another pronouncement that “... [In sastras,] progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past The eternality of the Vedas, the sastra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.”

It is precisely scholarship of this genre that Mahatma Gandhi aptly characterised in his seminal work Hind Swaraj over a hundred years ago:

"The English ... have a habit of writing history; they pretend to study the manners and customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited mental capacity, but they usurp the function of the Godhead... They write about their own researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet."

We are not upset by Prof. Wujastyk's claim that “Prof. Ramasubramanian has misunderstood Prof. Pollock's views by 180 degrees”, though it is totally incorrect. But we are deeply dismayed by his insinuation that many of those who have signed this petition (most of them eminent Indian scholars) “have signed Prof. Ramasubramanian's petition, presumably without having read Prof. Pollock's work for themselves, or having failed to understand it.” As indicated by Gandhi, statements exhibiting such condescension borders almost on racial prejudice.

K Ramasubramanian,
Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay

M D Srinivas
Chairman, Center for Policy Studies, Chennai and Member ICHR

The Battle for Sanskrit making waves in Indology lists

As expected, The Battle for Sanskrit has begun to elicit reactions from members of the purvapakshin's camp. Sheldon Pollock, Arvind Raghunathan Professor of South Asian Studies at Columbia University is the main purvapakshin of Rajiv Malhotra's latest book The Battle for Sanskrit (TBFS).

TBFS is gaining much traction among traditional scholars in India to whom it is mainly addressed. They have been exhorted to study Professor Pollock more critically when he advances theses on a civilization to which he is an outsider and they the insiders, the civilization in question being the Indian one. Rajiv has started the famed Indian tradition of purvapaksha by extensively analysing and studying Pollock's works.

The traditional side after reading TBFS, felt that there was a case to petition Shri. Narayanamurthy and his son Rohan Murthy who have pledged a huge donation to Pollock to translate 500 volumes from Sanskrit and various other Indian languages into English. This petition has been attracting a lot of signatories with almost 12000 people having signed this petition at the time of writing this.

Expectedly, the counter attack from the purvapakshin camp has begun. Ananya Vajpeyi, featured earlier also on this forum has been mentored by Professor Pollock. She writes thus in an Indology list group. A hard-hitting response is given by Dr. Nityanand Mishra.

Vishal shared Ananya's post:

Dear Colleagues,

As many on this list including Dominik Wujastyk, Matthew Kapstein, Madhav Deshpande and Tyler Williams, among others, have pointed out, the petition to remove Professor Pollock from the General Editorship of the Murty Classical Library of India suffers from either a deliberate or a genuine misreading of his writings and lectures. Moreover it is motivated not just by his vocal stand in favour of the freedom of expression and the right to dissent in India and elsewhere reiterated numerous times of late, but also by a desire on the part of the sponsors and writers of this petition to
generate some sliver of scholarly attention for Rajiv Malhotra's new book, The Battle for Sanskrit.

Apart from being a plagiarist, Malhotra is no scholar of anything, least of all Indology or Sanskrit. (I'm not even sure if any book by him can be accurately described as "new", given his record of plagiarism). His entire
strategy of calling attention to his publications, such as they are, is to make ad hominem attacks on bona fide scholars, especially Professor Pollock, and now almost exclusively him (though others of us have been
collateral damage in the past).

In my view, Malhotra's latest book deserves not one minute of our time, and is best left to rightwing propaganda publications like Swarajya, Niti Central and other blogs, newspapers etc. of that ilk to review (or not).
It's an echo chamber of Hindutva paranoia and self-congratulation, untouched by scholarship. Why spoil their party?

As for the 10,000 signatures on the petition, these things are easily managed by the cyber-machinery of the Sangh Parivar. Not for nothing are there entire dedicated cells of trolls and bots whose job it is to swell the numbers, as it were, merely the digital reflection of a larger ideology of majoritarianism at work.

I am assured by the concerned editors at Harvard University Press and by Professor Pollock himself that HUP and Harvard's legal and PR departments are well placed to handle this kind of -- well, whatever you want to call it -- provocation, irritation, distraction, or incitement. We really need not worry our heads engaging with these people as though they might actually know something about the classics, of any language, whether of
early or modern South Asia.

Goodness knows we all have enough on our plates, with JNU and other public universities and their students across India in dire need of our material and moral support at a moment of real political crisis.

In solidarity, and urging us all to #StandwithJNU,

Yours,

Ananya Vajpeyi.

*Ananya Vajpeyi, PhD *
*Associate Fellow*
*Centre for the Study of Developing Societies*

Obviously such an uncalled for ad hominem has got Rajiv's online satsang buzzing.

Ranjith writes:

(...) The real thrust of her message is that she has Harward University Press on our side and so she does not have to bother. This divulges the secret as to who their handlers are - i.e. foreign nexuses. How long can they continue this without confessing?

If she can really afford to ignore Rajiv ji, she would have not even bothered to send a long email asking for NOT to waste even a minute. The fact is that they CANNOT IGNORE RAJIV JI ANY MORE. Height of hypocrisy.


Rakesh adds:

This is a very standard response from a stooge with a bogus Ph.D. For what ever reasons if Moorthy family does not change there decisions the insiders should start a parallel project do the similar translation. I am sure I am not the first one thinking along the same lines. I would like to hear from Insider tradition side how the synergies and resources can be put together to make it happen with leadership from Sri Rajivji.

Srinath chips in:

first thing came to my mind upon reading her immature reply - "jobless"
sad commentary on the kind of pathetic people who have filled the humanities void in JNU and elsewhere - trying to further their empty lives with imaginary problems, plus of course the obligatory servitude towards western masters.

still, without responding to this low level of so called "scholarship" on few blogs at least - cannot ramble on (to be fair)!

Sneha on the issue:
Another useful idiot SEPOY for anti Hindu army.

Anubhav adds:
I think we should be tactical and translate all available Sanskrit texts into Hindi and other regional languages and English. It could also be translated into Hindi first and then into regional languages. Sanskrit scholars can be roped in with financial incentives, Sewa or collective action to help the initial translation to Hindi. May be Sanskrit Bharti can help. Once translated it could reach Indians. Currently we are unaware of its legacy, greatness, practical application in various fields of life such as Medicine, Mathematics, Astronomy, Political Science and so forth.

Rohit comes in:
(...) Ananya says she would not read a word of Rajivji, yet she does not hesitate to comment on his work. Hmmm ... Speaks of your scholarship and methods at work Ananya.

To hear that sociology departments in JNU and other public universities wait in dire need for the likes of her to feed them what-ever says volumes about what "scholarship" is housed in these departments in India. (...)

Srikrishnan adds:
As Rajiv Ji expected and warned several times -- this kind of non sense is expected from LEFT/so called Self Proclaimed experts on Everything/ They Don't debate the Issues, digress, distort, attack the personality...spin it and our slave media will give a Political color.

Kunar writes:
(...) But to say such negative things about a very courageous man in such efforts appears to be as shutting down a strong voice for our causes. Unless you are pro-Harvard pseudo seculars who are spewing venoms in the disguise of intellects against India's integrety and hurting or religious process /faith (lime Shanatan Dharma)!! Why not allow us to tell everyone from our lense on issues that are being advertised by none other then Harvard Univ.
If you believe in "freedom of speech" and "freedom of response", then yu should not hurl such negative comments about Rajivji.

Dr. Nithyanand responded to Ananya on the indologist list thus.

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.

This is a thread which is likely to see many more responses and this post will be updated as the responses keep adding up.



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