Ragini Sharma responds to Shatavadhani GAnesh

Here is another response to Shatavadhani Ganesh from Ragini Sharma.

Dear Ganesh,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are four levels of speech:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warm regards,

Ragini Sharma, MSW, PhD Candidate

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!

Rajiv Malhotra's preliminary response to Shatavadhani Ganesh

Shatavadhani Ganesh reviewed The Battle for Sanskrit here.

Rajiv Malhotra's preliminary response to the review is as below. A more detailed response is to follow soon.

I just read Shri R. Ganesh's critique of my book closely. I am going to develop a detailed point by point response. But meanwhile, I wanted to say a few things for now:

I wish to start by thanking him for showing so much interest in my work. It is a very useful criticism for various reasons. For one thing, all such responses, regardless of their substance or reliability, serve to wake up the traditional scholars and compel them to pay attention to the prevailing intellectual battlefield. Furthermore, such criticisms also give me a chance to take my book’s debates deeper. His criticism is well-intended, and he seems to want to “outsmart” my purva-paksha of Pollock. That is most helpful and welcome.

However, there are numerous serious errors, misunderstanding and contradictions, both in substance and in the logic used by him.

For one thing, he does not seem to have read much (if anything) of Pollock directly, and uses my work as secondary access to the subject matter. (Ironically, he criticizes me for relying upon secondary works on Sanskrit texts.) This deprives him of the full context of Pollock's writings that I am evaluating. He also lacks an adequate understanding of the broader Western idiom and theories in which Pollock's work is couched. It is misleading (though a common bad habit) to surgically pluck out a sentence here and there and comment on it. Pollock's work has to be understood holistically first, and it becomes clear that Ganesh has not taken the time to do that. My detailed response will show this shortcoming of Ganesh in specific cases.

Nor does he seem to have understood my book correctly. He also cites one of my prior books, but misunderstands it on important issues. For instance, he asserts that I am against the diversity of Indian traditions. Nobody who has followed my work would say such a thing. In fact, my earlier book, Being Different, which he cites, says the exact opposite: it contrasts Indian diversity with the Western normative quality and Abrahamic emphasis upon "one truth".

Actually, a central highlight of Being Different is that it goes beyond the common platitudes we read about our diversity, and proposes a comprehensive theory on why this is so. The contrast between what I call history-centrism and adhyatma-vidya are key building blocks I have introduced to explain not just the diversity in our traditions, but more importantly why this diversity exists. This insight as to the underlying causes of diversity in one civilization and monoculture in the other civilization is worked out in considerable detail in my work. I doubt that Ganesh has understood the depth of this theory.

Later on, in my subsequent book, Indra's Net, I develop this thesis further into what I call the open architecture of dharma systems. Not only is there immense diversity, but at the same time there is profound underlying unity - hence there is no fear of chaos as in the case of the Abrahamic systems. There is no control-obsession in our culture to the extent of the West. I explain why this is not, whereas most writers have been content merely stating that this is so, without adequately asking why.

Given that this theory of our diversity has been one of my important areas of work, I find it disappointing that Ganesh not only remains ignorant of it, but that he misrepresents me in exactly the opposite direction.

Besides his inadequate understanding of both Pollock’s and my writings, Ganesh is also making some illogical statements. Ironically, these are made with the stated purpose of exposing "Malhotra's pseudo-logic". I will explain this in my detailed article.

I will also argue against Ganesh's understanding of our tradition in specific instances, the area where he should be much more qualified than I am. No doubt he has immense memory and citation expertise. I admire him greatly for these accomplishments. But just as an ipod machine can recite millions of things without always understanding them, I will show where he lacks proper understanding of our traditional worldview on the very topics he discusses very explicitly in this article.

Finally, I will address the issue he starts out with: whether I am qualified to do such a project. Our tradition has encouraged and even valorized innovative thinkers who seemed to lack formal training, but who successfully challenged those with eminent “credentials”. This is an instance of his arrogance, and I shall dwell upon the merits of a given individual’s background. I will explain what exactly the project here is about (which he does not seem to grasp properly), and my relevant experience and expertise in doing it; I will let the reader decide for himself.

In fact, I will question whether Ganesh has the required intellectual training in specific areas of competence that are necessary for this kind of work that I have undertaken. I doubt he has much real-world experience in the global intellectual kurukshetra, which is not to be confused with meetings of “like-minded people” sitting in India. For the global battlefield, what would be the relevant experience equivalent to his 1,000 avadhanas? I submit it is the experience of going into the line of enemy fire, surrounded by a hundred opponents or even more, and being able to hold one’s ground, and come out wiser for the next encounter. I have had these (well over 1,000) live experiences in audiences where I have been the only Indian or Hindu, where there is blatant intimidation and mockery, where every attempt has been made to belittle such attempts, and where I had nothing personal to gain and all my reputation and social credibility to lose.

These are two entirely different types of yajnas Ganesh and I have done. In my case, it entailed a sacrifice of my thriving professional life in order to dedicate myself for 25 years to do this with full intensity. I will explain what I have learned that is critical for the present undertaking, and how the lack of this capability is a handicap Ganesh is blissfully oblivious of. While I am aware of my shortcomings and explain in my book the necessity for qualified insiders like Ganesh to join as team players, he seems to lack the self-reflection required to appreciate his own limitations in this battle. So the appreciation and respect is one-way, unfortunately: I appreciate his value as an intellectual warrior.

I am preparing a more detailed response to some of the glaring errors in Ganesh's article. I shall do this in the same spirit as the article by Ganesh – i.e. in keeping with the Indian tradition to debate opponents with mutual respect. We must set aside issues of personality, who is who in credentials or public image. Let us focus only on facts and arguments.

I will be back in a few days.

Regards,

Rajiv

Response to Shatavadhani Ganesh

Shatavadhani Ganesh wrote a review of The Battle for Sanskrit.

Praveen after reading it had some questions and Rajiv Malhotra has provided some answers. Rajiv's answers are highlighted in yellow.

My Honest Thought after reading the article of R Ganesh regarding Rajiv Jis Book. Indeed there was a personal touch of R Ganesh to Rajivji, but article as a whole was questioning the way of considering the Indian Tradition by RajivJi.

1. R Ganesh makes point that , Transcendence would not happen without the Text, art etc as pramaanas and internalizing those would lead to Liberation/Transcendance.Indeed care should be taken that it would not become an mere intelelctual excersise!. Hence those are necessary without which transcendance is not possible what he claims!. In Rajiv Talks even I have heard many times, that even there are no texts or any form of pre-existing "Thing" are not needed for transcendence for Rishis State.

Does pre-existing Eternal Truth knowledge is required as pramaana to transcendence ?

[Rajiv: A) Ramana Maharshi said after attaining realization that the texts confirmed what he had already realized. B) if text is pre-requisite to attainment then how did the first rishi attain insight of shruti? Also, would you dismiss the non-text based attainments of bhaktas, tantrics, etc? C) Is ULTIMATE realization all that matters, or do 99.99% of us expect to advance at levels less than that. I find this approach by Ganesh characteristic of bookworms citing "ultimate" states, when in fact our issues here and now are to get ordinary folks moving ahead from whatever their starting point is. When I meet such lofty folks, I congratulate them for their "attainment" (though I find them chasing the most mundane things in their daily lives), and then I request they leave the rest of us alone who are trying to improve daily lives using dharma. I find this snobbish pretense of discussing the ultimate states a form of escapism and no more. It is this attitude that enabled western indologists and evangelists to brand Hinduism as being incapable of addressing practical problems; hence the need for foreign interventions to save our fellow Indians. D) Bottom line: I reject this as the starting point criteria to evaluate my purva paksha of Pollock, which is not premised on whether his or my work leads to moksha.]

2. He states, Rajivji is making a claim that he is a first out to study this field and argue back and Rajivji is disowning the Past Masters who have also argued back to such blatent studies! I also had tweeted some of the thoughts matching with Sri SL Bhairappa. But question is where does the Gap resides ?

i)Is really Rajivji disowning the past masters who are argued back "Especially" The traditional scholars? or is it that even though they argued it was only in academic circle not reaching the mass! or is it that Systematic Study of Indology mis-interpritation/representation was only started after Rajivji?


Things to be considered here is , even though there may be little bit phylosophical difference in understanding! Rajiv Ji has always accepted that he is no expert in it, but working his best on his spiritual path understanding. Where does the Gap resides? what shoud bother us in this regard? Phylosophy or Defending and Arguing back for Distortion of Phylosphy based on traditional views what we know?


[Rajiv: My approach to past masters is to practice under guidance of living gurus, and texts do not comprise the main access to the past. I access the past through the living present in sadhana, in gurus, in deities. I am not history-centric or text-centric.
3.Ganesh is bit disturbed about Calling Scholars Soldout! as he says Rajivji is discrediting so many scholars who are doing Good to their best. Remark: I think Ganesh has not read him correctly as he only discredits those who are soldout and not those who are not!

4.Ganesh says that Rajivji has not gone through the regional texts and scholars, Expecting something from a person, that too who has taken self initiative to inform the masses to study in depth and doing bit and asking him to do more work without helping him in any way is not a way of a Good Scholar what I believe. [Rajiv I have worked hard and at great risk to myself to promote the cause of traditional scholarship in the form of Swadeshi Indology. Where has Ganesh been all these decades when he enjoyed all the glamor, credibility and know how to be able to champion the cause of swadeshi Indology? Why not a single purva paksha by him of Western Indology? Why does he not channel his energy in thie matter to target Pollock instead? Has his insecurity become exposed becasue I am asking traditional scholars to get out of their silos?]

5.He asks why divide Sacred and Beauty ? Indeed we know there is beauty involved in the Sacred Set, Beauty is subset of Sacredness. But what he fails to understand is The Beauty that SPs are talking is not only about Sanskrit Text which are worldy affirming n not connected to Transcendence! But they are trying to bring down the Sacred&Beauty of Transcendance knowledge to merely worldly more than that insert some of their own thinking which does not exist here. [Rajiv: Correct. Ganesh violates the method of purva paksha by not reading Pollock before jumping to conclusions about his work.]

6. Ganesh is critical of some of the Sanskrit words and their meaning used , I thought which must be welcomed with right critics. But reducing rajiv ji to nobody and one of the normal is indeed a mistake ! Because the critics of Traditional Scholars and issues did not reach the masses! now its Digital Age hence mass reaching has become critical to progress in it. Not only work with Academic but also Mass. Making a network of right thoughts which are of right views is indeed necessary to servive.

Apart from above , he indeed talk in favour of Rajivs thoughts, also questioning is not a bad thing! I would urge Rajivji also not to dismiss this S Ganesh critics so easily as just a personal review! Indeed we need chanaakya Neeti applied to onboard.[Rajiv: I have tried and tried to engage Ganesh for the past decade. Dr TS Mohan in Bangalore who organizes my events has approached Ganesh on numerous occasions. Pls convey your sentiments to him and ask him to stop being so cynical toward anything I do. I want him on our home team and he must stop feeling threatened by my call to action by traditional scholars to do their job i purva paksha.

Finally: A hidden war has started in recent weeks by the Western Indologists to co-opt Indian scholars and do their dirty work. One prominent scholr at a prestigious Sanskrit university in Karnataka first endorsed my work and promised to join the purva paksha (on video); but then a couple of days later wrote in an email that criticizing Pollock should be avoided in order to get a few crores from Sudha Murty!!! Wow!]

Sheldon Pollock's 'Aestheticization of Power' Targets Tamil Pallavas

(shared by HemaC, forum member. Comment by Rajiv Malhotra at the end of this post)
 
Dear All,

Literary, Arts and Heritage Forum
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES
Indian Institute of Science Campus,
Bengaluru - 560 012

is pleased to invite you to a talk on

“The Aesthetics of Power: Representations of Kingship within the Early Pallava Imperium”

By

​​Mekhola Gomes
Doctoral Scholar, Centre for Historical Studies,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Chairperson : Naresh Keerthi, NIAS

Date:               Monday, 21st March, 2016
Time:               4:30 pm
Venue:             Lecture Hall, NIAS

Abstract:   The period of Pallava rule in Tamil Nadu was a dynamic time in South Indian history, with innovations in several spheres. These included the construction of cave-shrines, structural temples, creation of new iconographies, and inscriptional encomiums. In this talk, I attend to the changing aesthetics of power in the Pallava kingdom through a juxtaposition of texts and images. Starting the 4th century CE, inscriptional genealogies praised Pallava kings in innovative ways. These innovations were elaborated within and through the construction of royal cave-shrines and structural temples beginning the 7th century CE.  Through inscriptional  panegyrics, the construction of cave-shrines, and structural temples, the Pallavas inaugurated a new aesthetics of power. This emergent aesthetics of power was created within and through a larger field of representation. I will compare representational strategies of kingship within inscriptions of the Early Pallavas with visual delineations of power in rock-cut cave- shrines and stone temples.  I suggest that the Pallavas created a new aesthetics of power in early south India, through both the textual and visual and it is only through the interpretation of text and image together that we can fully appreciate the emergence of this new aesthetic.

About the Speaker: Mekhola Gomes is a doctoral scholar in early Indian history at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Her thesis, explores representations and practices of political power in the Deccan, between the 3rd and 8th centuries CE. She is co-editing a forthcoming volume on the epigraphical (re)turn in the study of ancient Indian history.

* * * * * * * *

All are cordially invited

For further information, please contact. Naresh Keerthi


K S Rama Krishna

--
N.I.A.S., I.I.Sc Campus
Bengaluru 560012
Ph:   2218 5000
Fax: 2218 5028
Email:

Rajiv Malhotra: Thanks for this post. It shows my claim that Pollock's thesis has spread far and wide, getting installed deep into our intellectual institutions. Yet our side has very few IKs bothering to read my response, as that entails serious study. Also, note that NIAS did not want to invite me whereas the Pollock side gets hosted there. I would love to debate this fellow whose job seems to be to implement Pollock's theory by supplying Indian examples.