How Hinduphobia Rears Familiar Head In American Academia

Pressure from Hinduphobic academicians has forced the administration of

University of California, Irvine to backtrack unprofessionally after announcing
the setting up of chairs for the study of Indic civilizational studies.
The gatekeepers of American academia have struck again. This time, the
gate has been slammed on the face of Dharma Civilization Foundation (DCF),
a California non-profit that aimed to promote the multidisciplinary study of
Dharma at accredited institutes of higher education. We were motivated by
the desire to advance an integral and transformative approach to
understanding the Indic culture, religions and civilization that will support a
narrative of Indias past which is consistent with the actual lived experience
of dharma, says Dr Shiva Bajpai, President of DCF.
DCFs vision found enthusiastic support from donors such as the Thakkar
family which contributed US$ 1 million to set up a chair in Vedic and Indic
Civilization Studies at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Other donors
came forward to establish chairs in Sikh studies, Jain studies and Modern
India studies and soon the UCI was all set for four chairs with grants
amounting to a total of US$ 6 million.
At a gathering in the UCI campus attended by 100 people in May 2015, the
Dean of UCIs School of Humanities Dr Georges Van Den Abbeele thanked the
donors and held out a hope for creating a Center of Excellence for Indic
Civilizational Studies at UCI.
Meanwhile, the old guard steeped in what is now recognized by many as
leftist-secular or Hinduphobic ideologies, saw a grave danger to the
established order and fell into a massive seizure. Led by professors from the
UCIs Centre for Asian studies, who were perhaps miffed at the idea that an
independent chair on Indic studies could soon challenge their ideologies, a
campaign was orchestrated to halt DCFs initiative.
A petition was launched to declare that both DCF and donors were a part of
right-wing Hindu group of organizations that has been known to undermine
Indian pluralism and that they would lead to a privileging of upper-caste
Vedic Hindu identity. An alarm was raised that only certain kinds of
religious practitioners who would not represent the intellectual richness and
rigour of the university would be selected to teach courses, which would
lower the standards of academic excellence. The petition was signed by
over 400 academicians including prominent personalities such as Wendy
Doniger, Michael Witzel and Sheldon Pollock who have built their reputation
with papers portraying Hindus as oppressive, casteist, misogynist, sexstarved and violent.
Let us examine just one of the signatories of the petition: Shefali Chandra,
Associate Professor of South Asian History, Washington University in St. Louis.
She has published a paper titled The Worlds Largest Dynasty: Caste,
Sexuality and the Manufacture of Indian Democracy which makes the case
that the myth of India is a necessary camouflage for an upper caste

autocracy characterized by militarism, genocide and occupation. The entire

list of signatories reads like the Whos Who of Hinduphobes.
The petition against the establishment of the DCF-Thakkar Family Chair at UCI
was followed by demands for a review of the agreement between the
concerned parties. Allegations were made against the Dean and other
administrators for not having a meaningful consultation with other faculty.
Kalyan Viswanathan, Executive Vice-President of DCF sought to allay
apprehensions by explaining that the aim of establishing the chairs was to
widen and diversify the study of Indic traditions and culture; from being
predominantly focused on applying Western models to being more culturally
sensitive. In an article on the DCF website he said it was important to take
seriously the self-understanding of non-western Indic cultures and religions as
lived traditions of fellow Americans, and include dimensions such as
philosophy and ethics from an insiders (emic) perspective which barely exist
today. He pointed out that Womens studies have benefited from having
women scholars, African American studies have benefited from having
African Americans scholars, and Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or Islamic
Studies, have all benefited from respectively having scholar-practitioners as
active participants in these fields. Such scholars are not questioned about
their objectivity, but are, in fact, respected for their unique experiences and
perspectives, as well as the depth, nuance, and academic rigor they are able
to bring to academia, said Mr Viswanathan. DCF holds that such scholarpractitioners of Hinduism would bring the same to Hindu Studies, he added.
However, in a development that can only be called a matter of shame for the
University of California, Irvine, the authorities decided to discard the US$3
million gift they received for the DCF-Thakkar chair and to review the
remaining US$3 million gifts for other chairs. By buckling under pressure from
a vicious campaign organised by a few South Asian faculty members, the
Humanities Executive Committee and the Dean of the School of Humanities
displayed a complete lack of spine.
The review committee that forced UCI to discard the donors came up with a
comment that the terms of DCF were exclusionary, preventing some from
applying for positions, which was against the public-hiring rules that UCI is
governed by. The ridiculousness of the comment can be understood by asking
if there us any discrimination involved when a job position specifies a PhD
degree. If not, then why should an emic-seeking group be pilloried with
discriminatory labels, when it seeks emic-candidates? An etic (outsiders)
perspective invariably views Hinduism through privileged lens of Western
experiences, whereas an emic perspective will offer a different viewpoint that
honours the sacred.
The review committee also made unsubstantiated charges against Dharma
Civilization Foundation raising Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUDs), which are
commonly used in disinformation campaigns.
Said Mr Viswanathan: The overwhelming message that these faculty

members have delivered through their public petitioning, and highly

prejudicial open letters, is that the Hindus are not welcome to participate at
the academic table. We have to wonder, what indeed is the academic
freedom that these faculty members are defending? Is it the freedom to
accuse, abuse and slander freely and without any check? Why single out the
Hindu American community when Religious Studies Chairs and centres are
currently funded, as a norm, by various religious communities with diverse
viewpoints? Why so much irrational hostility towards the Hindu community?
The UCI petition brings back memories of the California textbook controversy
of 2005. At that time, the Hindus of California had called out the innumerable
inaccuracies in the depiction of Hindus in school textbooks and requested for
editing them out. To take one example, they had asked for assertions such as
Men had many more rights than women, in ancient India to be corrected to
Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than women. Many
women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed.
Californias Curriculum Commission had endorsed most of the edits
suggested by Hindu groups. This caught the attention of Professor Michael
Witzel of Harvard University, who organised a campaign along with fellow
Indologists (some of whom have also signed the latest UCI petition) to oppose
the edits on the grounds that they were unscholarly and politically and
religiously motivated. Ultimately, more than 80% of the corrections proposed
by Hindu groups were not approved.
From 2005 until now, clones of Professor Michael Witzel have multiplied
manifold within an academic ecosystem that only supports peers who look at
Hinduism through the lens of Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis and atrocity
perpetuation. Ironically, a large section of these peers are of Indian origin.
Thus, even today, a high schooler studying World Civilizations: Global
Experience (AP Edition) textbook will come across sentences such as: The
Indian caste system is perhaps the most extreme expression of a type of
social organization that violates the most revered principles on which modern
Western societies are based.
Intellectual honesty would demand that instead of taking the moral high
ground, these books would dwell equally on the issues of inequalities, racism
and human rights violations of various kinds that continue to plague societies
all over the world, including modern, western societies.
Meanwhile, there is a growing build-up of opinion led by thinkers such as
Rajiv Malhotra that it is pointless to set up chairs on Indic civilization or
Hinduism studies within western academia. Given that it costs as much as
US$ 4 million for setting up one academic chair in USA he believes it would
be far better to use the money to set up a whole department of scholars in
India with the concentrated goal to develop a new discourse. As an example,
a centre to develop a Hindu perspective on womens status and role could be
tasked to produce game changing discourse on that theme, he argues in an
article in Swarajya.

In his recent best-selling book The Battle for Sanskrit, Mr. Malhotra has
argued for rebuilding the traditional institutions of learning in India, which
have been stripped of their spirituality by western Indologists and their
cohorts. He has even named the sophisticated perpetrators of American
Orientalism who have captured the discourse on Indian history and culture
with scant regard for sacred traditions, while pretending to be well-wishers of
all things Hindu or Indian.
Mr Vishwanathan perceives the situation differently. While he agrees with Mr
Malhotra that there is a need for a new corpus of content and discourse, he
does not think it has to only come from India. For the generations of Indianorigin children who will pursue an education in America, there is an urgent
need for schools and colleges that offer Indic civilization studies from the
insiders or emic perspective. We live in a global world and academicians
from India will have to collaborate with the world in inaugurating this new
corpus of content and discourse, he asserts.
According to him, India is disadvantaged by two historical realities:
1) that a flourishing discipline within the academia, which is equivalent to the
study of divinity within a Hindu context, was never allowed to develop; and
2) that the brightest students in India still favor the disciplines of science,
math, engineering and medicine.
The argument that investments can be better safeguarded in India, while
not so much in the West, belies the reality that India is also infiltrated heavily
by the same mentalities that make scholars hostile towards Hindu Dharma,
says Mr Viswanathan. The question is not whether we invest a mere US$4
million here in the West or in India - which represents a scarcity mentality. We
need to be looking at how to generate US$400 million, where US$200 million
can be invested in India, and US$200 million around the world.
Every community has had to struggle against prejudice and bias that gets
entrenched in institutions, and masquerades for a time as the truth - the
Jewish community has had to fight for respect and legitimacy. Women have
had to fight it. In the early days even Catholics had to fight for this in
America.
Intellectual freedom of the academia is essential for the progress of society.
That freedom was intrinsic to ancient India. What we are witnessing today is a
domination of academia by etic voices, especially with regard to Hinduism. It
is high time the voices of traditional scholars with an emic perspective were
included. Pluralism is integral to freedom.
The latest clampdown by a blatantly Hinduphobic American academia has
made it imperative for all those who stand for justice to join hands and
collaborate. There is a need to speak in one voice against the biased
dominant academic consensus.

Indic knowledge Hinduphobia United States of America

9197
Sahana Singh
Sahana Singh is a writer /editor who specializes in environmental issues,
current affairs and Indian history. She is a member of Indian History
Awareness and Research, a think tank based in Houston.

She can be reached by email Sahana.singh@gmail.com, on Facebook

(https://www.facebook.com/sahana.singh.10) and Twitter (@singhsahana).

50 Comments
Swarajyamag
Login
1
Recommend 8
Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion
Avatar
pshakkottai 13 days ago
There is a need to promote Dharma studies in India. The West had a field day
for 200 years doing mischief and almost eliminate Sanskritic culture and
claim that the West knows more than India on Indian culture. This is rubbish.
They don't know Indic cultures and misinterpret every thing from their view
point, political power play. If you let foreign powers control the studies how
long will it last? We know the West has ulterior motives regarding Indic
Civilization, essentially destroy and harvest souls. India made a mistake with
Islam. It can't continue these mistakes again.
9 ReplyShare
Avatar
beanpole 12 days ago
The brilliant petition has a COLONIAL MAP of the "INDIAN EMPIRE" in 1909,
with utterly pseudo-scientific division of India into "races" by a COLONIAL
SUPERINTENDENT Herbert Risley in 1901. "Races" like "Aryo-Dravidian",
"Scytho-Dravidian", "Indo-Aryan", "Turko-Iranian", "Mongolo-Dravidian" etc
etc - supposedly revealing present day India's "diversity".
Thumbnail
Just brilliant show of scientific rigour. "Scythian", "Aryan", "Dravidian" etc are
now RACES.

More on Herbert Risley, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"As an exponent of race science, he used the ratio of the width of a nose to
its height to divide Indians into Aryan and Dravidian races, as well as seven
castes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
see more
6 ReplyShare
Avatar
beanpole beanpole 12 days ago
PS - These people should be exposed for what this reveals about their "Idea
of India".
3 ReplyShare
Avatar
SSM 12 days ago
Among liberal circles in the US, it has become fashionable to be pro-Islam and
anti-anything that Islam hates (including Hinduism). Why do you think so
many people are rejecting these liberals and voting for Trump?
6 ReplyShare
Avatar
amart 13 days ago
Rajiv Malhotra has highlighted beautifully this problem in his book breaking
india.
6 ReplyShare
Avatar
AChakra 13 days ago
The article is a brilliant one. However it overlooks the fact that no doctrine is
taken seriously in alien land unless the same has strong roots at home. The
study on Dharmic tradition must be started in India. To raise funds, the
scholars must pursue indian billionairs. The target students need not be those
seeking employements. This is marketing.Target students could be somewhat
settled and educated businessmen, the monks of various traditions like RK
mission, Mata Amritanandmayi Ashrams etc. The pvt university must give
Masters and Doctorates. Professional priests also can be among the target
students. ( A yajman is more likely to prefer a priest with a doctorate in
Dharmic studies) .
Our major risk is not from foreigners who donot understand dharma. But
major risk arises when Indian themselves do not understand Dharma.
If we need to engage with foreigners at all, then it must start with
commentary on Abrahmic religions by the dharmic scholars. Then the west,
rather than us, would be anxious for engaging with us.
5 ReplyShare
Avatar
pshakkottai AChakra 12 days ago
The West has been engaging with us for a few hundred years unsuccessfully. I
hope it continues the same way. Success for the West was colonization and
soul harvesting. They are still at it.
4 ReplyShare
Avatar

Ergo AChakra 12 days ago

Great ambition. But based on imagination. 80 crore of Indian population of
whom more than 80% are Hindus of whom, your priests, your monks, are
infinitesimal. And all of them won't join any seminars let alone international
like Swami Vivekananda. They will received their masters and bachelors and
see how best they can use the paper degrees for their and their loved ones
welfare. Sastra University, Thanjavur has recently started MA degree course
in Vaishnavism. In Madras University, it was already there for decades.
Annamalai University conducts diploma course in Saiva Sithantham. Since all
are correspondence courses, pensioners and persons about to retire, join the
courses; to acquire knowledge to better understand their respective sect, not
Hindu religion entire. The departments are wooing candidates but they come
from pensioner groups or priests only. Rarely some others. But never a youth.
To start with commentary on Abrahamic religions, first and foremost, you
should know such religions deeply. With ignorance, you cannot approach the
subject of giving them fit reply. I will give you one example. In TN, when the
anti brahmin movement was on high tide, the brahmins and their supporters
vs Dravidian leaders. A debate took place in Madras University between the
popular Dravidian leader who later became CM of TN by name Annaurai and
the HOD of Tamil department R P Sethupillai on Ramayanam. The debate is
still available in print. Awesome mastery of both ithihasas from Annadurai.
Another example is Zakir Naik. He has mastery of Hindu scriptures which he
uses for his purpose.
The moral of the story is that if you want to argue with other religious people,
you must first know them. And it is well nigh impossible to find interested
people from among the Hindu population. I don't hope you can make them
aware. For politics based on religion, it may be possible but for spiritual
pursuits like understanding the religion, they have no time and capability.
2 ReplyShare
Avatar
JayZ 13 days ago
Brilliant article,
3 ReplyShare
Avatar
krishna 12 days ago
Most of US media, academia , politicos sold out to Saudi and Islamic money .
Rot in these areas and divisions sowed in US societiy is deep and surely US
going Nehru way from Obama onwards. Saudis are to Obama as Gsndhi was
to Nehru.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
dr.viraj pradhan 12 days ago
There is a need to speak in one voice---Very correct but who is listening?All
are so self-centered and wish to show themselves to be secular,oh-so
British/American that this very idea is defeated.We have been complacent
thinking that we are in majority here in India and no one can hurt us.Even a
Hindu( at least name-wise) journalist asked what are you worried about if
Christians and Muslims rise numerically?We are being deliberately lulled into

believing this,while the Marxists and others are systematically gathering

strength,joining forces and trying to implode Hindus and India from
within.The silly people in H.M. also should realize that giving speeches is
exposing oneself to another onslaught.Everything needs to be done unitedly
and surreptitiously.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
dr.viraj pradhan dr.viraj pradhan 12 days ago
Thanks,Harsha Varshan for up voting me.
ReplyShare
Avatar
RVenkatanarayanan 13 days ago
In dealing with the false premises on which some known Hindu phobic and
Marxist cum Freudian pseudo-scholars on ancient Hindu Dharmic texts, have
harmed the DCF-Irvine venture, we should not get side-tracked in to the
debate whether practitioner scholars should be assembled only in India or
within foreign Academia too. Both are required and one will not harm or
retard the other. There is substance in Rajiv Malhotra's stand that Indic
studies must be promoted in India. I am all in favour for years now of an
Institute of Heritage Studies being established in India. But on this score
Malhotra's opposition to the DCF venture does not become legitimate. In a
recent posting he has even cast a slur on a woman scholar working with DCF.
This is unfair.
R.Venkatanarayanan
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
Sruti RVenkatanarayanan 13 days ago
I agree. Unfortunately, Malhotra uses every opportunity to leverage himself
and wants to bring the DCF under his wing. His recent and most derogatory
comments about Kalyan Vishwanathan and Rita Sharma are most
unbecoming of someone who claims to want to serve the Hindu tradition.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
PV Sruti 12 days ago
You are seriously misled about Rajiv and DCF. There is a 11 point rejoinder to
DCF on his breaking India forums if only you wish to get his perspective.
Anyhow, DCF is suck up for now. Unbecoming????
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo RVenkatanarayanan 13 days ago
And he wrote in swarajyamag recently to ban all foreigners from visiting
Kumbh Mela. He was taking up the issue of Harvard University sending a
team to Ujjain. He is afraid that such a team is coming only with the intention
to malign Hindu rituals and ceremonies and hold them up for ridicule to the
West. He seems to be unaware of the fact that Modi sarkar as well as MP
sarkar are promoting the Mela through ads pasted behind the flight seats, in
flight magazines, and in Satatapti express on train magazine of IR, in the Bus
stands with a glare of lights to catch the attention of the public, in airports to
attract the tourists.

If they will malign, why should they malign only the Mela? They can travel all
over the country and capture all festivals and why won't they malign them
also? If he fears for their potential mischief, isn't better if all tourists and
foreigners are permanently banned from entering India, which will turn this
country like North Korea? Living inside iron curtain.
In India, we need an academy for Indian heritage studies - your point, isn't it?
That is welcome and they will get a color of restricted atmosphere and
clientele. All researches and books that issue from such Institute will be
stamped with the label that It is the viewpoint of Hindu scholars only.
Whether fair or foul, the label will remain permanently attached. Like political
pamphlets to project one point of view only. If anyone who wants to know
what is the viewpoint of a Hindu scholars of India, she will go to that book.
Like Radhakrishan's titled his book Hindu View of Life. We will have Hindu
view of Hinduism. Christina view of Hinduism. Muslim view of Hinduism.
Jewish view of Hinduism. Western view of Hinduism. Latin American view of
Hinduism. All are good. Let thousand flowers bloom in the garden of
scholarship. But prepared: each one will look at the matter from her point of
view, which, more often than not, will hurt you.
Western view vs Indian view of Hindu religion and culture. They exist in
separate places in the world. One refusing to benefit from the other because
one calls the other biased and bogus scholarship.
Instead of having such a separate entity, set up the Chairs for Indic studies in
the major Indian universities. Cost effective. When Madras University set up
the Department of Vaishanavism, no one interfered.
ReplyShare
Avatar
RVenkatanarayanan Ergo 12 days ago
ERGO,
An Institute of Heritage Studies in India will encourage original scholarship of
practicing Hindus, which currently is lacking. May be the output will be
flagged as Hindu view of Hindu heritage. Is it not better than the present
situation where the so called "scholars" from the West tell Hindus who they
were and are, when they were born , what they did and did not do, and above
all what is all wrong with Hinduism and Hindus. This one-sided relentless
"study" by the West of India has led to so much diffidence in India over the
last 200 years. Look at China. You go to main land China universities and you
see how different they are from the Indian in the matter of belief in
themselves and in their identity and destiny.
As for Kumbha Mela there is a lot of substance in what Rajiv says and fears. It
is not based on any a priori theory. See on the ground in India how Western
"academia" studies Hindu festivals and sacred events and what they pick and
choose and how they do negative portrayal. Of course these great academic
intellectuals do not do a single such study of Islamic society or event in India.
Why? Hinduism, Hindus and their practices are safe target.
R.Venkatanarayanan
1 ReplyShare
Avatar

Ergo RVenkatanarayanan 12 days ago

Last line was many times faced with the statement: If you want Hinduism also
to be a closed affair - only for Hindus in intellectual studies of academic
scholars whose studies will naturally contain negative aspects of the religion,
just like Islam, then admit that you want to islamise Hinduism. Why not be
bold to say we are Islamised Hindus as you want their core ideology of
xenophobia and attack on foreigners to adopt and put in practice ?
Other points:
An academy founded by a particular group for study of the group's affairs
only will definitely be one-sided. It is no rocket science to conclude so. There
is no question of MAY BE. A positive side will be projected and disseminated,
which, as you said, side needs to be focused, exposed and disseminated
merely because the rival group does not want to do so; as they will expose
only that side which they like which is here alleged to be malignity. Theirs too
is one-sided affair.
In the process, where can a student who wants unbiased research go?
Do set up an Institute of Hindu studies; invite Hindu scholars who are Hindus
by birth; and who are devoted to the religion.
Leave the rest to future. If you can make people read your output and get
themselves cleared of the impressions created by the output of western
scholars, that will be a good service to Hindu religion. But nothing can be said
for sure, now.
By supporting Rajiv Malhotra, you are evading my point that, his dream of
keeping Hindu religion away from the sight of foreigners in order to protect it
from their 'conspiracy to malign Hindus' is possible only if you can stop all
foreigners at airports and send them back to their countries. In other words, a
country of iron curtains. Religion is not the be-all and end-all for Hindus or
Indians. Therefore, they won't allow Rajiv Malhotra to turn their country out of
bounds for foreign visitors.
And note, in a globalised technological world, you cannot keep a huge
gathering of ten lakhs of people at a Kumbh Mela out of sight. Indians too can
capture pictures/images and pass stories to foreigners based on which theses
can be authored abroad and preserved.
ReplyShare
Avatar
RVenkatanarayanan Ergo 11 days ago
Ergo,
Why not tackle the points made by me in a focussed manner? Have Judaic
scholars set up Judaic institutions to study their past and present and future?
Have Christian scholars not done so? Have, above all, Islamic scholars done
so? Why do you fear that if Hindus set up a Heritage Institute its output will
be one-sided? That is apriori condemnation of Hindu scholarship because that
is Hindu!
Have you visited Kumbh Mela and watched foreigner "scholars" and camera-

wielding "oglers" do there? Of course there are many many foreigners who
are sincerely devoted to the festival and are as devout as any Hindu. Rajiv
Malhotra does not want to "hide" Kumbh Mela. Your comment insultingly tritr.
What he says is that such Hindu festivals and observances are made an
object of "study" which produces flimsy, superficial and pedantic jargon which
detracts from the sacredness that Hindus see in them and ends up
judgemental about them. Let the American University scholars go to Mecca
and Medina and also "study" the festivals. Will they dare? Will you ask them
to do so?
R.Venkatanarayanan
ReplyShare
Avatar
MastKalandar Ergo 13 days ago
YES JOOKER...let THOUSANDS OF FLOWERS BLOOM....and CRUSH HINDUISM
with a BOOM !!! WHY DONT YOU SERMONIZE THIS SAME IDEA TO CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY AND ALL THE HINDU-PHOBES ???
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo MastKalandar 12 days ago
Welcome in a new ID
My reply to you--If I live there, I will.
Single idea is Hitlerist.
In academic scholarship it is impossible.
There is no end. Thousands of ideas will always exist.
To strangulate the ideas you dislike, join ISI to get training how to cut off their
heads.
ReplyShare
Avatar
disqus_Dm5vppZhYg 20 hours ago
So why, if Pollock was a fine scholar, did he have to pressurize through
petitions to pulp certian chairs? Couldnt he have a genuine debate and free
flow of ideas? Why did his student Ananya Vajpayee sign a petition to pulp
Rajiv Malhotras books the result of which, Pollock is being known for his
views among the common public?
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo 13 days ago
Written soberly. Congrats the author. The last para reminds me of
Thriuvalluvar, the ancient Sangam poet of Tamilnadu. He wrote:
If you do harm to someone in the morning
The harm will return to you in the evening.
The couplet is nothing but summing up of the saying: As you sow, so will you
reap.
This article talks about intellectual freedom of the academia for the progress

of society. and calls for the voices of traditional scholars with an emic
perspective. Pluralism is integral to freedom, it affirms categorically.
When you pulped Doniger and hooted and heckled other emit voices, the
same would have occurred to them. Indeed, Doniger told the TOI reporter the
same. She said, whether one is an outsider or insider, both of them ought to
be allowed and heard. But Hindutva forces want to strangulate the outside
voices as, in their opinion, only the emic perspective is valid. Like you affirm
here, when books of western Indologists are banned in India, or hooted down,
their supporters asked for such freedom then.
Now, in USA, they don't want to allow you. And you are crying Unjust and
Unfair. Academic freedom is strangulated. Academia will stagnate. Whither
learning, knowledge and wisdom?
Mahatma Gandhi famously quipped: Indians practice untouchability and don't
feel the pain of the so-called untouchables. When they go abroad, the white
man does the same to them. They feel the pain. It is poetic justice. (Not exact
quote)
ReplyShare
Avatar
thesteelguy Ergo 13 days ago
" She said, whether one is an outsider or insider, both of them ought to be
allowed and heard. But Hindutva forces want to strangulate the outside
voices as, in their opinion, only the emic perspective is valid."
Unnecessary conflation between 'hindutva forces' and the calls for native
scholarship in this article. Also, strawmen.
your argument is mainly inaction in the breadth of 'you had it coming'. How
pathetic and unproductive.
6 ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo thesteelguy 13 days ago
Yes you are correct. I am saying 'You had it coming!'. If you block western
scholars here, they block you there. Give freedom of expressions to all; then
ask for it for yourself if denied. Deserve before you desire.
It is an essential point most appropriate here to link the banning of western
scholarship in India to blocking of Eastern scholarship there.
She said both native scholarship and foreign scholarship can give their
respective views. Why to block one and allow only the other? It is essential, to
use the words of Sahana Singh, it is high time the voices of traditional as well
as modern scholars with both emit and etic perspectives were included.
Pluralism is integral to freedom which will facilitate progress of society. If we
read the conclusion of the essay we can know: It applies to all unequivocally.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Srivi Ergo 13 days ago

uhh the point is, it is they who were preaching about freedom of expression,
openness, inclusive etc.... it was they who made a joke out of Mr. Batra for
legally fighting a battle against what he considered misrepresentation. It is
now they who make silly points about hindutva forces to try and block
perceived antagonists.
Look it cannot be "i will have my cake and eat it" (to quote another cliche)
you either are with FoE fully and you allow all voices or you impose
conditions. If you expect that your interpretation of hinduism as a sex
obsessed religion should be accepted wholeheartedly as an alternate
interpretation then give space to hindus who want to interpret hinduism (the
utter horror of it, how can these pagans know anything about anything, much
less their own religion, better than us).
You cannot claim to be a scholar and academician if you continue to cling on
to your position by essentially degrading, blocking and discrediting others.
Your scholarship is proved when you can play on a level playing field and
prove your credentials.
6 ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo Srivi 13 days ago
It is they (you mean the western scholars) who want freedom of expressions
but they called Batra a joker for legally fighting a battle to ban the book by
Wendy Doniger. Whether legally or otherwise, why was there a necessity for
him to fight? If he felt that the book is distortion of Hindu religion, shouldn't
he meet the book with his or emit scholars' books? So, there was intolerance
to deny freedom of expression to the outsider. Then, how come they are the
first to deny it? I don't know the chronology. In case Batra was only retaliating
to denial of freedom of expression by the outsider, I withdraw my comment.
Who did it first to Wendy book? He or they?
The article speaks about the latest development. You are speaking about
development involving Batra and Wendy book that happened earlier. A point
to note.
//If you expect that your interpretation of hinduism as a sex obsessed religion
should be accepted wholeheartedly as an alternate interpretation then give
space to hindus who want to interpret hinduism (the utter horror of it, how
can these pagans know anything about anything, much less their own
religion, better than us).//
Wholeheartedly? No scholar writes a research book with that condition. If she
does it, she is not worthy to be called a scholar, but a third rate politician, a
fanatic. It is the professional ethic of a scholar to present her views only. No
more no less.
Did Wendy ever say her thesis should be accepted wholeheartedly? She said
let western scholars write from this side, Indian scholars write from other
side. Let both enrich intellectual milieu. Is it strangulation of liberalism? or a
call for liberalism? Please read her TOI interview. The interview was given

even before Batra went to court. Because the anger against her book was
swelling and she was aware of it; so she explained it away.
As the article says, the outsider group who includes the Columbia scholar and
the Harvard scholar, interfered to issue the caution that the Chair funded by
DCF and other Hindu rich of USA will be biased and that will vitiate the
academic scholarship. It is there in US. Here in India, we heard the chorus
that the white will vitiate scholarship with their biased i.e. anti hindu,
approach against Hinduism.
Here, who is the first? Outsiders or Insiders? According to you, the outsiders
are the first to go against freedom of expression. Please prove it
chronologically. I am ready to accept all that you wrote. Both are committing
an antidemocratic acts. And those who support - either side - are doubly
indulging in the act.
ReplyShare
Avatar
PV Ergo 13 days ago
Ever heard Saama Dhaana Bheda Dandopaya. A thief comes to steal your
precious belongings and let's see...Ergo "sir" will be preparing for an
intellectual debate. Why? He wants the thief to have his freedom of
expression!!! LOL.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo PV 12 days ago
In swarajyamag, no thief is coming to snatch away my belongings. So,
intellectual debates are possible.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Srivi Ergo 13 days ago
I do not want to engage in a debate of who did what first? that is just not
important.
My point was not on chronology, it was about ethics, about saying something
and doing something else.
If you speak of FoE and say that your book should be allowed because
everyone has a right to have their opinions and propagate them, then you
follow that principle yourself.
Just remember that opinions are precious to people who hold them. You may
judge somebody and think that "a perticular group" s view is abhorrent.
Realise that for that "perticular group" your opinions are equally abhorrent.
If you take up the mantle of FoE champions and say "hear my alternate
opinion", then you should be ready to allow the same to any "rich hindu"
organisation and then you can present the case to the world to judge who is
better. You cannot block an alternate view point to yourself, using your clout
and then say " FoE". That is just making a mockery of it.

BTW many people wrote good critique of her work, it did not make a
difference, it was not a level playing field.
If you also think wendy and her coterie is the same as " far right" who hold
one opinion and not allow contrasting opinions to find place, then i have
nothing to say. Yes batra started it and wendy continued it.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo Srivi 12 days ago
Thanks for the comment on Batra. We cannot single out the man. He
represents the pent-up aspirations of many, some of them can be seen here
and they are all educated persons.
To everyone her doll is precious. We find it right from our nursery class, don't
we?
I understand your point is if Wendy asks for freedom for her book to be
released in India (vide TOI interview) she and Co should give the same to
Hindus in the USA to set up Chairs in US universities.
My point is (leaving chronology out in deference to your wish) that what is
happening is tit for tat in USA i.e. if western scholars are attacked in India for
their ideas and prevented from releasing their books here, it is right for them
to retaliate there. Human beings never leave out their childhood play. In UN,
in Indian Parliament etc..we are watching the play. if you do to me, I shall also
pay back you in the same coin. Privilege motions moved by Cong and BJP are
examples. UN quarrels between countries on many issues are another
example. How can academic scholars be different? Aren't they humans too?
Your reply also gives me understand that you are concerned with FoE only
when we speak of the Western scholars. Why do you leave out Indians who
hooted WD out denying her the FoE? Do you imply that the FoE is not liked by
Indians and they are by nature autocratic; and so, it is right for them to crush
different ideas - of course, through legal means ! whereas westerners are
wrong (no ethics ! to use your word) just because they have advocated FoE?
Westerners are expected to be democratically spirited; and when they are
not, they are unethical. Indians are free to be autocratic and no ethics apply
to them. Hope I have correctly brought out your points.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Srivi Ergo 12 days ago
No I am not saying that FoE should only be practiced by western scholars. I
am saying that if you say that you champion FoE, then you champion it
completely.
Some people think FoE should be absolute and some people think it should
not be, my ask is to be truthful to what you claim to believe , thats all. You
cannot use FoE as a convenient tool when it suits your interest. the fight is
not with the principle but with its so called practitioners.
What is happening now is like saying "because we do not like you we will
condemn and demonize you, but if you do not like us, then you are wrong and

cannot criticize us or take action as we are right'

That will not work.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo Srivi 12 days ago
Your speech and your act should 100% tally. Isn't your point? I have
addressed it, saying all humans behave only as they like and as
circumstances demand it. Democracies are finding it difficult to stand on the
bases created by the originators. So, a number of democracies have
changed, morphed etc. Pure democracy is impossible today. Similarly it isn't
possible to keep 100% promise. TIT FOR TAT is being applied here; to acheive
that the objectors are ready to dilute their democratic principles.
It will work. Why not? They will write books that suit their preferences. And,
readers are not forced to read them. Still, they will have their readers across
all sections; whereas yours will be restricted to the Hindu Right.
If you want to dislodge them from their fan base, create yours to oversmart
them, and attract their readership. Like horse-trading in politics.
What is not being faced here is the following:
You have not shown any democratic principles in allowing them here.
You are turning fanatical day by day in keeping foreigners off from your
religion.
You have gone to court and arm-twisted the publishers.
She is a Columbia University professor who has carved out her niche in
western scholarship.
The Harvard Prof is also facing your ire.
Rajiv Malhotra wants Harvard University students to be debarred from Ujjain
Kumbh Mela.
Now, in their country, you want to establish a Chair for your religion and
restrict it to propagate only the rosy side of your religion as they apprehend.
By reading you all here, it is clear you want to conceal some on the grounds
there are many more positives in the religion which are concealed by them.
And you expect large heartedness from them preaching like this:
//Intellectual freedom of the academia is essential for the progress of society.
That freedom was intrinsic to ancient India. What we are witnessing today is a
domination of academia by etic voices, especially with regard to Hinduism. It
is high time the voices of traditional scholars with an emic perspective were
included. Pluralism is integral to freedom.//
Preaching comes from persons who want SINGLE IDEA to prevail. :-)
The academic atmosphere in religious studies have already become
perverted. And the blame for perverting is to be shared by both sides.
ReplyShare

Avatar
Srivi Ergo 11 days ago
I get your point, you are trying to say the same thing i am saying from the
other end. You are saying if you protested against them in your country,
expect that they will protest against you in their country. But my point is
more generic and is more to do with the failure of so called liberals.
See, when mr. batra makes a point or when mr. owaisi makes a point, there is
a certain connotation that comes with it. there is a certain public reputation
that they carry. There will be people who will agree/disagree/conditionally
agree/partially agree with them and when they do, they know what they are
agreeing with or disagreeing with.
But some people have a public reputation (being challenged now) of being
objective, progressive and call themselves liberals. Until recently, they
remained unchallenged, they set the narrative. Even now, this group of
journalists/academics/left leaders/historians/economists/activists .....form a
formidable group, they quote each other, they back each other and together
present a facade of progressive, liberal ideas. when they are this strong, the
opposition will be aggressive and sometimes blind to their own extremes,
that is natural.
My concern is not with the opposition to the liberal ideas, that will sort itself
out. My concern is for the hypocrisy that i am seeing in this group, who are
powerful and call themselves liberals. I am concerned about their bias, their
agendas and their narratives.
when the so called liberals do not uphold true liberal priciples then the whole
idea gets a bad name and terms like "adarsh liberals" spring up.
I was watching an interview with a young actress from down south. In her
interview she said that her inspiration was nanditha das, as she felt that ms.
das was not only a good actress but she had also contributed immensely to
the society and was also smart and progressive. This impression that the
young actress had of Ms. Das was because of the public perception. Itw as
because ms. das won the french award, was the first indian in the women hall
of fame and such.
Now this same ms. das's father overstays in government accomodation in a
posh locality, for decades http://www.hindustantimes.com/...
the same Ms. Das wrote open letters to public to elect a secular party, then
clarified it saying vote against modi, wrote articles saying "if modi comes
muslims will feel insecure" (fear mongering) and generally made out as if she
is very concerned about the fate of the nation if modi comes to power. after
all that rants, on the election day, she is so concerned about the fate of India
that she is not even in India to vote https://storify.com/KartikeyaT...
Knowing this can there not be a question raised "did ms.das oppose modi on
ideological basis, or was she just afraid that her cosy life will be over with a
different govt in power"
so what will a person do who has previously admired ms. das? Will they not
question their own beliefs and maybe even turn the opposite way? On the
other hand mr. batra will never say or do anything that contradicts what he is
saying. He is what he is, you either take him or reject him.

That is what i am concerned about. I am neither right or left. I believe that

every idea needs to be heard and individuals will make a decision based on
their own exposure to different ideas. so create that level playing field, if
batra can be criticized and ostracized so can wendy. On the other hand, if
wendy is welcome with her alternatives, so is batra with his alternatives.
in this level playing field, ergo can admire wendy and dismiss batra,
somebody can admire batra and dismiss wendy and srivi can happily
disagree with both and propound her own aletrnative
ReplyShare
Avatar
RVenkatanarayanan Ergo 12 days ago
ERGO:
A limited and specific question: Do you believe that in the last 100 years if
not more, Western academia allowed a level playing field to Eastern scholars
on their own past? Is it not right for the latter to wake up, stand up and call
the former's bluff? How they should go about it must not again be on terms
set by the dominating Western scholarship. Do you agree?
R.Venkatanarayanan
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo RVenkatanarayanan 12 days ago
I don't read research studies on religion. If at all, I read to know the
fundamentals of a religion as an average person should broaden her mind.
Otherwise, she will be a religious fanatic. I come to know about Wendy
Doniger or Rajiv Malhotra only from websites like this and newspaper articles.
Assuming that they (the White) have personal axes to grind i.e. to malign
Hindu religion, my point is that they write books or author theses from their
academai aborad i.e in own countries and their books get published here as
there are many Indians who want to read them.
How is it possible for you to say they should not write as they want? Can you
stop me If I do a research on a religion practised in Papua New Guinea and
release my discoveries here?; and it so happens that a publisher in Australia
gets interested and publishes it in Australia which is close to PNG and
PNGians come to know me. In case my opinions are negative to their religion,
for e.g. they are cannibals and their gods want to them to be so, if they don't
want that, can I stop my research? Islam threatens and people don't do
research for fear of life. You want to do so? That is my persistent question.
As for my opinion, if they malign you, you can't go against them as their
country affords room for liberal studies. It doesn't gatecrash into any
academy and indulge in arson as Shiv Sainiks entered and broke Bandarakar
Library in Pune since it helped an American do a research on Shivaji which SS
didn't like. It does not happen there; so they enjoy freedom of expression.
If they step in here, catch them and proceed against them in court as Batra
did and pulp their books. That is all you can do.

As for bluff, it is so for you, please note this important fact, Sir. If it is not for
them, what can you do Sir but to write books and books rebutting them word
for word, Sir. You are running into problems even with Indians who have
different opinions on the religion which you don't like: for e.g. Mahisashura
Story. Did you allow it? No. For you, it is blasphemy.
ReplyShare
Avatar
RVenkatanarayanan Ergo 10 days ago
Ergo,
We have exchanged a lot of notes. It is clear to me that you do not
understand that there is enormous frustration, pent up over centuries,
surfacing among conscious Hindus and Hindu practicing scholars. The
Western interpreters of India and Hinduism ( not Christianity or Islam in India)
have had their way unhindered to beat up India, Hindus and Hinduism. They
want to continue to do so under theories devised again by them, namely
freedom of expression! When I say, "beat up" do not jump to say,
"victimhood". The long colonized mind of the Hindu is getting de-colonized.
Yes, Hindus can not prevent them from writing what they want. Hindus must
show their plus points by writing equally frequently, and ALSO by writing
about THEM. But do they allow it? NO. If any Indian student wants to do
research in any of the Western Univs.. the academic cabal controlling funds
and other resources scotch it.Are you aware that these cabals do not even
invite or allow people like Rajiv Malhotra to attend Conferences where
Hinduism is castigated.
It is this context that I wish you to consider. Of course the theory of free
expression in abstract is attractive.
In my view the practical way for remedying the situation:
i. Try to do research work in foreign academia wherever possible and bring
out quality material to show where and how the Western/American Indology
has gone wrong;
ii. Start an Institute of Heritage Studies in India centered round growing
Indian, Hindu scholarship;
iii. Engage in expert translations of manuscripts in India;
iv. Rebut fearlessly whenever some slanted or nonsensical stuff is put out by
the Western scholars--such as Ganesha's trunk is a symbol of limp phallus; or
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was a homo sexual; or Shivaji was an illegitimate
child etc.
Lastly, if level playing field is not allowed Hindus have no option other than
going the Islamic way, which you acknowledge.
I shall feel satisfied in engaging these exchanges if you tell me specifically
where you agree and where you do not, on the paras in this long posting.
RVN
ReplyShare
Avatar
pshakkottai RVenkatanarayanan 9 days ago
Indians are already doing it (replying to Western criticisms of shock value) .
"Invading the Sacred" byKrishnam Ramaswamy , Antonio de Nicolas and Aditi
Banerjee, Rupa and co, New Delhi 2007 is one such. It points out many errors
in the language and stories mistranslated by Wendy Doniger.
ReplyShare

Avatar
RVenkatanarayanan pshakkottai 9 days ago
Thanks for calling my attention to "Invading the Sacred". It was perhaps the
first effort long back, as a response and reaction. It was a good joint effort. I
would however add, in the present context:
i. Practicing Hindu scholars must thoroughly study books and writings brought
out by Westerners, masquerading as Hinduism experts and write rebuttal
books, with references properly lsted from primary sources.
ii. As a proactive step, some of the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions and
scholarly writings on them, must be studied by Hindu scholars and treatises
must be produced.
iii. Systematic scholarship on the various aspects of Hindu heritage must be
produced under the auspices of a Heritage Institute set up in India outside
the ambit of the government of the day.
Without such action plan and its execution, "scholars" like Wendy Doniger,
Pollock et al will continue to write provocative nonsense or bless young
Indians who are willing to do so for money and career, under their tutelage.
RVN
ReplyShare
Avatar
pshakkottai RVenkatanarayanan 9 days ago
Definitely. If you don't listen to what your opponent is saying you will assume
something non-sensical. India assumed "all religions are equal" with
disastrous consequences.
ReplyShare
Avatar
thesteelguy Ergo 12 days ago
i wouldn't consider that blocking. murthy is free to select whoever he pleases.
it's a petition to reconsider his decision. i see nothing wrong with that.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
PV Ergo 13 days ago
Ergo..Your moronic rants never cease. Before crying a river of sympathy for
Doniger, you should know that Rajiv's actions were opposed just like that.
There is a whole mafia out there and it is fair to say that you know zilch about
to it. Doniger and her clan acted in the same way against Rajiv which you are
now attributing to Indians and the pulping incident. Rajiv mentioned on more
than one occasion that he favoured debates with the likes of Doniger and not
banning books. Doniger neither has the spine not the intellect to do that. The
next time you should read up a little more to gain better perspective before
randomly pulling out a quote from another Tamil poet or any scholar, and
trying to fit it in vain. The quote you used is just out of context. By the way,
the whole race of Tamilians were fighting bloody battles opposing Hindi at
one time. They were so scared and swept by paranoia that you should apply
Thiruvalluvar's quote to that entire race! It would be apt for the context.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo PV 12 days ago
One point I share with you: THE WHOLE RACE of Tamilians are bad because
they opposed imposition of Hindi on them. I am happy I am at long last

agreeing with, at least, one point. SIR!

ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo PV 12 days ago
Rajiv Malhotra is not under debate. Batra who went to court and successfully
pulped the book and the author Wendy Donigar are discussed.
ReplyShare
Avatar
thesteelguy Ergo 12 days ago
stop shifting goalposts.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo thesteelguy 12 days ago
Show the goalposts in a few words hereinnow, Sir.
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
Subroto Gangopadhyay Ergo 12 days ago
The publisher withdrew the Doniger book, the book was not "banned by
court". The withdrawal was prompted by factual inaccuracies pointed by
scholars. To cover this, it was turned around as "Book Banning" by Hindutva
forces,which helped the author cover herself with a martyr's glory instead of
criticism for shoddy scholarship. Salman Rushdie's book was actually banned
by the UPA govt, to protect Muslim sentiment. Fatwas from middle East
helped, threat of violence is helpful to Western liberals to shift their gaze.
Western Scholars focus on particular subjects - mystical symbolisms of a
sexual nature and social issues. They do not focus on secular arts and
sciences which is very much a part of the Corpus of Hinduism. Therefore their
scholarship is motivated, narrowly focused and derogatory in nature. In
absence of such scholarship directed towards Judeo-christian faiths where
such material is far more plentiful and direct, they do demonstrate a
collective goal. By not allowing opposing voices from the tradition (and only
allowing western trained scholars) they thrive on monoculture which they
cannot impose on Islam, Judaism, Christianity or for that matter on China,
Japan or Russia if countries and cultures are concerned. This leads to the
conclusion that West exerts and responds to power paradigms only.India must
respond in Kind, When playing fields are not level they must be leveled.
Imperialism is not just conquest by force, it also controlling the discourse,
controlling the economic system or exerting control through human rights
organizations, through NGO's and other tools as well. Congratulations to the
Author
1 ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo Subroto Gangopadhyay 12 days ago
The book was not banned by Court. The publishers pulped it. thousands of
copies, incurring huge financial loss. They don't have any stake in the book
but to save their business. It is like forfeiture of smugglers' properties. Just
jail, court and sentences won't break their will to break law. So, stop their
source of income which facilitates their illegal activities. If you threaten the
publishers, other publishers won't dare to publish any book like Doniger's.
Economic terrorism, Bombing terrorism. Now, spiritual terrorism. Batra went

to court; and there was a huge number of supporters. The publishers saw all
this and took preventive steps. From the above what is the inference easily
derivative?: fear for life. If it is not terrorism, what else?
If a book carry glaring irregularities - for whom? For persons like Batra and his
supporters. Not to the author and her fans or for western scholars. A book of
such a nature cannot be an open and shut case. It will have many guesses,
conjectures, and generalisations within also because the subject is religion,
not science or arithmetic; that too, the Hindu religion, for which there are no
direct claimants, no age, no period, no certain authors, and no fixed
interpretations. It is ancient. No one knows its source and time. And, no one is
invested with any authority to 'fix' the religion so as to say only this is
HINDUISM and nothing else. and so, no one has the right to go out of the
falsely fixed circumference; and, further, all should write only with deep
devotion and reverence and respect to each and every aspect of the religion
like a devotee standing within the circumference with folded hands. And they
should write as we demand. Scholars get out. Devotees enter. if there is sex,
no word of it; shut up!. If you speak about it, it will be treated as a selective
attack to insult my religion. (Will Islam allow you to write as you please? They
will cut off your head! Agreed. Then admit that you want an talibanised Hindu
religion. You cannot have the cake and eat it too!)
So you are being talibanistic. Blasphemy, burning or banning or threatening
through court case - a culture of islamisation.
On the contrary, allow people to write a book on the religion as they see it. If
there is sex, and if she writes about it, to arm twist her is to allege falsely that
there is no sex in it. All religions have all kinds of facts. When there is sex,
there will be a paper on it. You cannot help it. If you want to say it is only a
small part of it, and there are humongous other parts to overshadow or
eclipse that which I don't like, please go and write such a book. Why to stop
other books?
If the book has glaring mistakes, what is preventing you to say so, in another
book? Why not meet intellectual perversion with intellectual appropriateness?
Why to go to court for a decree, and indirectly threatening the publishers?
Book not banned, but publishers backtracked - is a brownie point.
There, they put a bounty on the head, here you put a court case on the
writer. It is a difference of a degree, not kind.
She said: Allow both voices, thereby enriching the field of academic
scholarship with a multi-hued ideas. Hindutva voices and western voices can
both contribute to that. By saying this, is she seeking a halo of martyrdom?
Why are you not allowing different ideas or theses? Why do you want a Single
Idea to be forced? These are the questions directed not towards Hindu
fanatics, but Hindu scholars and thinkers.
I have touched one point only.
ReplyShare

Avatar
Subroto Gangopadhyay Ergo 11 days ago
Ergo ; It is difficult to debate one who will not reveal his/her identity, will not
do the due diligence (on scholarly rebuttals to the the concerned book,
submitted to the publishers) and only indulge in sweeping generalizations
with calumny about extremism. Terms like "Spiritual Terrorism";
"Talibanisation" etc with the "You" being used to label "all" as part of a single
entity,affiliates of one organization. The suggestion is to write books about "
Wendy's Books", then I suppose Wendy will write books about those books,
but wait, it is she who has the privilege of dismissing others, while others
have to write books. The American State should write books about the Quran
and the Saudi Arabians about Christianity to solve the worlds puzzles, Until
then drones and ISIS are fine and so is the Taliban, it is only the Hindus that
cannot exhibit the extremism of protesting inaccuracies about a Western PhD
to a publisher who decides it is better to sell the flawed product outside India
as it affords better publicity and actually enhances sales, which it did. Thank
you so much for your Wisdom.
ReplyShare
Avatar
Ergo Subroto Gangopadhyay 11 days ago
Don't debate. Avoid me. I am going to avoid because you want to win a
brownie point for displaying your name. Sorry...bye

Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine

Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine

We write to you to express our concern regarding the initiative to establish

four endowed chairs at the University of California, Irvine: the Thakkar FamilyDharma Civilization Foundation Presidential Chair in Vedic and Indic
Civilization Studies, the Dhan Kaur Sahota Presidential Chair in Sikh Studies,
Shri Parshvanath Presidential Chair in Jain Studies, and the Swami
Vivekananda-Dharma Civilization Foundation Presidential Chair in Modern
India Studies.
While such endowments have the potential to greatly enhance the study of
South Asia, we are troubled by news reports that the Dharma Civilization
Foundation (hereafter DCF) has put forward its own list of acceptable
candidates based on race and religion. Further, we are concerned about
reports that the DCF has already brought their favoured candidates to the UC
Irvine campus, in the absence of any advertised search for these positions.
According to Inside Higher Eds report on December 21, 2015, the DCF has

proposed a list of possible candidates to fill the chairs, as well as a list of

proscribed candidates, describing these lists as a suggestion to the
University. Prevailing normative codes at public Universities and standard
academic procedures require an advertised search where qualified
candidates are vetted by established scholars selected from a wide pool of
academic expertise. Reshaping academic selection via criteria based on
ethnic origin or religious belief opens the door to discriminatory practices that
are consequential for educators and students everywhere, not just at UCI.
Donors intentions to fund only certain kinds of religious practitioners, or only
supporters of certain religiously-defined communities, contravenes not only
anti-discrimination law but also standards of academic excellence. While it is
possible that scholar-practitioners of a religion can enrich its study, it is
widely accepted that being a practicing member of a religious group should
not be a requirement for studying and teaching that religion. We fear the
DCFs efforts will lead to the appointment of scholars who do not represent
the intellectual richness and rigour in religious studies and South Asian
history. South Asia is a deeply heterogeneous multi-religious sub-continent,
and its religious practices are highly decentralised, varying across region,
class and caste. Academic study requires empathy, curiosity, and rigour, not
a certificate of belonging or a methodology that is monitored by donors. We
are particularly concerned about the specific ideological sympathies of DCF
associates, and the commitment to compliance with donors intent currently
embedded in the gift agreement (as published in the Orange County Register
on December 16, 2015).
The DCF is part of a right-wing Hindu group of organisations that has been
known to undermine Indian pluralism through an agenda that seeks to
redefine true Indianness in terms of a historically-fabricated continuity in
Indic religions (a list of religions that excludes the sub-continents traditions
of Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism), and a privileging of upper-caste,
Vedic Hindu identity. The DCF, although registered as a US non-profit
organisation, is directly tied, through its office holders and its ideological
roots, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (hereafter RSS), an organization
that is the main proponent of the political ideology of Hindu nationalism, or
"Hindutva." DCF office holders have held, or continue to hold, positions within
the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (hereafter HSS), which is a global partner
organisation of the RSS (with an international program to extend RSS
ideology, including raising money in the UK and US to be used for RSS
schools).
The RSS and HSS misrepresent not only Hinduisms relationship to other
religions but also the historical fluidity and philosophical complexity within
Hinduism itself. The RSS defines Hindu-ness using an especially narrow
interpretation of Sanatana Dharma and Vedic thought. The RSS is a militarist
organization that has upheld violence as a means to reach political goals; it
has used fatal force against religious minorities and political adversaries in
the past. The RSS has been banned three times in India for its active
participation in mass violence against Christian and Muslim minorities and its
role in the 1948 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The HSS promotes a

similar sectarian, exclusive, and xenophobic idea of Hinduism. Organisations

linked to the DCF have been actively involved in hate campaigns and public
smearing of diverse scholars of Hinduism who disagree with their
interpretations of Indian history. Many members of the DCF board are officeholders and members of the HSS, and have tried to advance their ideological
agenda in other educational settings. DCF affiliates have attempted to
introduce factually inaccurate changes to California sixth-grade textbooks
about Hinduism. The right-wing Hindu campaign to change California
textbooks promoted a reductive idea of the religion, seeking to introduce
elements that had been widely discredited by scholars of Hinduism. The
Endowed Chair agreement between the DCF and UC Irvine, to our surprise,
specifies that adherence to this intellectually discredited interpretation of
Hinduism will serve as a litmus test for future faculty in the UC system. The
candidates hired will be required to forge partnerships with the Vedic and
Indic heritage community in the Western diaspora, and to fulfill the Donors
primary foundational intention to uphold their vision of Applied Dharma. It
is a matter of scholarly and financial concern that a gift agreement would
specify that candidates prove alignment with Donor intent in order to be
hired, and that certain faculty members of the UC system will be required to
meet annually with private donors to preserve a constructive collaboration
with the Donors intent in perpetuity.
We value the mission of the University of California and its commitment to
robust faculty governance, public education and academic freedom. We
support the diversification of research and pedagogy, but urge you to
recognise the danger of privileging forms of expression which present
themselves within the spectrum of diversity, while promoting or justifying
religious or ethnic hatred, discrimination, or intolerance. Based on recent
statements by the DCF and our understanding of the agreements that the
School of Humanities signed, we are extremely concerned that it will be
difficult to maintain a clear separation between donor intent and university
processes. If UCI is unable to establish clear academic criteria for the vetting
and hiring of candidates based on wide consultations with present faculty
who teach South Asia-related courses, and if UCI is unable to ensure that
there is no involvement of donors in academic decisions, we urge UCI to
return the gifts and to end this relationship with the DCF and its associates.
Academic research and decision-making processes ought to evolve in the
best traditions of independent thought and inquiry. At a time of State
disinvestment from public education and the rising importance of private
money in the growth of education, we understand the pressures on
administrators to promote fundraising initiatives. However, the University of
California has the responsibility to conduct due diligence, to protect its
faculty, staff and students, and to follow ethical guidelines for broad
democratic participation in our joint educational futures. We urge the
University of California system to uphold the best ideals of academic
freedom, and to reject partnerships with donor organisations or individuals
who propagate narrow sectarian agendas that violate the very spirit and
mission of a public university.

Sara Abraham
Researcher, Lahore University of Management Sciences
Meena Alexander
Distinguished Professor of English, Graduate Center/ Hunter College, City
University of New York
Frederick M. Asher
Department of Art History,University of Minnesota
Jayadev Athreya
Director, Washington Experimental Mathematics Lab University of Washington
Gajendran Ayyathurai
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Gttingen University, Germany
Paola Bacchetta
Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Amit R. Baishya
Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Oklahoma.
Sarada Balagopalan
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of
Childhood Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Sukanya Banerjee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Srimati Basu
University of Kentucky
Dr. Rachel Berger
Associate Professor, History Department, Concordia University
Varuni Bhatia
Assistant Professor, Hindu Studies, Asian Languages and Cultures, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Nilanjana Bhattacharjya
Honors Faculty Fellow, Barrett, the Honors College, Arizona State University
Tithi Bhattacharya
Director, Global Studies, Associate Professor, History, Purdue University
Debjani Bhattacharyya
Assistant Professor, Drexel University, Department of History, 3250-60
Chestnut Street, Suite 3025 MacAlister Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Purnima Bose
Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University,
Bloomington
Timothy Brennan
Professor, U of Minnesota
Laura C. Brown
Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh
Madhurima Chakraborty
Assistant Professor, Department of English, Columbia College Chicago.
Mrinalini Chakravorty
Associate Professor, English, University of Virginia
Shefali Chandra
Associate Professor of South Asian History, Washington University in St. Louis
S. Charusheela
Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of
Washington, Bothell
Partha Chatterjee
Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University
Indrani Chatterjee

Professor, History, UT Austin

Angana Chatterji
Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley
Swati Chattopadhyay
Professor, History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa
Barbara
Zahid Chaudhary
Princeton University
Preeti Chopra
Professor, Department of Art History, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Rohit Chopra
Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University
David Clingingsmith
Dept. of Economics, Case Western Reserve University
Ananya Dasgupta
Assistant Professor, History, Case Western University
Veena Deo
Professor, English,CLA, Hamline University
Jigna Desai
Chair & Professor, Dept. of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University
of Minnesota 425 Ford Hall
Wendy Doniger
University of Chicago
Richard M. Eaton
Professor of History, University of Arizona
Mayanthi L. Fernando

Associate Professor of Anthropology, Director of Undergraduate Studies,

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Keya Ganguly
Professor, Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature,
University of Minnesota
Toorjo Ghose
Associate Professor, Chair,School of Social Policy & Practice, University of
Pennsylvania
Bishnupriya Ghosh
Professor, English, UC Santa Barbara
Jayati Ghosh
Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
Prof. David Gilmartin
North Carolina State University
Priyamvada Gopal
University of Cambridge
Inderpal Grewal
Yale University
Richard Grusin
Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Charu Gupta
Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Delhi
Mary Hancock
Professor of Anthropology and History, University of California, Santa Barbara
Ziaul Hasan
Retired Professor, University of Illinois, Chicago
Qadri Ismail

Associate professor, University of Minnesota.

Dr.Chinnaiah Jangam,
Assistant Professor, Department of History, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada
Pranav Jani
Associate Professor, English, Ohio State University
Vidya Kalaramadam
Assistant Professor, William Paterson University of New Jersey
Sangeeta Kamat
Associate Professor, Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Suvir Kaul
A. M. Rosenthal Professor, Department of English, University of Pennsylvania
Prashant Keshavmurthy
Assistant Professor of Persian-Iranian Studies, Institute of Islamic Studies,
McGill University
Jesse Ross Knutson
Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific
Languages and Literatures, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Sankaran Krishna
Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Aishwary Kumar
Stanford
Smita Lahiri
Visiting Lecturer, Anthropology, Harvard University
James W Laine
Professor of Religious Studies, Macalester College, Saint Paul. MN

Joy Laine
Philosophy Department, Macalester College
Vinay Lal
Professor of History, UCLA
Premesh Lalu
Director of the DST-NRF Flagship on Critical Thought, Centre for Humanities
Research, University of the Western Cape.
Jean M Langford
Professor, Anthropology, U of Minnesota
David Lelyveld
Professor (retired), William Paterson University
Simon Leung
Professor, Department of Art UC Irvine
Ania Loomba
Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania
Kama Maclean
University of New South Wales, Australia
Sudhir Mahadevan
Associate Professor, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of
Washington, Seattle
Saba Mahmood
Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley
Sunaina Maira
Professor, Asian American Studies UC Davis
Neepa Majumdar
Associate Professor, Department of English, University of Pittsburgh,

Marc Matera
Assistant Professor, department of history, UC Santa Cruz
Biju Mathew
Associate Professor, College of Business , Rider University, New Jersey
Saloni Mathur
Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Studies, Chair, Art Journal Editorial
Board, UCLA | Dept of Art History
Monika Mehta
Associate Professor of English, Binghamton University
Dilip M Menon
Director Centre for Indian Studies in Africa, University of Witwatersrand,
South Africa
Raza Mir
Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson
University
Madhuchhanda Mitra
Professor, English, College of Saint Benedict/St. Johns University
Durba Mitra
Assistant Professor of History, Fordham University
Megan Moodie
Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz
Projit Bihari Mukharji
University of Pennsylvania
Sucharita Sinha Mukherjee
College of Saint Benedict/Saint Johns University, Minnesota, USA
Rahul Mukherjee
University of Pennsylvania

Richa Nagar
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Vijaya Nagarajan
Associate Professor, Dept. of Religious Studies, Program in Environmental
Studies, University of San Francisco
Sandhya Devesan Nambiar
JMC, University of Delhi
Balmurli Natrajan
Associate Professor, Anthropology, William Paterson University of New Jersey
Britta Ohm
Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bern, Switzerland
Goldie Osuri
Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Warwick
Shailaja Paik
Assistant Professor of South Asian History and Women, Gender, and Sexuality
Studies Affiliate, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joyojeet Pal
Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, School of Information
Gyan Pandey
Emory University
Vasudha Paramasivan
University of California, Berkeley
Andrea Marion Pinkney
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University
Sheldon Pollock
Arvind Raghunathan Professor of Sanskrit and South Asian Studies, Chairman,

Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Africa Studies, Columbia

University in the City of New York
Gyan Prakash
History, Princeton University
Shalini Puri
University of Pittsburgh
Neshat Quaiser
Associate Professor Department of Sociology, Jamia Millia Islamia, Central
University New Delhi
Gloria Goodwin Raheja
Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota
Arvind Rajagopal
Professor, Dept of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University
Rajeswari Sunder Rajan
English, New York University
M. V. Ramana
Nuclear Futures Laboratory & Program on Science and Global Security,
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton
University
Lucinda Ramberg
Cornell University
Maia Ramnath
Professor of History and Asian Studies, Pennsylvania State University.
Anupama Rao
History, Barnard College, Columbia University
Raka Ray
Professor, Department of Sociology, Department of South and Southeast
Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Chandan Reddy
Associate Professor, English and Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies
Vanita Reddy
Assistant Professor, English, Texas A&M University
Marcus Rediker
University of Pittsburgh
Sharmila Roy
Attorney at Law, Laveen, Arizona 85339
Modhumita Roy
Associate Professor of English, Tufts University
Parama Roy
University of California, Professor of English, Davis
Poulomi Saha
Assistant Professor of English, University of California, Berkeley
G.S. Sahota
Assistant Professor, Literature, UC Santa Cruz
Yasmin Saikia
Hardt-Nickachos Chair of Peace Studies & Professor of History, Arizona State
University
Laila Shereen Sakr
Assistant Professor , Department of Film and Media Studies, UC Santa Barbara
Bhaskar Sarkar
Associate Professor, UC Santa Barbara
Priya Satia
Associate Professor, Department of History, Stanford University

Freya Schiwy
Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside
J. Barton Scott
Assistant Professor, University of Toronto
Arijit Sen
Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Nayan Shah
Professor, American Studies & Ethnicity and History, University of Southern
California
Svati P. Shah
Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
S. Shankar
Professor and Director of Creative Writing, Department of English, University
of Hawai'i at Manoa
Aradhana (Anu) Sharma
Chair and Associate Professor, Anthropology, Wesleyan University
Jenny Sharpe
Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Gender Studies ,
Department of English, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
Elora Shehabuddin
Rice University
Dr. Zoe C. Sherinian
Associate Professor of Ethnomusicology, Women and Gender Studies (Affiliate
Faculty), University of Oklahoma
Greg Siegel
Associate Professor, Department of Film and Media Studies, University of
California, Santa Barbara, CA
Pritam Singh

Professor of Economics, Faculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University

Shana Sippy
Religion Department, Carleton College
Ajay Skaria
Professor, Department of History/Institute for Global Studies, University of
Minnesota
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
University Professor, Columbia University, New York, USA.
Mytheli Sreenivas
Associate Professor of History and Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies,
Ohio State University
Tulasi Srinivas
Associate Professor, Emerson College.
Banu Subramaniam
Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies Program, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst
Ajantha Subramanian
Professor of Anthropology and of South Asian Studies, Harvard University
Abha Sur
Program in Women's & Gender Studies, MIT
Raja Swamy
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee
Ratnakar Tripathy
Senior Research Fellow, Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI)
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Director, Center for Media and Citizenship, Robertson Professor, University of
Virginia, Department of Media Studies

Vamsi Vakulabharanam
Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Peter van der Veer
Director Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity,
Gttingen, Germany
A.R. Vasavi
Social Anthropologist, Bengaluru, India
Gowri Vijayakumar
UC Berkeley
Rupa Viswanath
Professor of Indian Religions, University of Goettingen, Germany.
Gauri Viswanathan
Class of 1933 Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University
David Gordon White
J. F. Rowny Professor of Comparative Religion, University of California, Santa
Barbara
Michael Witzel
Wales Professor of Sanskrit, Harvard University
Benjamin Zachariah
University of Trier, Germany
HIGHLIGHTS
January 31
Petition has reached 100 signatures! January 30
Sign on with your name and be sure to add your affiliation! January 30
We are now live!
COMMENTS
Filter
ma nithya saralanandaFrance, Le Pellerin Mar 02, 2016 l'hindouisme est la
plus ancienne et la plus vraie de toutes les religions sur notre Terre. Elle est
authentique et enrichi tous ceux et celles qui la dcouvrent, et qui
l'apprennent travers le monde, partout !

Arnab ChakrabortyIndia, Kolkata Feb 26, 2016 Ex-Postgraduate Student of

English, Jadavpur University
Winifred PosterUnited States, Saint Louis Feb 22, 2016 Washington University,
St. Louis
Margaret Brose United States, Santa Cruz Feb 18, 2016 Prof. of Literature
University of California, Santa Cruz
See More
Sign in to comment
SIGNATURES
zainab
Canada
ma nithya saralananda
France
Ross Heckmann
United States
Arnab Chakraborty
India
Chirinjev Peterson
United States
Pedro Ferreira
Denmark
Winifred Poster
United States
Aneil Rallin
United States
Margaret Brose
United States
Mukhtiar Singh
Canada
Harendra Singh
India
Julie Carlson
United States
Ish Mishra
India
Chet andeep Mandair
United States
Ravi Arvind Palat
United States
Sucheta Rakshit-Seus
Germany
Narendra Subramanian
India
Haimanti Roy
United States
Manisha Patel
United States
Aman Kumar
India
Joseph A Adler

United States
Minakshi Menon
Germany
Minakshi Menon
Germany
Anne Hardgrove
United States
Kathryn Lum Assistant Professor Department of Global Studies Nottingham
Trent University
United Kingdom
Susan Morrissey
United States
Sonja Thomas
United States
David Pan
United States
Asisranjan Sengupta
India
Justus Weiss
Germany
Ashish Shredtha
United States
Debra Richardson
United States
Shiva Shankar
India
Elaine Andres
United States
J Devika
India
Sonalee Rashatwar
United States
neo muyanga
South Africa
Catherine Liu
United States
Magda El Zarki
United States
Tanner Smith
United States
Parshan Khosravi
United States
Dr Yolanda L Marquez
United States
Madelyn Detloff
United States
Tiffany Herard
United States
William Dawley
United States

Balu
India
Sneha Desa
India
Suvadip Sinha
United States
Derek Nystrom
Canada
Vishal Kalhan
New Zealand
Professor Helen King
United Kingdom
Monica H Green
United States
Safoora Arbab
Pakistan
Ali Karjoo-Ravary
United States
Ananya Chakravarti
United States
Mubbashir Rizvi
United States
Daniel Bass
United States
Donald Adams
United States
Utathya
India
V V Ganeshananthan
United States
V V Ganeshananthan
United States
Sahil Sasidharan
India
Prashant Kumar
India
Jessica Williams
United States
Sohini Dutta
India
ajay shingal
United States
Vivian Price
United States
Sheena Sood
United States
Rizwan Ullah Kokab
Pakistan
Sydni Meyer
United States

Sheena Singh
United States
ARUPJYOTI SAIKIA
India
Rebecca J Manring
United States
Rani Elhajjar
Italy
Johar Sokhi
New Zealand
Priyankar Dey
India
Simon Wolfgang Fuchs
United Kingdom
Medha Ghosh
United States
Jodi Melamed
United States
Colleen Lye
United States
Carol Christine Fair
United States
Sana Haroon
United States
Abhijit Roy
India
Laboni Singh
India
Feroze Mithiborwala
India
Robert Zydenbos
Germany
Aaron Mulvany
Pakistan
Rosinka Chaudhuri
India
Manas Ray
India
Ritajyoti
India
Anita Waters
United States
Vikas Kumar Moola
India
Suresh Kolichala
United States
Jyoti Kapadia
India
Narendra Subramanian
India

Natasha Cornea
Switzerland
Nida Kirmani
Pakistan
Victoria Farmer
United States
MatthewSmith
United Kingdom
Sambuddha Chaudhuri
United States
Deborah Sutton
United Kingdom
Humeira Iqtidar
United Kingdom
Andrew McNamara
Australia
Justin Stein
Canada
Nandini Chandrasekaran
India
Christopher C Heselton
United States
Andrea Milne
United States
A L Hamilton
United States
Kalyan Chatterjee
United States
Amin Zama
United States
Olivia Humphrey
United States
Joshua Clover
United States
Clare Gordon
United States
Brian A Hatcher
United States
Andrew Fort
United States
Ramona Blaquiere
Australia
William C Van Norman
United States
Amie Wilkinson
United States
Mitra Sharafi
United States
Kristin Bloomer
United States

Carla Bellamy
United States
Velcheru Narayana Rao
United States
Shreena Gandhi
United States
Anna Bigelow
United States
Francois Cusset University of Paris
France
Davida Rabbino
United States
Margherita Long
United States
Douglas Armato
United States
Kalyan Nadiminti
United States
Jesse Knutson
United States
Sascha Auerbach
United Kingdom
Rameez Shaik
India
Katharine Rankin
Canada
George Francis Bickers
United Kingdom
Shailen Nandy
United Kingdom
Sayoni Bose
United States
Onni Gust
United Kingdom
Aparna Parikh
United States
Ishan Ashutosh
United States
James Taneti
United States
Majed Akhter
United States
Carmel Christy
United States
Arthur Rubinoff
Canada
Katyayani Dalmia
United States
Sukhmeet Singh
United Kingdom

Laavanya Kathiravelu
United States
Lena Folwaczny
United States
David Brotherton
United States
Jared Lessard
United States
Tarik Aougab
United States
mark enslin
United States
Richard Harkinson
United Kingdom
Probir Ghosh
India
Jigeesha
India
Juergen Schaflechner
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sachin Narayan Shah
United States
Stephen Legg
United Kingdom
Hari Menon
India
angela Paine
India
Ezra Rashkow
United States
Diana Henderson
United States
Frederick Tucker
United States
Brinda Bose
India
oeendrila lahiri
India
Emily Thuma
United States
Jayadev Athreya
India
Jahnabi Barooah
United States
Usha Iyer
United States
Corey Creekmur
United States
Katherine Cosby
United States

Gilles Verniers
India
S M ali
India
Carla Bellamy
United States
andres jurado
Colombia
Gopal Balakrishnan
United States
Nick Mitchell
United States
Aftab
United States
JJ
United States
subho basu
Canada
Hayden Bellenoit
United States
Lauren Wild
United States
Serk-Bae Suh
United States
Faridah Zaman
United States
Peter Beattie
United States
Rini Bhattacharya Mehta
United States
Jennifer Milton
United States
Ariela Marcus-Sells
United States
Niharika Dinkar
United States
Rachael De La Cruz
United States
Jeb Purucker
United States
Inderpal grewal
United States
Arnab Chakladar
Hong Kong
Nancy Brntley
United States
Ranjan Bhattacharya
United States
Parvathy Binoy
United States

Constance Penley
United States
Nicole
United States
Jonathan Dresner
United States
Leroy Searle
United States
Nirjhar Mukherjee
India
Reiko Ishihara-Brito
United States
Bratisankar Ghosh
United Arab Emirates
Jetsun Deleplanque
United States
Sona Datta
United States
Kavita Panjabi Professor Jadavpur University
India
Sandeep Banerjee
Canada
Danielle DeLano
United States
Vijaya prasad
United States
Amita Sen Gupta
United Kingdom
Anna Stirr
United States
Andrew Katzenstein
United States
Subir Sinha
United Kingdom
Jammi Rao
United Kingdom
James Fujii
United States
Chris Taylor
United States
Lisa Watt
United States
Emily Martin
United States
Sid singh
United States
Heidi Tinsman
United States
Eyal Amiran
United States

Rei Terada
United States
Erika Dyson
United States
Sumangala Bhattacharya
United States
Sanjukta Sunderason
Netherlands
Tsolin Nalbantian
Netherlands
Lisa Watt
United States
Emily Martin
United States
Sid singh
United States
Heidi Tinsman
United States
Eyal Amiran
United States
Rei Terada
United States
Erika Dyson
United States
Sumangala Bhattacharya
United States
Sanjukta Sunderason
Netherlands
Tsolin Nalbantian
Netherlands
Gerald Maa
United States
Parisa Vaziri
United States
Ajai Narendran
India
Sarah Kessler
United States
Rashmi Sawhney
India
Dan Moseson
United States
Adair Rounthwaite
United States
Jyoti Puri
United States
Gajendra Singh
United Kingdom
Samir Dubey
United States

Sara E Martinez MLIS

United States
Jamie Rogers
United States
Ghada Mourad
United States
Madhusree Dutta
India
aditi roy ghatak
India
Nandini Gondhalekar
United States
Pamela Gilbert
United States
Vixxy
Singapore
Shishira
United States
Millie Wilson
United States
Gene Anderson
United States
Kate Hartmann
United States
William Elison
United States
Melanie Boehi
South Africa
Ayesha Mulla
Pakistan
Samir Bhala
United States
Katherine Kasdorf
United States
yogender dayma
India
Samina Mishra
India
Leela
India
Aranye Fradenburg
United States
Ronit Hazarika
India
Indra SenguptaGerman Historical Institute London
United Kingdom
Shankari Patel
United States
Nalini Iyer
United States

Karin Zitzewitz
United States
Satadru Sen
United States
Amina Steinfels
United States
Rohit De Yale University
United States
Subir Sinha
United Kingdom
uttara Chakraborty
India
Kavita Datla
United States
Shabnum Tejani
United Kingdom
Vix egan
United Kingdom
jaoul
Brazil
Johnny Lieberman
United States
Sumita Pahwa
United States
Padma V
India
Ritika Prasad
United States
Teena Purohit
United States
Mara Matta
Italy
V J Varghese
India
nicole wolf
United Kingdom
Alaska Ghosal
Australia
Franson Manjal
India
Muthu Kumaran
India
Sharleen Mondal
United States
Nathaniel Roberts
Malaysia
Aparajita De
United States
Ashwini Tambe
United States

Aswin Punathambekar
United States
Jobin Kanjirakkat
Canada
James Caron
United Kingdom
Marian Mayer
United Kingdom
Jayant Kripalani
India
David Mosse
United Kingdom
Prabhakar Jayaprakash
India
Ashish
Senegal
Zoe Lawlor
Ireland
Barakath ali
Brunei Darussalam
Harsha Prabhu
Australia
Rubaica Jaliwala
Germany
Amudha Ganesan
Germany
John Brissenden
United Kingdom
Chaitanya Gore
Singapore
Kim Gerrard
United States
SAMRAT CHAKRABORTY
India
MOHNA ROBERT
Ukraine
Sadan jha
India
C Jerome Samraj
India
Dibyesh Anand
United Kingdom
Madhusree Mukerjee
Germany
Roshni Sengupta
Netherlands
Oyndrila Sarkar
Germany
Neena Mahadev
India

oyndrila sarkar
Germany
Anuradha Ramanujan
Singapore
El Biswajit
India
suchitra narayan
India
Shyam Patel
United States
Gautam Premnath
United States
Bradley Smith
Australia
Alakananda Bhattacharya
India
Chandak Sengoopta
United Kingdom
Zeynep Oguz
Croatia
Sian Hawthorne SOAS University of London
Italy
Moinak Biswas
India
Eng-Beng lim
Singapore
Raihan Sharif
United States
Judith Rodriguez
United States
Christina ree
United States
Radha Dalal
Qatar
Eleanor Newbigin
United Kingdom
Michael Schied
Germany
Suddhasattwa Bandyopadhyay
United States
Jaseela CV
India
Nadim Asrar
India
venugopal maddipati
India
Indra Sengupta
United Kingdom
Karthikeyan Damodaran University of Edinburgh
United Kingdom

Aaron Guerrero
United States
Jay Dee
United States
Suranjana
India
Ananya Chakravarti
United States
Aditi Chandra
United States
Joanna Gonzalez
United States
Joseph K Antony
India
Meera Curam
India
Joel Quirk
South Africa
Bonnie McCay
United States
Gokul Vannan
India
Michael Simmons
United States
Karam Dana
United States
Celeste Langan
United States
Roshan Sahi
India
Jennifer Terry
United States
Aaron MacLachlan
United States
Priyale
India
Lucas Hilderbrand
United States
shuba
India
Sanchia deSouza
Canada
Kathryn Cox
United States
Andrew Leong
United States
Geetha Narayanan
India
Yogita Goyal
United States

Malgorzata Herc-Balaszek
United States
Khadeejah Avvirin Gray
United States
Prof David Palumbo-Liu
United States
Nayantara Pothen
Australia
John Gilmore
United States
Sanchia deSouza
Canada
Kathryn Cox
United States
Andrew Leong
United States
Geetha Narayanan
India
Yogita Goyal
United States
Malgorzata Herc-Balaszek
United States
Khadeejah Avvirin Gray
United States
Prof David Palumbo-Liu
United States
Nayantara Pothen
Australia
John Gilmore
United States
Kate Flint
United States
Yogesh Chandrani
United States
Jonathan Dettman
United States
Robert Wood
United States
Darshana Mini
United States
Judith Rodenbeck
United States
Anne Zimmerman
United States
Andrew Yale
United States
Amit Baishya
United States
Simona Sawhney
India

Christine Gailey
United States
Travis Workman
United States
Ian Balfour
Italy
Rei Terada
United States
Dr Bhabani Shankar Nayak
United Kingdom
Chris Newfield
United States
KP Jayasankar
India
Anustup Basu
United States
Bindu Menon
India
Anjali Monteiro
India
Abhay Doshi
United States
Jesudas Athyal
United States
Anjali Arondekar
United States

A Para on Sheldon Pollock (in Hindi) - Pls spread this message

Prof. Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Department of Computer Science
What Rohan Murtys TOI Comment Really Says
Ive seen a lot of excitement on social media about the biased media,
paid media and so forth, but Ive never actually seen it firsthand. So when
Rajiv Malhotra launched his best-selling book The Battle For Sanskrit: Is
Sanskrit political or sacred? Oppressive or liberating? Dead or alive? I
thought it would be fun to check it out for myself. This led me to write my first
blog on the topic called The Battle For Sanskrit: Media Follies.
While I was framing the next blog on the topic, I realized that one article
stood out from all the others. There was so much to talk about in that one
that I made it into a separate blog. That article is Rohan Murtys commentary
in the TOI titled The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive
rights and its the one I will be analyzing today.
So here goes:
First Impression

Rather pedestrian understanding of the situation couched in a tone of utmost

authority. One wonders about the origin of this authority.
Detailed Analysis
Article Heading: The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive
rights
Analysis
Later in the article Rohan refers to Greek and Latin as classical languages and
also, rather slyly, slips in Chinese. We all know that Greek and Latin are
probably actually not in use, but if someone claims to lump them with
Chinese, hes either misinformed or being dishonest. The Chinese dont let
anyone outside their tradition depict them any way they like. Sanskrit is
classical in a way similar to Chinese, i.e., the tradition lives, and this means
there are stakeholders who have rights, you cant proclaim that their works
belong to the world with any degree of honesty.
Other than that, its fair to say that no one has exclusive rights, but it does
make one wonder why Rohan is claiming the exclusive rights. After all, if
there are a billion Hindus all over the world today, his stake is one-billionth.
How does this authorize him to take a decision for us all?

Rohan: At the same time, we are actively working to encourage young people
to familiarize themselves with classical texts, to learn the original scripts, to
seek help from our annotations, and actually begin to read not only the
English translations but also the original Indic works on their own
Analysis
Im not sure if Rohan has said this inadvertently, or if hes simply being sly
again. The correct way to get young people to read the original works is by
introducing Sanskrit at the primary school level again (we all know how the
colonizers ruined our education system by driving out Sanskrit among other
things). Another way would be organizations like Samskrita Bharati who are
working to bring back spoken Sanskrit. Of course, Pollock has been known to
say This whole spoken Sanskrit movement fills me with a kind of nausea, so
maybe Rohan Murty wont like it either. But this would help people judge for
themselves what was written. Going the other way, you are taught that
certain Sanskrit words mean certain things in English because somebody said
so. This is not learning. It is ridiculous.
Moreover, per Rohans prescription, it means that in order to know Sanskrit
you need to know English, which puts outsiders to the tradition in a position
of being able to dictate to the insiders what their texts mean. This is
unacceptable because they are already following their traditions.

Also, many Sanskrit words are non-translatable into English.

Also, its not clear who the young people he refers to are. If the young
people are Indians, he would have tried to translate Sanskrit to the
vernaculars, but the project seems to be to translate Sanskrit to the foreign
language English.

Rohan: Sheldon Pollock, our general editor, is an extraordinary scholar who,

along with the rest of our staff, works tirelessly to create the most exacting
scholarship possible. His dedication and passion for producing high-quality
and faithful translations that will outlive us all is evident to anyone who
actually reads an MCLI book.
Analysis
I honestly havent read any MCLI book yet, so I referred to what a reader
Siddhartha, had to say about the MCLI translated version of Manucharitra
(Telugu) by Allasani Peddana, translated by Velchuru Narayana Rao and David
Dean Shulman (one of the esteemed names Rohan dropped in his
commentary) that appears as a review on Goodreads:
A background first. Unlike classical languages in Europe, Classical Languages
in India are very much alive in both conversational and literary sense. The
language Telugu, from which this work was translated here, is the native
tongue of more than 100 million people, including yours truly.
I learn't the language as my first language in school and a few Padya's (the
numbered verse like thing in the book, for there is no native English
equivalent for a Telugu Padya. Verse does not even come close.) in school and
remember them by heart even now. The lyrical beauty of them is
untranslatable sometimes so i would not mention it.
I am unhappy with how so many phrases were left out of translation. But
even that is not my biggest disappointment with this book, it is the number of
mistranslated phrases, which, considering one of the translators being a
native speaker of Telugu is inexcusable.
A good translation does not merely use a bilingual dictionary and put
together the meaning in the native language. We do not need human
translators to do that today. A good translation puts the reader in the shoes of
the original reader and imparts him the social, cultural and historical
background to relate to what they are reading. This translation sadly fails to
do that. It simply makes things easy for its target readers, and in the effort,
makes it clear that it is intended for non-Indian native English readers.
A few jarring examples, i recall immediately are:

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. The
phrase literally translates to 'A dark and deep forest'.
This translation might serve as a good introduction if you are new to Telugu,
but if you have some background, it will be a letdown somewhat.
Of course, here again, Pollock may not agree, because according to him,
There can be no such thing as an incorrect interpretation. So I guess Rohan
will say the same thing and maintain that the MCLI books are great.

Rohan: Recently, there have been suggestions that political alignment should
inform participation in MCLI. On the contrary, politics has absolutely no place
in the work we do at MCLI and thus is not a factor in determining who
collaborates with us. This is an enterprise of pure scholarship and genuine
love, period.
Analysis
To illustrate Pollocks lack of political alignment, pure scholarship and
genuine love I reproduce a few lines here:
Pollock says, you cannot simply go around a tradition to overcome it, you
must go through it. You only transform a dominant culture by outsmarting it.
Then, he very foolishly goes on to say, That, I believe, is precisely what
Indias most foremost 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 critical philology necessary to the task. Ambedkar of course
didnt convert to Christianity or Islam, nor did he become a Marxist. He chose
another dharmic faith called Buddhism that is not really considered separate
from Hinduism (the Shrmiad Bhagwatam enlists the Buddha as a Vishnu
avatar). So he was obviously not trying to transform or outsmart the
tradition and culture.
Another gem from Pollock: One task of post-orientalist Indology has to be to
exhume, isolate, analyze, theorize, and at the very least talk about the
different modalities of domination in traditional India.
The first statement of Pollocks shows his political bend of mind and his
determination to change the tradition and culture of India while the second
one says that he intends to use the field of Indology to do it. And this is
supposed to be the man to whom we must turn over the keys to our puja

room, the room where Lord Rama resides.

Rohan: On this note, I am inspired by what the Mahatma said: "I do not want
my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want
the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.
But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."
Analysis
I think all the petitioners would be in agreement with this statement of the
Mahatmas. Ever since the earliest days, India has welcomed followers of
every religion and embraced people of every kind. And we did this without
sacrificing who we are. But Pollocks intention of transforming our dominant
culture by outsmarting it sounds ominous to say the least.
Therefore, his stated intention of politically engineering our sacred texts is
something every Hindu, every nationalist and every lover of India would
strongly protest.
I also have a little Gandhi quotation for Rohan"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."
Funny how Rohan just picked up a part of Gandhis sayings to suit his
purposes while stripping it from the entire concept that was Gandhi. I think
perhaps it is this tendency to selectively represent passages and misinterpret
true intention (either deliberately or because of misinformation) that the
petitioners are most afraid of.

Rohan: Notwithstanding its early momentum, however, MCLI alone cannot be

the panacea for the challenges ahead. At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500
volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting
translation
Analysis
Rohan seems unaware that Max Muellers attempt to translate a single Indian
work led to the Aryan Invasion Theory. While this theory has since been
proved false archeologically, these self-proclaimed experts (Pollock and
company) continue to build theories around it. This is what some traditional
thinkers have to say on the subject:
David Frawley in The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, Voice of India, New

Delhi, 2002, p. 43.: "Dravidian history does not contradict Vedic history either.
It credits the invention of the Tamil language, the oldest Dravidian tongue, to
the rishi Agastya, one of the most prominent sages in the Rig Veda. Dravidian
kings historically have called themselves Aryans and trace their descent
through Manu (who in the Matsya Purana is regarded as originally a south
Indian king). Apart from language, moreover, both north and south India
share a common religion and culture."
Stephen Knapp from a chapter in "Advancements of Ancient India's Vedic
Culture: Let us remember that the idea that the Vedic Aryans came from
outside of ancient India and entered the region to start what became the
Vedic civilization is a foreign idea. There was never any record, either
historical, textual or archeological, that supports this premise for an Aryan
invasion. There also is no record of who would have been the invaders. The
fact is that it is a theory that came from mere linguistic speculation which
happened during the nineteenth century when very little archeological
excavation had yet been done around India.
No one is disputing that academics have to work with what information is
available at the time. But the refusal to incorporate fresh information as it
becomes available through empirical evidence is a highly regressive attitude
towards academics.
Second, The Aryan Invasion and resultant Dravidian separatism has given rise
to the Dalit freedom movement, which is one of the factors tearing India
apart today. Although, as we have seen, there is no historical basis for this
Dalit freedom movement!
The project to translate 2,500 works by the same self-proclaimed group of
experts seems astronomical in comparison to Max Muellers works, so one
can only imagine the resultant catastrophic impact on Indian society (maybe
exactly what Pollock has in mind).

Rohan: Given all that's to be done, I hope we can spend less time pitting
Indian against Indian and instead think earnestly about how to best preserve
our cultural heritage for generations to come.
Analysis
I quote here a representation of our sacred Ramayana and avatar Lord Rama
that innocent American children are taught to sing in school:
The rulers who control all knowledge,
Claim the Ramayana to be Indias history
And call us many names demons, low castes, untouchables.
But we are the aborigines of this land,
Listen to our story.
Today we are called dalits the oppressed.

Once the Aryans on their horses invaded this land.

Then we who are the natives got displaced.
Oh Rama, Oh Rama, You became the God and we the demons.
You portrayed our Hanuman as a monkey.
Then again,
Muslims were targeted and taught a lesson
To destroy Lanka, Oh Rama, you
Formed us into a monkey army.
And today you want us,
The working majority,
To form a new monkey army
And attack Muslims.
Oh Rama, you representative of the Aryans,
Be warned, you purveyors of a self-serving religion.
We will be monkeys no more.
We will sing songs of humanity
And we will make you human as well.
When I first read this grotesque representation of Lord Rama I couldnt
believe that someone could say such a thing. How can any human being utter
such profanities? And then it occurred to me, is this the kind of preservation
Rohan Murty is looking for and forcing us as stakeholders to sign on to?
These innocent children are being taught hate at such a young age, totally
unsuspecting about how their lives are being played with. This is the kind of
madness that leads to insensible wars and social genocide. But who will be
held responsible for such destruction? Rohan will be dead and gone but what
of our heritage? Will it have to shoulder the blame for one irresponsible
Rohan Murty?
Also, when there is such a glaring difference between our living tradition and
that being taught in American schools, it warrants a large-scale examination
of the Indology and other academic groups that are driving it. There simply
cant be any excuse to set examination aide. It should take priority over any
number of translations, however well-intentioned they may be.
Another thing that one simply cant fathom is Rohans problem with replacing
Pollock with Rajiv Malhotra. After all, if we have a cashier in our employ and
discover that he was involved in past embezzlements, we surely wouldnt
wait for him to do more damage before we get rid of him. If this cant be
done, at least ask Malhotra to take final authority.
Malhotra after all is a traditional scholar of the highest caliber. One just needs
to actually read his books (Invading the Sacred, Breaking India, Being
Different, Indras Net and of course The Battle For Sanskrit) to be able to
recognize his expertise. Moreover, he is a prime example of the Life of
Sanskrit.
Final Impression

If Rohan Murty had said that he was considering a change, or that he was
open to discussion while putting all translations on hold, we would have
thought his intentions werent bad. But there seems to be no room for dissent
at all.
Also, here hes assumed a position of authority, telling us, Listen, I have the
power (this Western Indology cabal) and Im the one with the ammunition
(money). So anyone who stands in my way will be shot down.
Welcome to the world of the intellectual mafia.
What Rohan Murtys TOI Comment Really Says
Blog by Sejuti Banerjea
2609
VIEWS
5
COMMENTS
Ive seen a lot of excitement on social media about the biased media,
paid media and so forth, but Ive never actually seen it firsthand. So when
Rajiv Malhotra launched his best-selling book The Battle For Sanskrit: Is
Sanskrit political or sacred? Oppressive or liberating? Dead or alive? I
thought it would be fun to check it out for myself. This led me to write my first
blog on the topic called The Battle For Sanskrit: Media Follies.
While I was framing the next blog on the topic, I realized that one article
stood out from all the others. There was so much to talk about in that one
that I made it into a separate blog. That article is Rohan Murtys commentary
in the TOI titled The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive
rights and its the one I will be analyzing today.
So here goes:
First Impression
Rather pedestrian understanding of the situation couched in a tone of utmost
authority. One wonders about the origin of this authority.
Detailed Analysis
Article Heading: The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive
rights
Analysis
Later in the article Rohan refers to Greek and Latin as classical languages and
also, rather slyly, slips in Chinese. We all know that Greek and Latin are
probably actually not in use, but if someone claims to lump them with
Chinese, hes either misinformed or being dishonest. The Chinese dont let

anyone outside their tradition depict them any way they like. Sanskrit is
classical in a way similar to Chinese, i.e., the tradition lives, and this means
there are stakeholders who have rights, you cant proclaim that their works
belong to the world with any degree of honesty.
Other than that, its fair to say that no one has exclusive rights, but it does
make one wonder why Rohan is claiming the exclusive rights. After all, if
there are a billion Hindus all over the world today, his stake is one-billionth.
How does this authorize him to take a decision for us all?

Rohan: At the same time, we are actively working to encourage young people
to familiarize themselves with classical texts, to learn the original scripts, to
seek help from our annotations, and actually begin to read not only the
English translations but also the original Indic works on their own
Analysis
Im not sure if Rohan has said this inadvertently, or if hes simply being sly
again. The correct way to get young people to read the original works is by
introducing Sanskrit at the primary school level again (we all know how the
colonizers ruined our education system by driving out Sanskrit among other
things). Another way would be organizations like Samskrita Bharati who are
working to bring back spoken Sanskrit. Of course, Pollock has been known to
say This whole spoken Sanskrit movement fills me with a kind of nausea, so
maybe Rohan Murty wont like it either. But this would help people judge for
themselves what was written. Going the other way, you are taught that
certain Sanskrit words mean certain things in English because somebody said
so. This is not learning. It is ridiculous.
Moreover, per Rohans prescription, it means that in order to know Sanskrit
you need to know English, which puts outsiders to the tradition in a position
of being able to dictate to the insiders what their texts mean. This is
unacceptable because they are already following their traditions.
Also, many Sanskrit words are non-translatable into English.
Also, its not clear who the young people he refers to are. If the young
people are Indians, he would have tried to translate Sanskrit to the
vernaculars, but the project seems to be to translate Sanskrit to the foreign
language English.

Rohan: Sheldon Pollock, our general editor, is an extraordinary scholar who,

along with the rest of our staff, works tirelessly to create the most exacting
scholarship possible. His dedication and passion for producing high-quality
and faithful translations that will outlive us all is evident to anyone who
actually reads an MCLI book.

Analysis
I honestly havent read any MCLI book yet, so I referred to what a reader
Siddhartha, had to say about the MCLI translated version of Manucharitra
(Telugu) by Allasani Peddana, translated by Velchuru Narayana Rao and David
Dean Shulman (one of the esteemed names Rohan dropped in his
commentary) that appears as a review on Goodreads:
A background first. Unlike classical languages in Europe, Classical Languages
in India are very much alive in both conversational and literary sense. The
language Telugu, from which this work was translated here, is the native
tongue of more than 100 million people, including yours truly.
I learn't the language as my first language in school and a few Padya's (the
numbered verse like thing in the book, for there is no native English
equivalent for a Telugu Padya. Verse does not even come close.) in school and
remember them by heart even now. The lyrical beauty of them is
untranslatable sometimes so i would not mention it.
I am unhappy with how so many phrases were left out of translation. But
even that is not my biggest disappointment with this book, it is the number of
mistranslated phrases, which, considering one of the translators being a
native speaker of Telugu is inexcusable.
A good translation does not merely use a bilingual dictionary and put
together the meaning in the native language. We do not need human
translators to do that today. A good translation puts the reader in the shoes of
the original reader and imparts him the social, cultural and historical
background to relate to what they are reading. This translation sadly fails to
do that. It simply makes things easy for its target readers, and in the effort,
makes it clear that it is intended for non-Indian native English readers.
A few jarring examples, i recall immediately are:
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. The
phrase literally translates to 'A dark and deep forest'.
This translation might serve as a good introduction if you are new to Telugu,
but if you have some background, it will be a letdown somewhat.
Of course, here again, Pollock may not agree, because according to him,
There can be no such thing as an incorrect interpretation. So I guess Rohan

will say the same thing and maintain that the MCLI books are great.

Rohan: Recently, there have been suggestions that political alignment should
inform participation in MCLI. On the contrary, politics has absolutely no place
in the work we do at MCLI and thus is not a factor in determining who
collaborates with us. This is an enterprise of pure scholarship and genuine
love, period.
Analysis
To illustrate Pollocks lack of political alignment, pure scholarship and
genuine love I reproduce a few lines here:
Pollock says, you cannot simply go around a tradition to overcome it, you
must go through it. You only transform a dominant culture by outsmarting it.
Then, he very foolishly goes on to say, That, I believe, is precisely what
Indias most foremost 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 critical philology necessary to the task. Ambedkar of course
didnt convert to Christianity or Islam, nor did he become a Marxist. He chose
another dharmic faith called Buddhism that is not really considered separate
from Hinduism (the Shrmiad Bhagwatam enlists the Buddha as a Vishnu
avatar). So he was obviously not trying to transform or outsmart the
tradition and culture.
Another gem from Pollock: One task of post-orientalist Indology has to be to
exhume, isolate, analyze, theorize, and at the very least talk about the
different modalities of domination in traditional India.
The first statement of Pollocks shows his political bend of mind and his
determination to change the tradition and culture of India while the second
one says that he intends to use the field of Indology to do it. And this is
supposed to be the man to whom we must turn over the keys to our puja
room, the room where Lord Rama resides.
Rohan: On this note, I am inspired by what the Mahatma said: "I do not want
my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want
the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.
But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."
Analysis
I think all the petitioners would be in agreement with this statement of the
Mahatmas. Ever since the earliest days, India has welcomed followers of
every religion and embraced people of every kind. And we did this without
sacrificing who we are. But Pollocks intention of transforming our dominant
culture by outsmarting it sounds ominous to say the least.

Therefore, his stated intention of politically engineering our sacred texts is

something every Hindu, every nationalist and every lover of India would
strongly protest.
I also have a little Gandhi quotation for Rohan"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."
Funny how Rohan just picked up a part of Gandhis sayings to suit his
purposes while stripping it from the entire concept that was Gandhi. I think
perhaps it is this tendency to selectively represent passages and misinterpret
true intention (either deliberately or because of misinformation) that the
petitioners are most afraid of.

Rohan: Notwithstanding its early momentum, however, MCLI alone cannot be

the panacea for the challenges ahead. At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500
volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting
translation
Analysis
Rohan seems unaware that Max Muellers attempt to translate a single Indian
work led to the Aryan Invasion Theory. While this theory has since been
proved false archeologically, these self-proclaimed experts (Pollock and
company) continue to build theories around it. This is what some traditional
thinkers have to say on the subject:
David Frawley in The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, Voice of India, New
Delhi, 2002, p. 43.: "Dravidian history does not contradict Vedic history either.
It credits the invention of the Tamil language, the oldest Dravidian tongue, to
the rishi Agastya, one of the most prominent sages in the Rig Veda. Dravidian
kings historically have called themselves Aryans and trace their descent
through Manu (who in the Matsya Purana is regarded as originally a south
Indian king). Apart from language, moreover, both north and south India
share a common religion and culture."
Stephen Knapp from a chapter in "Advancements of Ancient India's Vedic
Culture: Let us remember that the idea that the Vedic Aryans came from
outside of ancient India and entered the region to start what became the
Vedic civilization is a foreign idea. There was never any record, either
historical, textual or archeological, that supports this premise for an Aryan
invasion. There also is no record of who would have been the invaders. The
fact is that it is a theory that came from mere linguistic speculation which

happened during the nineteenth century when very little archeological

excavation had yet been done around India.
No one is disputing that academics have to work with what information is
available at the time. But the refusal to incorporate fresh information as it
becomes available through empirical evidence is a highly regressive attitude
towards academics.
Second, The Aryan Invasion and resultant Dravidian separatism has given rise
to the Dalit freedom movement, which is one of the factors tearing India
apart today. Although, as we have seen, there is no historical basis for this
Dalit freedom movement!
The project to translate 2,500 works by the same self-proclaimed group of
experts seems astronomical in comparison to Max Muellers works, so one
can only imagine the resultant catastrophic impact on Indian society (maybe
exactly what Pollock has in mind).

Rohan: Given all that's to be done, I hope we can spend less time pitting
Indian against Indian and instead think earnestly about how to best preserve
our cultural heritage for generations to come.
Analysis
I quote here a representation of our sacred Ramayana and avatar Lord Rama
that innocent American children are taught to sing in school:
The rulers who control all knowledge,
Claim the Ramayana to be Indias history
And call us many names demons, low castes, untouchables.
But we are the aborigines of this land,
Listen to our story.
Today we are called dalits the oppressed.
Once the Aryans on their horses invaded this land.
Then we who are the natives got displaced.
Oh Rama, Oh Rama, You became the God and we the demons.
You portrayed our Hanuman as a monkey.
Then again,
Muslims were targeted and taught a lesson
To destroy Lanka, Oh Rama, you
Formed us into a monkey army.
And today you want us,
The working majority,
To form a new monkey army
And attack Muslims.
Oh Rama, you representative of the Aryans,
Be warned, you purveyors of a self-serving religion.
We will be monkeys no more.

We will sing songs of humanity

And we will make you human as well.
When I first read this grotesque representation of Lord Rama I couldnt
believe that someone could say such a thing. How can any human being utter
such profanities? And then it occurred to me, is this the kind of preservation
Rohan Murty is looking for and forcing us as stakeholders to sign on to?
These innocent children are being taught hate at such a young age, totally
unsuspecting about how their lives are being played with. This is the kind of
madness that leads to insensible wars and social genocide. But who will be
held responsible for such destruction? Rohan will be dead and gone but what
of our heritage? Will it have to shoulder the blame for one irresponsible
Rohan Murty?
Also, when there is such a glaring difference between our living tradition and
that being taught in American schools, it warrants a large-scale examination
of the Indology and other academic groups that are driving it. There simply
cant be any excuse to set examination aide. It should take priority over any
number of translations, however well-intentioned they may be.
Another thing that one simply cant fathom is Rohans problem with replacing
Pollock with Rajiv Malhotra. After all, if we have a cashier in our employ and
discover that he was involved in past embezzlements, we surely wouldnt
wait for him to do more damage before we get rid of him. If this cant be
done, at least ask Malhotra to take final authority.
Malhotra after all is a traditional scholar of the highest caliber. One just needs
to actually read his books (Invading the Sacred, Breaking India, Being
Different, Indras Net and of course The Battle For Sanskrit) to be able to
recognize his expertise. Moreover, he is a prime example of the Life of
Sanskrit.
Final Impression
If Rohan Murty had said that he was considering a change, or that he was
open to discussion while putting all translations on hold, we would have
thought his intentions werent bad. But there seems to be no room for dissent
at all.
Also, here hes assumed a position of authority, telling us, Listen, I have the
power (this Western Indology cabal) and Im the one with the ammunition
(money). So anyone who stands in my way will be shot down.
Welcome to the world of the intellectual mafia.
5
COMMENTS
Read Write

popular
Form a bond of everlasting love with Evara Form a bond of everlasting lov...
Platinum Guild Of India
Ways to feel confident in under 5 minutes
The way to gain is to give selflessly
Tastefully crafted 4BHK Villaments in Bengaluru Tastefully crafted 4BHK
Villam...
Keya Homes
There are 14 worlds in the universe: Where are you?
SKODA Rapid @ 0% interest rate SKODA Rapid @ 0% interest rate
SKODA
I am not black: Prince EA
A term plan that covers up to 75 years A term plan that covers up to ...
Aegon Life
What we can do to get happier
more
ALL
SPEAKING TREE
MY PROFILE
Today
Last 7 Days
Last 30 Days
Avirup Nag
SILVER
1
Rank1360
Points
Pravashini
PLATINUM
2
Rank53943
Points
Avneet Bhogal
SILVER
3
Rank512
Points
Khushboo Yadav
SILVER
4
Rank500
Points
Zareen Ansar
SILVER
5
Rank500
Points
Anil Anil
PLATINUM
6

Rank40632
Points
Yagami
PLATINUM
7
Rank60299
Points
Anil Kapoor
SILVER
8
Rank391
Points
Vishal Sharma
GOLD
9
Rank22301
Points
Jitendar Singh
SILVER
10
Rank280
Points
Times Point Know more
STORIES YOU MAY WANT TO READ
Manage all your mutual fund investments at one place
Manage all your mutual fund investments at one place
Manage all your mutual fund investments at one place Sponsored:
FundsIndia
The Battle For Sanskrit: Media Follies
CFAA difference that matters.
CFAA difference that matters. Sponsored: CFA Institute
Why We Need Swadeshi Indology
Bose end-of-year sale. Now on!
Bose end-of-year sale. Now on! Sponsored: Bose
Real Facts about Kashibai, the first wife of Bajirao
New Samsung Galaxy A Series 2016 Edition.
New Samsung Galaxy A Series 2016 Edition. Sponsored: Samsung
The real truth of Tipu Sultan
Comments
Comments Via Facebook
5 Comments Via ST
View Wellwisher Eternal's Profile Wellwisher Eternal
How much distortion can one do? This is atrocious. I hope somehow Supreme
Truth dawns on those ignoramuses soon.
15 hrs ago
View Wellwisher Eternal's Profile Wellwisher Eternal
Excellent one. Great work.
15 hrs ago

View Prabhat Gupta's Profile Prabhat Gupta

One should not forget the nexus that has been formed ....a marxist and a
capitalist along with a son who is the heir apparent. Rohan should realise that
he is being played and as a matter of fact being laughed at, for he too
unwittingly has become a sepoy.
This is not at all about skin colour, one should bear in mind, but about rights
or rather earned rights which many sepoys assume with their association
with western indologist. The reverse is also true, many westerners who
understand our Samskriti (and it's intertwining with Samskrit) far better than
the sepoys.
So effectively it is about earned rights and not some privilege based on
money and associations which is definitely the case when it comes to Naive
Murty.
So please consider your options for soon you will be the laughing stock if you
go down this path.
9 days ago
View Bhagwan Reddy's Profile Bhagwan Reddy
Well said and Mr. Rohan Murty should put checks and balances if he really
sincere about preserving our heritage as Sheldon Pollock has been proven
that he is another Fox entering India how East India Company entered with
the name of trade and eventually ruled India. Many of our freedom fighters
had to sacrifice their lives to secure the freedom. Mr. Murty wants to commit
the same mistake again, how foolish we as Indians with huge and great
heritage. Mr. Murty, please wake up from your dream of ignorance and read
Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's works so you understand our culture of Purva Paksha and
Uttara Paksha. All our great leaders did, you should! Thanks, Bhagwan!
9 days ago
View Supriya's Profile Supriya
A very detailed analysis. Stress on some key points are worthy of its kind for
anyone to reflect upon, when intended.
9 days ago
Nicely written analysis. Hope Rohan and party takes note. However ,
>>> The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights>>>
Rohan is right here , if he is refering to the Vedas. Vedas belong to the human
kind. Anyone can benefit from them. Here the question is not " who owns
what " , but " who distorts what " . the latter is very omnious and it appears
Rohan did not know what he is doing OR the import of what he is doing.
Long back , just because the English had the power and authority , they
destroyed our culture. Now , just because an individual has money , is trying
to do the same , may be unwittingly. [ Or is it so ? Is their business interest in
the US not playing its part ? God only knows]
This is to be made understood by him in clear terms.