Battle for Sanskrit

Makarand R Paranjape“From its colonial origins in Justice Sir William to its consummation in SS Obersturmführer Wüst [a Nazi official], Sanskrit and Indian studies have contributed directly to consolidating and sustaining programs of domination.” —Deep Orientalism The author, or should I say authority, behind these words is Sheldon Pollock, Arvind Raghunathan Professor of South Asian Studies at Columbia University, and Mentor-Chief Editor of the Murty Library. The Murty Library, with its generous endowment of $5.6 million has, however, been mired in controversy. A petition, …

The following are the my responses to the points mentioned in the article “Bhagavad Gita Before The Battle” by Shatavadhani Ganesh(Ganesh). His article can be found here.

My Responses are in black colored text. Rajiv Comments are in blue colored text, Ganesh comments are in Orange Colored text

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Before the Great War, Arjuna developed cold feet and Krishna counselled him to lift up his weapons and fight. But how would have Krishna reacted if Arjuna had been over-zealous to battle the sons of Dhritarashtra even before the Pandava side was fully prepared? Perhaps the way Yudhishthira reacted to Bhima’s impatience in Bharavi’sKiratarjuniyam (Canto 2, Verse 30) – “Act not in haste! A loss of sagacity (viveka) is the worst calamity. Fortune and prosperity comes to one who analyses and calculates.”

My response:

It is in the battlefield (Kurukshetra) where Arjuna by seeing his Kinsmen, nephews, Gurus , grandfathers becomes emotional and sentiment. Then Arjuna surrenders (sharanagati) himself to Krishna, and requests Krishna to tell “What is My Duty ?”. It is then Bhagavad Gita starts. The comment by Ganesh on Arjuna develops cold feet(lack of courage) is not correct.

Arjuna is always guided by Yudhistara and Yudhistara is guided by Dharma( Sanathana Dharma or eternal dharma). In sanathana dharma, the four Purushartha are always a blend of Artha, Kama(desires of man) under the regulation of Dharma as to attain moksha which is universal Value. So here kama (Over-Zealous — Ganesh Assumption) of Arjuna is always guided by Dharma in the form of Yudhistara and Krishna. So Arjuna will never act in haste.

On the otherhand Rajiv Malhotra is always aligned his artha and kama under the regualtion of Dharma( in the form of dayanada saraswati) for the past 25 years. He is spending his energies( vyashti) to the universal flow (samishti ) which is the spirit of yajna. Ganesh has failed to understand Rajiv Malhotra(Rajiv). Rajiv like Arjuna will never acts in haste.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: In the battle for Sanskrit, Rajiv Malhotra is like an enthusiastic commander of a committed army whose strengths and weaknesses he himself is sadly unable to reconcile. Doubtless there is a battle for Sanskrit and one must wholeheartedly applaud Malhotra’s efforts for Sanskrit. Without hesitation, we shall stand shoulder to shoulder with him and fight this war till the end. We too are opposed to “those who see Sanskrit as a dead language… [and those who] would ‘sanitize’ Sanskrit, cleansing it of what they see as its inherent elitism and oppressive cultural and social structures…” (p. 30). But before the clash of weapons, an objective assessment of our ancient tradition is imperative.

My response:

The effect of digestion of Sanskrit and showing it as oppression by the west is clearly seen today  in decline of Sanskrit usage in INDIA. I see, except in Uttarakand where sanskrit is official lanaguage, no other state using sanskrit as official language by state government. Very less by efforts of traditional scholars which are translated to the rise of sanskrit in INDIA. I see other countries like China (An example), Germany(An Example), thailand (where it hosted World Sanskrit Conference in 2015) pushing for sanskrit learning. This means there is extraction of scientific treasure from INDIA ( Youtube: Sushrutha Samhita Wellcome Library UK) simulaneously oppression in Sanskrit is shown by western forces so that INDIA will always be in the receiving mode whether be it Modern Science and Technolgy / Social abuse. So already clash of Intellectual weapons is happening and it is here Rajiv is defending the clash and at the same time requesting home team ( traditional scholars in sanskrit ) to rise to the occasion. It is the duty of traditional scholars in sanskrit like Shatavadhani Ganesh to analyze opponents .. and give their intellectual weapons to people like Rajiv to fight the battle who are already in battlefield. If they can’t help, atleast they should keep quiet.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Close to a century ago, Prof. M Hiriyanna – whom Daniel H H Ingalls praised as a “great scholar of whom it might be said that he never wrote a useless word” – said in an address to Sanskrit scholars, “By the application of what is known as the comparative method of study of Sanskrit language and literature, modern scholarship has brought to light many valuable facts about them. It will be a serious deficiency if the Pandit passes through his career as a student altogether oblivious of this new knowledge… The excellences of the old Pandit such for example, as the depth and definiteness of his knowledge, the clearness of his thinking and the exactness of his expression, were many. But there was a lack of historical perspective in what he knew; and he was apt to take for granted that opinions, put forward as siddhantas in Sanskrit works, had all along been in precisely the same form. We may grant that there are some fundamental truths which never grow old; but as regards knowledge in general, change is the rule… Two or three decades ago, our Pandits confined their attention only to the subject in which they specialized, and even there to a few chosen books related to it… But thoroughness is no antidote against the narrowness of mental outlook which such a limited course of study was bound to engender.” (‘The Value of Sanskrit Learning and Culture,’ an essay from Popular Essays in Indian Philosophy)

My response:

The opinion of Prof. M Hiriyanna is exactly what Rajiv is telling in the “Battle of Sanskrit” book. He wants traditional scholars of INDIA to come out of comfort zone and understand “change in interpretation of sanskrit knowlegde being applied against INDIA”. The above comment applies to scholars like Ganesh aptly.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: To ably carry out such an assessment, we must understand Hinduism’s underlying philosophy. The Hindu worldview is that of using a (scriptural) text and then transcending the text (see Rgveda Samhita 1.164.39). On the one hand we have a tradition of the “ever-growing text” and on the other we have a tradition of “transcending the text.” The growing body of knowledge (made possible by the varied and original commentaries of scholars, e.g. Shankara) helps prevent the text from getting outdated. Going beyond the text (as demonstrated by avadhutas, e.g. Ramana Maharishi) helps prevent the text from becoming an imposition.

The means of transcendence may be through text, ritual, or art, but adherents aim to go beyond Form and internalize Content (by means of reflective inquiry into the Self), thus attaining what the Taittiriya Upanisad calls ‘brahmananda.’ This transcendental approach ensures that we neither harbour any malice towards divergent views nor give undue importance to differences in form. It helps us achieve harmony amidst diversity. This quality of transcendence unites the various groups that come under the umbrella of what we call today as sanatana dharma or Indian cultural and spiritual heritage

My response:

The foundational scripture of India is the Veda.It is apaurusheya—not written by man. The Vedas are also known as sruti means “Something that is heard”. They were recited by Guru and heard by the disciple which is known as Guruparampara. Studying the Vedas from book or studied independently , such a procedure does not exist. (Source: Swami Krishnananda – Link is here ). Ganesh is buying “Sheldon Pollock’s idea of knowledge starts with text/book” by saying Hindu Culture starts with text. Sanathana dharma idea of transcendence is different from Abrahamic faiths salavation. Rajiv talks about Divergent Views between Sanathana Dharma transcendence and Other faiths Salavation. Ganesh failed to understand Rajiv.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Sanatana dharma includes revelation of the seers (Vedas) as well as epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata). The Greek and Roman traditions have epics but no revealed scriptures. The Semitic traditions have revealed scriptures but no epics. Other traditions like the ancient Chinese, Mayan, Incan, etc. have neither. In spite of having such a rich Vedic and epic tradition, sanatana dharma teaches transcendence. The idea of transcending comes neither from inadequacy nor from inability to handle variety. While the tradition respects diversity, its focus is on going within and going beyond.

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

My response:

Ganesh failed in understanding Rajiv here also. Rajiv in “Being Different” compared the difference between transcendence of Sanathana Dharma with abandonment /salvation nature of Abrahamic faiths. He compares Sanathana Dharma as blend/gradation of Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha with Abrahamic faiths of Heaven/Hell (No gradation). Ganesh failed to understand the difference between transcendence of Sanathana Dharma and Salvation of Abrahamic faiths. (Source : Swami Krishnananda)

Shatavadhani Ganesh: In the Indian debating tradition, the first step is to establish the pramanas (the methods and means by which knowledge is obtained). Then we embark on purvapaksa (a study of what the opponent says) and finally move to siddhanta (a rebuttal to the opponents; also called uttarapaksa). The first imperative step of establishing pramanas is missing in The Battle for Sanskrit.

Malhotra claims to merely perform purvapaksa, but in places where he unwittingly tries his hand at siddhanta, he falls short. In other places where the siddhanta is well-reasoned, it is entirely borrowed (from scholars like K S Kannan, Arvind Sharma, T S Satyanath, etc.) Perhaps bringing them on board as co-authors might have salvaged this work in terms of the quality of siddhanta (and also the diagnosis of the problem). However, Malhotra deserves credit for attempting a purvapaksa. And this is why The Battle for Sanskritis a valuable work.

My response:

Indian debating system comes under sanathana Dharma. In this pramanas is always based on the Knowledge based on Veda. “Tat Shastram Pramanam te – Lord Krishna in GITA”. Shastram is pramanam. Where Ganesh failed to understand is the opponents does not consider Veda as the pramanam to understand the Abosulte Truth.

Rajiv shows in The Battle For Sanskrit, the western Indologists accepted pramana is different from Indian tradition(Sanathana Dharma) pramana. Rajiv himself told that his purvapaksha is limited (resentation during the book launch events) for traditional scholars doing indepth purva paksha and uttara paksha. Here Ganesh failed to understand Rajiv.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Hinduism has had a long history of dissent. Even in the earliest works, the Vedas, which lay the foundation for our tradition, we can see disagreement and conflict. Our ancestors were comfortable with such differences in opinions and ideas. They did not perceive it as something strange or repulsive since they were constantly and successfully finding harmony and reconciliation amidst diversity. A striking example is the series of exchanges between Yajnavalkya and other scholars in the court of Janaka (Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 3.9). Our tradition has savants like the Buddha whose disagreements created a whole new system of faith (though spiritually not alien to sanatana dharma).

All through our philosophical, literary, aesthetic, and artistic discussions spread over millennia, we have seen remarkable variance in theories and approaches. However, it is noteworthy that Time has been unkind to theories and approaches that have been against the spirit of sanatana dharma.

Western scholars are familiar with dissent but they often lack a framework to reconcile with the differences and transcend them. While Malhotra respects this spirit, he is unable, unfortunately, to express it clearly in his book.

My response:

Ganesh fails to undertsand the paramarthika / vyavaharika of Sanatha Dharma and Salvation of Abrahamic Faiths. Rajiv clearly showed in his book how Sanathana Dharma shows the gradation of the materialistic values(vyavaharika ) of Artha and Kama using Dharma as cementing force to attain the Moksha (vayavaharika ).

For Malhotra, the starting point of this battle is European Orientalism. And since he tends to ignore the strong internal differences – often clubbing all insider views as ‘the traditionalist view’ (see p. 36, for example) – his argument is rendered weaker. In the Indian tradition, different schools of Vedanta – advaita, dvaita, dvaitadvaita, shuddhadvaita,vishishtadvaita and others – revere the Vedas equally but claim that the others have misrepresented the Vedas and that only their interpretation is the right one. We find this also in the commentators on the Veda. Consider the commentaries of Skandaswami (10th century), Venkatamadhava (12-13th century) and Sayana (14th century). In the 19thcentury, Dayananda Saraswati gave a completely different interpretation to the Vedas while paying due respects to it. Similarly, in the 20thcentury, Sri Aurobindo gave his own esoteric interpretation to the Vedas. Who is to say what the right version is? Which of these schools qualify to be ‘the traditionalist view’? Who is the ‘ideal insider’?

Once we realize that our own tradition has diametrically opposed views, we must consider the facts. We should rely on universal experience and not on personal revelations. We must operate in the material plane, not a metaphysical one. And we must always remember that a debate can proceed only after the pram??as have been agreed upon by both sides. Here is a historical example to illustrate this point. The great 11th century scholar-sage and proponent of vishishtadvaita, Ramanuja was deeply influenced by the divya-prabandham (divine verses, composed by the twelve alwars of Tamil Nadu) and considered it the ‘tamil veda.’ However, when he wrote his commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita and the Brahma Sutra, he never quoted from the divya-prabandham since his opponents did not consider that as a pramnaa

My response:

Here Ganesh failed to understand Rajiv. Rajiv clearly shows Insiders are the one who accept Veda as pramana and Outsider are the one who do not accept Veda as Pramana. The names of Gurus mentioned above all accepted the Veda as pramana and took different paths in understanding / experiencing the Absolute Truth.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: That said, Malhotra’s analysis of European Orientalism and its latter variant, what he terms ‘American Orientalism’ is reasonably accurate. When the British scholars came in contact with Indian knowledge systems in the 18th and 19th centuries, they faced a worldview vastly different from theirs. Instead of understanding the Indian view in Indian terms, they force-fitted what they observed into the worldview they were familiar with. Added to this, there was the White Man’s Burden that egged them to ‘civilize’ the people they conquered. This led to a gross misrepresentation of the Indian culture and this would later become, ironically, the primary source for educated Indians to learn about their own culture. This viewing of India through the Western lens has given rise to several erroneous conclusions and Malhotra makes this point numerous times in his book (to the extent that he could have saved many pages had he chosen not to repeat himself).

My response:

I did not understand why Ganesh says repetition is an issue and worrying about number of pages in book. Rajiv intention is to show readers the depth of misinterpretation using Western lens

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Malhotra makes a thorough analysis of the evolution of American Orientalism, showcasing their strategy of creating atrocity literature against the people they wish to dominate. While his comparison of the two kinds of Orientalism is notable, he begins to falter when he compares the ‘Sanskrit Traditionalists’ and ‘American Orientalists.’ Like we have discussed earlier, there is no single group that one can call ‘Sanskrit Traditionalists,’ and the distinctions Malhotra tries to make are rather shallow and even impertinent. For example, he says that the traditionalists see Sanskrit as sacred while the orientalists see Sanskrit as beautiful but not necessarily sacred. Why this divide between sacred and beautiful?

My response:

Ganesh fails to understand Rajiv here. Americal Orientalist dont take Veda as pramana where as  Sanskrit Traditionlist takes Veda as pramana. For example Traditionalist see Divinity in the beauty of Rainbow whereas Orientalist sees only beauty in Rainbow.In depth Analyasis can be found here Swami Krishnananda

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

My response:

Why not?. When Isreal can revive Hebrew, China can revive mandarin why INDIA cannot revive sanskrit. Ganesh should The English Medium Myth book for detailed analysis

Shatavadhani Ganesh: When Malhotra speaks about American Orientalism appropriating the Indian Left, some of his claims sound like conspiracy theories. Further, he seems to be ignorant of the voluminous writings of D D Kosambi, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, R S Sharma, and Rahul Sankrityayan, who opposed Sanskrit and/or Sanskriti long before this supposed American collusion (and even when he mentions Kosambi and Sharma, it is in passing). And more importantly, he fails to mention (or seems to be ignorant of) the luminaries who have categorically rubbished such attempts – A C Bose, A C Das, Arun Shourie, Baldev Upadhyaya, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Chidananda Murthy, D V Gundappa, David Frawley, Dayananda Saraswati, G N Chakravarti, Hazari Prasad Dwivedi, K S Narayanacharya, Koenraad Elst, Krishna Chaitanya, Kuppuswami Sastri, M Hiriyanna, Michel Danino, Nagendra, Navaratna S Rajaram, Padekallu Narasimha Bhat, Padma Subrahmanyam, Pullela Sriramachandrudu, R C Dwivedi, Ram Swarup, Ranganath Sharma, Rewa Prasad Dwivedi, S K Ramachandra Rao, S L Bhyarappa, S N Balagangadhara, S R Ramaswamy, S Srikanta Sastri, Shrikant Talageri, Sita Ram Goel, Sri Aurobindo, Sushil Kumar Dey, Swami Vivekananda, V S Sukhthanker, Vasudev Sharan Agarwal, Yudhishthira Mimamsaka… the list is endless. And the few scholars he refers to – like A K Coomaraswamy, Dharampal, G C Pande, K Krishnamoorthy, Kapila Vatsyayan, P V Kane, and V Raghavan – are only in passing.

My response:

Even after so many scholars opposing the Americal Collusion , rise of sanskrit has not taken place in INDIA after independence.

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

My response:

Ganesh has to give explanation , even after somany scholars deeply involved in sanskrit , why there is no rise of sanskrit in every way possible in INDIA after independence?. Be it in Legal, Technical education , School education , as interstate language , spoken language etc.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: On the one hand, he is an activist for the tradition’s cause but on the other hand he ignores past masters and looks down upon traditionalist scholars. And it is strange he has not quoted any regional language scholar. He could have gone through the writings in a regional language that he is familiar with, say Hindi, and seen the amount of work for and against Sanskrit that is available.

My response:

On one hand Ganesh “Who is Ideal Insider?” on the other hand he says Rajiv has not quoted regional scholar. Rajiv intention is to bring traditional scholar across INDIA as “Home team” not to divide traditional scholars on regional / National wise. Since Ganesh know about regional scholars he should give details to Rajiv and help in this Battle for Sanskrit to build strong Home team.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: One can list several Indian scholars who have refuted baseless allegations from the European Indologists, Indian Leftists, and the post-colonial Orientalists. Here are just a few illustrative examples. In Art Experience, M Hiriyanna methodically debunks Max Mueller’s claim that the Hindu mind cannot appreciate beauty in nature. Baldev Upadhyaya’s writings show that the divide between Hinduism and Buddhism is not as sharp as they are made out to be. In his remarkable work On the Meaning of the Mahabharata, V S Sukhthankar provides a masterly rebuttal to Western scholars who accuse the Mahabharata of being chaotic and lacking in clarity; he methodically debunks all perverse Western theories about the epic (and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee long before, in his Krishna Caritra). Sita Ram Goel (and Swami Vivekananda long before) wrote extensively about the damage done to India by Islamic invaders. K S Narayanacharya in his extensive writings has systematically refuted accusations hurled at the Vedas and the epics. In his Politics of History, Navaratna S Rajaram describes the misrepresentation of Hinduism by Western scholars. In their brilliant research papers, Kuppuswami Sastri, P V Kane, V Raghavan, K Krishnamoorthy, and Rewa Prasad Dwivedi have defended Indian aesthetics and poetics from Western attacks. In response to ?am B? Joshi’s extensive but baseless theories about the Vedas, Chidambarananda wrote a detailed rebuttal. Equally, K A Krishnaswamy Iyer (in Vedanta: The Science of Reality) and Sri Sacchidanandendra Saraswati (in Paramartha Chintamani and Vedanta Prakriya-pratyabhijña) refuted all Western systems of philosophy (up to the early 20th century) and established a Vedantic tradition in a highly objective historical perspective.

This is not a new battle. It has been fought before, and won before. We (Malhotra included) have to humbly submit to the fact that we are merely trying to continue the great scholarly tradition.

My response:

If we have fought and won then in INDIA everywhere Sanskrit should be used, which is not happening ? Please explain Ganesh.

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

My response:

This is not true. Rajiv is saying unless INDIA holds the final adhikar in Sanskrit, then someone takes that adhikar (western academia) and use that adhikar as breaking INDIA tool

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Sheldon Pollock is arguably the most influential and well-connected Indologist in the world today. And his agenda is clear, as Malhotra points out – “…to secularize the study of Sanskrit.” (p. 79). Pollock uses a new brand of philology (study of the history of a language) to help liberate Sanskrit from its supposedly oppressive and manipulative nature. He is also dead against any kind of Sanskrit revival (for instance, the work of Samskrita Bharati, the premier organization that teaches conversational Sanskrit and has been responsible for promoting Sanskrit in the modern world). Pollock sees the Ramayana as a literary work that was composed in order to oppress the masses. He also tries to show that there was a conflict between Sanskrit and the other regional languages of India (The word that Pollock and others often use is ‘vernacular’ languages; ‘vernacular’ is a 17th century word that was derived from the Latinvernaculus, meaning ‘native,’ which was originally derived from vernus, ‘a slave who was born in the house and not in a foreign land.’) Malhotra says that Pollock also claims in a roundabout way that Nazism and fascism were inspired by Sanskrit (see pp. 84-86 for a summary of Pollock main arguments; it is important to note here that such arguments have been made much earlier by scholars like Rahul Sankrityayan, in much more vociferous terms, and have been refuted by many scholars).

My response:

What is wrong in Rajiv again mentioning in his book. On the other hand, appointing sheldon pollock as General editor for Murthy Classical Library Of India shows traditional scholars lost and western academia won the battle in sanskrit.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: While it becomes clear from Malhotra’s study of Pollock that the latter’s intent is far from noble, there is no use playing a blame game. One has to counter Pollock with facts, and that will come only from a deep study and understanding of the Indian tradition. While there are some instances in The Battle for Sanskritwhere Malhotra uses the works of other scholars and provides meaningful refutation to Pollock’s writings, there are instances where Malhotra has erred (see Appendix A), made untenable arguments (see Appendix B), is ignorant of earlier works and divergent views (see Appendix C), and has missed out critical points to counter Pollock (see Appendix D). While we have prepared an exhaustive list, we have provided only a representative one in the appendix.

My response:

Rajiv always used facts in the book to study Sheldon Pollock.

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

In the Upani?ads, we find a fascinating framework of three epistemologies – adhibhuta, adhidaiva, and adhyatma. Anything that pertains to the world of matter is adhibhuta (operates at the level of universe). Anything that pertains to the world of beliefs is adhidaiva(operates at the level of religion). Anything that pertains to the inner Self is adhyatma (operates at the level of the individual). Adhiyajna is the bridge that connects adhibhuta, adhidaiva, and adhyatma, all of which are rooted in sat (absolute Truth). Pollock tricks his readers using adhibhuta but while countering him, Malhotra confuses adhidaiva for adhyatma, thus taking the discussion nowhere. Added to that, he quotes views that are good but only partially correct, confusing the issue further.

My response:

Rajiv is right . Please read this article Swami Krishnananda

Shatavadhani Ganesh: In addition to showing the malicious motives of some of the Western Indologists, it is important to pin-point their errors they have made in translation (Dr. Shankar Rajaraman is currently working such a project) and in understanding our tradition (see the writings of Manasataramgini). We should also be objective about our own tradition and that will help us recognize the chinks in our armour (see the writings of D V Gundappa). When we enter into a debate with our opponents, we must ensure that the pramanas are mutually agreed upon. We should never forget that our tradition espouses universality and not exclusivity (see Appendix E). Finally, it is important for us to become an affluent, scientifically advanced, geo-politically influential culture if our words are to be taken seriously. We must strengthen ourselves by ushering in a strong work culture, aiming for greater efficiency, and laying emphasis on merit.

My response:

Partially correct. Pramanas should be mutally agreed at tha same time But mutually agreed pramana should accept Veda as ultimate Pramana. “tat shastram pramanam te” – Gita by Lord Krishna

Shatavadhani Ganesh: While we recognize the battle and continue to fight on the side of Sanskrit, we must also realize that diversity is the way of the world and should learn to tolerate opposing views, however different they might be from our own. And indeed, when we encounter intellectual dishonesty in scholars who tried to canonize their views as facts, we shall combat them with facts.

My response:

Rajiv is doing exactly the same. Otherwise why he invites western scholars for intellectual debates.

Shatavadhani Ganesh: That said, if we allow ourselves to be too troubled by such scholars and such debates, we will never be able to attain the peace of a contemplative mind. While we shall respect scholars like Malhotra and Pollock, we shall also remember Shankara’s insightful words: “The web of words, akin to a great forest, deludes the intellect. Seek thus to know the true Self, O seeker of Truth!” (Vivekachudamani 60).

My response:

I did not understand this

“Shastras arise out of, and are deeply intertwined with, the metaphysics of the Vedas. Kavyas are less formal and hence more accessible at the popular level.” (pp. 37-38) – Rajiv

My response:

Rajiv is absolutely correct. Ganesh says “A sastra may or may not be connected to the Vedas”. This not correct. Sastra always connected to Vedas. Listen to This Sri Chaganti Koteswara Rao or read this swami-krishnananda

“Dhyana (meditation) is available without the need for analysis since it is entirely experiential.” (p. 98) – Rajiv

My response:

Rajiv is right. Please read this swami-krishnananda

Shatavadhani Ganesh: While defining yajña, he fails to use the nirukta (semantic etymology) of the word to describe it, thus giving a fuzzy meaning (p. 98). The word yajña comes from the root yaj-devapujasangatikaranadanesu, which means ‘worship of the divine,’ ‘interaction,’ and ‘sharing’. In general, yajña refers to an act of self-dedication or service above self.

My response:

Spirit of yajna is important rather than semantic etymology. Listen to this pravachanam swami-tatvavidananda . This is important pravachanam.

“Traditionally, Hindus have read Sanskrit for the purpose of understanding the ideas of ultimate reality.” (p. 101) – Rajiv

My response:

Rajiv is right . Please read this swami-krishnananda

“Meditation mantras…produce effects which ordinary sounds do not.” (p. 21; also see pp. 32, 113 – Rajiv

My response:

Rajiv is right. “Mananat trayate iti mantrah – a mantra is that which protects us when we chant it”. Please read this The Study and Practice of Yoga – 1 , Mantra Japa – 2, Heritage Of Indian Culture – by Swami Krishnananda.

While providing his reinterpretation of var?a (social classification), Malhotra says, “Manusmriti, 1.87, does give the criteria that the protection of the universe is the purpose of the system.” (p. 165) – Rajiv

Shatavadhani Ganesh: This is a dangerous line of argument because many utterances of the Manusm?ti can be used against Malhotra’s reinterpretation. A scholar has the responsibility to perform a critical samanvaya. This will come only upon completely reading the text and transcending it. – Ganesh

My response:

Rajiv is correct. “The Roman and Greek cultures were mighty, no doubt, but they no longer exist for a single reason—namely, their incapacity to accommodate themselves with the requirements of the passage of time. When the times required them to change their ideals and ideologies, they refused, and they were crushed by the iron hand of nature. Nature does not respect persons. Nature has no friends, even as nature has no enemies. Nature has a purpose; this is something very important to remember. Nature loves only its purpose and nothing else, and it also loves those people who are in a position to help in the fulfilment of its purpose. Those who adamantly cling to an ideal which was once in conformity with certain activities of nature in the interest of the fulfilment of its own purpose, but which are now not required, will be shunned”. Taken from  The Heritage of Indian Culture by Swami Krishnananda

Malhotra opines that it was unwise of M S University, Baroda to have compiled a critical edition of the R?m?ya?a and preparing an English translation (p. 322) – Rajiv

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Even before M S University took up this project, there were translations of the Ramayana in English and other European languages. What was so unwise in the critical edition project? Futher, the Western Indologists have the intellectual equipment to produce other critical editions as well as translations – will Malhotra not agree that it would be better if traditional Indian scholars undertook such work instead of Westerners? – Ganesh

My response:

I don not understand why “?” are present in word Ramayana.

Rajiv always wants adhikara to be in the hands of people following Sanathana Dharma. Ramayana is not a story , it is called “ithihasam – iti ha asam” means which happened and not an imaginative story by an author. For Ramayana pramana is Veda/Shruti. but basha is kavya basha. Does Western Academia takes veda as pramana ?. This what questioned by Rajiv to whoever translates Ramayana into other languages

Malhotra suggests that we must write new smritis for this era (p. 358) and wants traditional scholars to develop new texts (p. 360) – Rajiv

Shatavadhani Ganesh: How is this practical? If someone were to compose a new constitution of India in Sanskrit, would s/he be taken seriously? For example, refer to the sastras and smritis composed by great scholars like Vasishta Ganapati Muni and Pullela Sriramachandrudu – what is the value given to their works by the laity and by the scholars? One can compose a sm?ti but what executive authority does s/he have? What are the kind of new texts can traditional scholars develop in Sanskrit? And what to make of compositions in Sanskrit hailing a tyrant like Lenin (Leninamritam)? Or hailing Indira Gandhi (Indira Jivanam), who was one of the major sponsors of Leftist scholars who have been dead against Sanskrit and Sanskriti?

My response:

This is where innovation is required  by traditional scholars and their supporters

Malhotra wants Sanskrit to be bracketed with Arabic, Mandarin, and Persian instead of Greek and Latin (p. 377) – Rajiv

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Sanskrit grammar has remained more or less frozen from the time of Panini. However, widely spoken languages like Arabic, Mandarin, and Persian have undergone changes in grammar and structure over the years. It is best to put Sanskrit in a separate category. – Ganesh

My response:

Ganesh failed to understand Rajiv. Rajiv point is , Greek and Latin are dead languages and Arabic , mandarin , persian are living languages , so Rajiv wants sanskrit to be as living language in INDIA. It should be used by Central Government , State Government, between Central and State Government , as interstate language, in schools, colleges, MBA, Engineering , Medcine etc.

Malhotra speaks about an “Integral unity of Hindu metaphysics” (pp. 98-102) without caring to look at divergent view from within the tradition. The irony is that those whom Malhotra calls ‘insiders’ themselves have so many divergent views. – Rajiv

My response:

Rajiv is right . An example is A Garland on Lord Sri Venkateswara in Tirupati. How beautiful different flowers are arranged in Garland(Thomala). This Garland shows the Integral unity of Sanathana Dharma .

“Kavya is literature that can be merely entertaining, or can also be a means for experiencing transcendence.” (p.98) – Rajiv

My response:

Rajiv is right. Ramayana, Bhagavatam are examples

“If paramarthika is the realm ‘beyond,’ vyavaharika is the ordinary reality around us.” (p. 99) – Rajiv

Shatavadhani Ganesh: Paramarthika is not just beyond but also within. By putting a premium on such a narrow interpretation of paramarthika, there is a danger of leaning towards absolute exclusivity. Also, Malhotra has not given a direct quote of Pollock rejecting the paramarthika. – Ganesh

My response:

Rajiv is right. Read this The Heritage of Indian Culture by swami-krishnananda

Additional Approaches to Counter Pollock – by Ganesh

My response:

Ganesh should have included this as main article rather than writing on Rajiv

Aditi Banerjees response Ganesh
A Response to Ganesh’s Review of The Battle for Sanskrit

In recent days, an important critique of Rajiv Malhotra’s book, The Battle for Sanskrit, was released by an acclaimed and prominent scholar, Shatavadhani Ganesh.  The review is available here.

Purism vs. Pragmatism — You go to war with the army that you have

Ganesh begins his review of The Battle for Sanskrit with a very strange musing.  He says, “Before the Great War, Arjuna developed cold feet and Krishna counselled him to lift up his weapons and fight. But how would have Krishna reacted if Arjuna had been over-zealous to battle the sons of Dhritarashtra even before the Pandava side was fully prepared? … In the battle for Sanskrit, Rajiv Malhotra is like an enthusiastic commander of a committed army whose strengths and weaknesses he himself is sadly unable to reconcile.”

Apart from the rank condescension in tone of the statement and the rest of the review, this reveals one of the fundamental flaws of Ganesh’s critique.  He prizes theoretical purism over the practical realities of the world and the battle we are in, whether we wish to be fighting or not, whether we are ready for the war or not.  Our only choice is whether we team up in the battle against Pollock and others, because they have already started the war against us.

Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.”  We can dither on the sidelines and engage in handwringing about whether or not we are ready, but the battle is going on with or without us!  We could stop writing against Pollock, but we can’t stop him writing against us.  To follow Ganesh’s advice, we should take a collective sabbatical for a number of years, do some deep navel-gazing, attain moksha or some level of ‘universal experience’ that quiets all words, and then we can respond to Pollock.

That might be intellectually satisfying, but that is not how the real world works.

What are the right qualifications for this battle?

Embedded in Ganesh’s critique is the allegation that Malhotra is not qualified enough for this work, because he is not formally trained in Sanskrit and does not have enough of a grounding in traditional Hinduism.  Ganesh claims that Malhotra falls short in establishing siddhanta / Uttara-paksha (i.e., giving a definitive rebuttal to Pollock) in many places and that where he does do so, it is ‘borrowed’ from other scholars.

But in fact Malhotra is quite candid in his book that the whole call to action of the book is to develop and empower a home team of such scholars who would be able to develop and deploy a siddhanta / Uttara-paksha in response to Pollock.  His aim in the book is to show what it is that the other side is saying about Hinduism and Sanskrit and to provide the outlines of a response from within the tradition.  Most of our traditional scholars to whom Ganesh points are not aware of Pollock’s work or the complexity and nuance of Western theories that underlie academic Sanskrit studies. Without knowing that, they could not offer a meaningful response to Pollock. One of the central aims of Malhotra’s book is to provide an overview and analysis of Pollock’s claims to help our traditional scholars enter the battlefield armed and prepared.

Moreover, Ganesh completely misses the fact that Malhotra does have strong qualifications for waging this battle that most of our traditional scholars today lack.  These qualifications are just as important, if not more so, than formal training in Sanskrit.  Most of our traditional scholars lack real-world experience in the global intellectual kurukshetra.  Malhotra has tirelessly battled in public with the other side and held his ground and has developed expertise and experience in debating with the other side effectively, a skill which most of our traditional scholars do not have.   

It is one thing to have conclaves and discussions with like-minded people; but such discussions will not impact the academic discourse about Sanskrit and Hinduism going on in the world of universities and academia.  Traditional scholars who are cloistered in their own cocoons do not recognize what is happening in the world outside, and while they are extremely knowledgeable in their respective fields, this alone does not equip them to engage with the other side.  If they lack knowledge of Western thought, they cannot speak in the vocabulary that is needed to engage in this debate.  We do not yet have the power to dictate the terms of the battle, so we have to arm ourselves with Western models of thought in order to properly rebut them and create space for our own modes of thought. 

Escapism

While Ganesh says several times that the battle for Sanskrit is an important one that must be fought, he contradicts himself and seems to be lulled into a sense of escapism that all these battles are ultimately irrelevant and meaningless.  For example, he says,

“The means of transcendence may be through text, ritual, or art, but adherents aim to go beyond Form and internalize Content (by means of reflective inquiry into the Self), thus attaining what the Taittiriya Upanisad calls ‘brahmananda.’ This transcendental approach ensures that we neither harbour any malice towards divergent views nor give undue importance to differences in form. It helps us achieve harmony amidst diversity. … The idea of transcending comes neither from inadequacy nor from inability to handle variety. While the tradition respects diversity, its focus is on going within and going beyond.”

In other words, since our goal is to go beyond diversity, we should not get too bothered by Pollock and his divergent views.  In fact, he further criticizes Malhotra for “go[ing] against Gaudapada’s observation – ‘Dualists have firm beliefs in their own systems and are at loggerheads with one another but the non-dualists don’t have a quarrel with them. The dualists may have a problem with non-dualists but not the other way around.’ (Mandukya Karika 3.17-18).”  In other words, because we are so superior to the West, it is understandable for the West to have a problem with Sanskrit but we should not bother to have a problem with them!

It is precisely this kind of contradiction, complacency and escapism that has been the plague of Hindus for so long.  While Ganesh says this is a battle we should fight, he doesn’t seem to have the heart for it.  Ganesh’s goal seems to be inner peace and contentment – in which case one wonders why he bothers having this encounter with Malhotra in the first place. He concludes his critique with the following:

“That said, if we allow ourselves to be too troubled by such scholars and such debates, we will never be able to attain the peace of a contemplative mind. While we shall respect scholars like Malhotra and Pollock, we shall also remember Shankara’s insightful words: ‘The web of words, akin to a great forest, deludes the intellect. Seek thus to know the true Self, O seeker of Truth!’ (Vivekachudamani 60).”

That is great for Ganesh personally, but for those of us who care about the defense of Dharma, we do have to care about Pollock’s views, we do have to take them seriously, and we do have to counter them. 

Mischaracterizations of Malhotra’s Work

Ganesh in many places mischaracterizes Malhotra’s positions or misunderstands them.

Ignoring Internal Differences

Ganesh accuses Malhotra of “clubbing all insider views” as the traditionalist view and reiterates that different schools of Vedanta have different interpretations of the Vedas but claim that only theirs is right.  He asks, “Who is to say what the right version is? Which of these schools qualify to be ‘the traditionalist view’? Who is the ‘ideal insider’?”

First of all, Malhotra has never glossed over the diversity within Indic thought.  His earlier book, Being Different, in fact goes through great lengths to contrast Indian diversity with the Western impulse towards homogeneity and the Abrahamic emphasis upon “one truth”.  In his subsequent book, Indra’s Net, Malhotra developed this thesis further into what he calls the open architecture of dharma systems, i.e., a framework and ecosystem that promotes the flowering of multiplicity of views and practices without competition or the need to assert supremacy.  Not only is there immense diversity, but at the same time there is profound underlying unity. 

While respecting the diversity of Indic traditions, however, it is possible to find within them a harmonious ethos and value system that is consistent across them and that can be meaningfully contrasted with Western models without eliding the differences between the various darshanas, for example.  When Malhotra talks about the traditional view in the context of this book, he is not picking one of the darshanas as being the right and only one; he is speaking to a unity of thought behind all of the darshanas that bind them together and differentiate them from Western ways.

If Ganesh is offended at such a characterization, then such purism will render it impossible to ever engage in meaningful dialogue with the West or with any other tradition.   

Ignoring Traditional Scholars

Ganesh accuses Malhotra of ignoring and looking down upon past masters and traditionalist scholars.  He provides a whole laundry list of scholars that he alleges should have been mentioned by Malhotra.  However, it is not clear what the point of this is.

Malhotra has never denied the existence of traditional scholars and when appropriate he always cites other scholars.  In fact, he always includes very extensive bibliographies and gives credit to other scholars whose ideas he uses—as Ganesh himself implicitly acknowledges elsewhere when he claims that Malhotra’s siddhanta is often ‘borrowed’ from other scholars that he cites.  Malhotra also explains in his book that he approached numerous traditional scholars for help in his research. But that almost every one of them came back after a few weeks to say that they could simply not understand Pollock’s heavy, jargon-laden writings.  

Accordingly, in the context of this book, Malhotra was unable to rely on the traditional scholars he sought out to consult.  The process of writing this book revealed the shortcomings we have when it comes to our traditional scholars and how ill-equipped they are for the type of engagement and debate we need to have with the West.  Moreover, when it comes to this particular kshetra, the work of other traditional scholars cited by Ganesh is less relevant.  Malhotra is not discussing here the Aryan Invasion Theory or other specific issues; he is dismantling the very frameworks used by Western Indologists to study and interpret our traditions.  His approach is unique and new.  

It is true that Malhotra critiques traditional scholars in his book.  This is not out of disrespect or dismissiveness of the role of the traditional scholar—to the contrary, Malhotra wants to empower them to take up the mantle of academic studies of Sanskrit and Hinduism that are currently dominated by Westerners.  The critique is meant as a call to action to develop a strong coterie of traditional scholars who can take this battle forward. 

Why Study the West?

Ganesh takes issue with Malhotra’s proposition that traditional Indian scholars must study Western theories in order to be taken seriously by the West.  Again this is part of the self-contradictory nature of the critique, which at times acknowledges the importance of fighting this battle and at other times resorts to escapism.  Here again he takes an escapist approach:

“Malhotra’s pseudo-logic is like the trap of Nyaya that later advaitis fell victim to. See Shankara’s comment on nayyayikas in his commentaries on the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad and the Brahma Sutra. He says that logic can be used on both sides. It doesn’t rely on universal experience. Logic seeks proofs, which are external but spirituality seeks to go inward. Therefore, we have to consider all proofs in the light of universal experience. Nyaya operates at the level of adhibhuta, but Vedanta operates at the level of adhyatma.

“The same applies to the Western Orientalists or the Indian Leftists, who are crass materialists. And why should we use Western jargons and systems to study Indian works? We must work out our own way. Doesn’t Malhotra himself admit that the fundamental problem is the viewing of India through a Western lens? An ‘insider’ will use his/her experiential wisdom to silence the complex web of words.”

Ganesh uses pseudo-Vedanta to try to refute Malhotra’s alleged ‘pseudo-logic’.  But he totally misunderstands Malhotra’s position.  Malhotra is not saying that we should use Western jargons and systems to study Indian works.  He is saying the very opposite!  He is saying that viewing them through a Western lens distorts them.  But in order to remove the Western lens effectively and replace it with a traditional one; in order to counter the dominant academic discourse, one first has to understand the modus operandi of the opponent, their mental frameworks and ideology.  Without that, there can be no effective debate or rebuttal.  The very first step of purva-paksha is understanding the opponent.  Then only can a rebuttal be given! 

Otherwise, we would continue to operate in silos; the difference is that the Western silo controls the academic system, the media, the educational system, and governmental policy.  We have our own little cocoons that have very little power or support.  If we do not take on the Western silo, we will just be conceding to them all power and let them become the sole dominant voice representing our traditions.

Missing the Forest for the Trees — Nitpicking without Purpose 

One of the most frustrating things about Ganesh’s critique is that instead of offering constructive criticisms that would strengthen the purva paksha, and which would be most welcome, most of his critique is merely nitpicking of different points that do not add anything of substance.

Sacred vs. Beautiful

One example is the following: “[Malhotra] says that the traditionalists see Sanskrit as sacred while the orientalists see Sanskrit as beautiful but not necessarily sacred. Why this divide between sacred and beautiful?” 

This is a total non sequitur.  Malhotra did not in any way create a divide between sacred and beautiful; he simply said that Orientalists do not see Sanskrit as sacred while traditionalists do.  That does not mean traditionalists do not also see Sanskrit as being beautiful. In fact, a major criticism Malhotra has of Pollock is precisely that Pollock “removes the sacred” from his history of kavya. 

Downplaying the Importance of Sanskrit

Ganesh also takes issue with the following statement by Malhotra: “Traditionally, Hindus have read Sanskrit for the purpose of understanding the ideas of ultimate reality.”

One would think this is a relatively straightforward, noncontroversial statement.  But Ganesh nitpicks this to an extreme:

“The ultimate reality is beyond form – it is immaterial if Sanskrit is used as a means. Speaking about deep sleep, there is a famous passage that proclaims, “In this state, a father is no longer a father, a mother is no more a mother, the universe is no longer a universe, Vedas are no more the Vedas, a thief is no longer a thief, a sinner is no more a sinner…” (Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 4.3.22)

“Further, how does he account for the teachings of many poets and sages who were unaware of Sanskrit – be it the alwars, the vacanakaras, Mahalingaranga, Tukaram, or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa? And are they not a part of our tradition?

“In Devendra’s commentary on the Uttaradhyayana Sutra of the Jains, there is a beautiful quote in the second lecture – “When Mahavira spoke, his words were understood by gods and goddesses, men and women, forest-dwellers, and animals.” This is also a traditionalist view!”

Again, this is a very weird response.  Malhotra nowhere denies that deep spiritual experiences are beyond language.  He points out that the methods and processes and descriptions of these experiences used to reach these spiritual states were in Sanskrit, and that is why Sanskrit is known as deva bhasha.  Sanskrit was the language in which the Vedas were revealed to us.  That is why Sanskrit was sacred.  The fact that the state of consciousness in Samadhi is beyond any language, including Sanskrit, does not negate the status of Sanskrit as a language that was used for spiritual practice and development, for understanding and explaining the realm of adhyatma.

Furthermore, the primacy of Sanskrit in Hindu tradition in no way denigrates or denies the importance of vernacular languages.  Malhotra nowhere claims this, and this is yet another non sequitur.   

Four ‘Levels’ of Speech

In yet another example, Ganesh quibbles Malhotra for referring to the four ‘levels’ of speech rather than the four ‘stages of speech’.  He says, “Malhotra’s explanation is incorrect (and he doesn’t give any references for this too). They are not four ‘levels’ of speech but rather the four ‘stages.’ From conception to utterance, an idea is said to pass through four stages – paraa (before thought), pashyanti (thought), madhyamaa (on the verge of utterance) and vaikhari (utterance). The ancient seers were able to go from paraa to vaikhari instantly (see Vicaraprapañca of Sediapu Krishna Bhat).”

In fact, based on the example provided by Ganesh, it seems that ‘level’ would be a more accurate rendering than ‘stage’ since one can go from one level to another without passing through all the levels in between, but one cannot do the same with ‘stages’.  However, that is beside the point.  This is such a meaningless, semantic quibble that it is hard to believe it is warranted to be included in this kind of a book review instead of a copyediting markup provided by an editor.

Being a ‘Sanskrit Fanatic’

Ganesh admonishes Malhotra for championing Sanskrit as a ‘Sanskrit fanatic’.  He says:

“Of course, we understand and agree in spirit with Malhotra but he should realize that the same tradition that he is defending has these diverse views. We are not anti-Sanskrit but we are also not Sanskrit fanatics. Here, the insightful words of M Hiriyanna prove invaluable – “When a new stage of progress is reached, the old is not discarded but is consciously incorporated in the new. It is the critical conservatism which marks Indian civilization…” (Popular Essays in Indian Philosophy)”

The ‘diverse views’ being referred to here by Ganesh are those views he claims that downplay the importance of Sanskrit.  In other words, Ganesh seems to be arguing that perhaps it is okay if Sanskrit is dead or is allowed to die since it is simply a ‘means’ and not the content to be preserved.  It is actually quite difficult to tell what it is that Ganesh means—in the beginning of the review, he disavows the death of Sanskrit but then are so many other places like this, where he suggests that Sanskrit is simply a means to an end, to be transcended, and therefore perhaps dispensable, that it is impossible to come up with a cogent, coherent critique out of these pages and pages of writing that could be considered constructive criticism.  And that is ultimately where the critique fails and misses its mark.

Conclusion

As Ganesh himself acknowledges, the battle for Sanskrit is one that must be joined.  In order for this to be successful, we need to join forces and work together.  We all want to build a strong home team that can reflect a diversity of views yet unite against our opponents strongly with one voice.  Critiques that are aimed at strengthening the response and arguments against Pollock are eagerly welcomed; however, critiques that simply demean Malhotra and his efforts without offering constructive suggestions and strategies backfire and strengthen our opponents instead.

Ganesh and Malhotra both agree that it is the job of traditional scholars to take up the mantle and move this battle forward.  While Ganesh seems to attack Malhotra for not having the right credentials for being a traditional scholar, he misses that point that Malhotra repeatedly says that he is having to do the job that traditional scholars ought to have done, but failed to do.

It is earnestly hoped that a constructive engagement and direct dialogue could be opened between Ganesh and Malhotra to join in the battle both acknowledge is urgent and necessary.

Author: Aditi Banerjee

Published: March 27, 2016

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. Jagrit Bharat is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of Jagrit Bharat and Jagrit Bharat does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same. 

I signed the petition for the removal of Sheldon Pollock as mentor and general editor of Murty Classical Library, first of all, because the project did not seem to score well on the commonsensical scale of home economics. Handing $5.6 million to elite US universities reverses the very logic that made Infosys rich. If brainpower, not to mention manpower, is at least five times cheaper in India, wouldn’t we get more bang for the buck here? The annual income from the bequest works out to a very substantial $2,80,000 per annum at the modest rate of 5 per cent returns. This is the equivalent of almost Rs 2 crore. If this is how much it costs to produce the reported five volumes per year, then the cost per volume is a whopping Rs 40 lakh. Until the details of the spends are known, we can’t verify the math, but it seems likely that we could have ensured greater cost-effectiveness in India.

The second reason is more ideological and anti-colonial. In the heyday of imperialism, the West’s study of the rest was not always benevolent nor impartial.

Instead, it was involved in the West’s agenda to conquer, subdue, exploit, and even exterminate several nations, societies, and cultures. We Indians need to remember, as Bernard Cohn famously put it, that “The conquest of India was a conquest of knowledge”. No wonder, the cultural and historical memory of our own struggle against foreign domination is still fresh. What is not equally obvious is that the battle to regain India’s civilisational poise, equilibrium, and self-confidence is far from over. In matters of culture, education, and thought, we are still largely colonised and subservient. The Indian mentality, particularly that of the elites, remains a prisoner of Western categories. Not just the clash, but the clasp of civilisations, is as much a struggle over epistemic categories and representations, as it is over economic and political interests.

Paradoxically, even as India has powered ahead in the latter spheres, its educational and cultural institutions have deteriorated. Regretfully, the politicisation of academics by caste, language and regional lobbies has eroded the credibility of our universities. The possibly related emigration and relocation of lakhs of gifted Indian intellectuals to Western countries has only exacerbated our sense of inferiority. Indian knowledge production, especially in humanities and social sciences, lacks global recognition. No wonder, Rohan Murty preferred the prestige and brand value of Columbia and Harvard for his Library. He is not the only one; many Indian business leaders have chosen similarly to endow foreign universities rather than Indian ones.

In a recent article, Murty laments that we have allowed “our institutions, manuscripts, and scholarship… to fall into a state of disrepair. And this I am going to help rebuild.” How? By giving $5.6 mn to the likes of Pollock at Columbia and Harvard? How will they help rebuild Indian scholarly institutions and traditions? Murty could have been visionary and courageous, trying to set up an editorial collective in India itself, even if it were not housed at a conventional university. Such a move might have been a game-changer in Indian academics, perhaps inspiring copycat endowments, in addition to instituting best practises in Indian critical and cultural production.

To reverse the situation for argument’s sake, suppose a library of 500 best books of American culture, with an endowment from, say, Bill Gates, was handed over to Chinese scholars to produce, wouldn’t interested Americans protest? The analogy may not be entirely apt, but shows Murty’s lack of confidence in our own abilities to read, translate, and publish books of our culture. There could have been other models, more participatory and collaborative than the present, which I am not sure were fully explored.

Moving to the more controversial demand to sack Pollock, in his 1985 essay, “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History,” the learned professor damns the entire shastric tradition, which he considers co-extensive with Sanskritic culture, as authoritarian.

The basis for such a sweeping indictment is a reductive misreading of the Vedas not only as fixed, transcendental signifiers and authorisers of chaturvarga, but as also responsible for the wholesale and systematic blocking of critical thinking through the entire course of Indian civilisation. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of India would balk at such an egregiously arrogant impeachment.

From such a perspective, pre-modern India becomes an object of modern rectification, if not rejection. We did nothing for thousands of years except oppress one another: Now “a great white man” must, messiah-like, take charge of our tradition to rescue us from our own oppressive legacies. Isn’t it obvious how such demonisation of Indian pasts serves to re-authorise neo-Orientalism, almost requiring an outsider from the dominant Western academy to help set us right? And doesn’t our history demonstrate that where scholars lead the charge against Indian culture, missionaries are only too ready to follow through?

Indeed, Pollock has increasingly identified himself with left-liberal, even Hindu-phobic causes, signing various petitions, working to nix positions in Indic studies that diaspora philanthropists wished to endow in the United States, in addition to advising the government of India reportedly to end “its authoritarian menace” on Indian campuses. This smacks of politically motivated hegemonic practices, which are ideological rather than academic. Aren’t such attitudes bound to influence the content, translations, and outputs of the Murty Library?

Critique of Pollock’s work:

The term used for this state by Bhatta Nāyaka, apparently for the first time at least in the literary-critical context, is visrānti (which will become so important for Abhinawagupta). This absorptive experience is an event unique to the aesthetic and completely different from normal experience (anubhava) and memory. It is, as Mammata restated it, “a full repose in the true nature of one’s own consciousness”, rendered so completely joyful and luminous that it is akin to the ecstasy of religious self-transcendence, given that “the self other differentiation has vanished”, as Dhanika says.” We should remember, however, what Bhattanāyaka himself tells us in one of the few preserved fragments, that this religious experience is in fact inferior: “Nothing can compare with [aesthetic rasa], not even the rasa spiritual adepts bring forth” (appendix #3).

In the above paragraph, Pollock very cleverly appropriates and rejects Parmarthika bliss as inferior by comparing it with “spiritual adept.”

In terms of the three-part Mīmāmsā paradigm, these components represent the means (abhidhá), the method (bhāvakatva), and the what (bhogikrttva) of literary “reproduction”, and we may synthesize as follows: Aesthetic experience (this is the kim or sādhya) arises thanks to a conceptual transformation of the literary elements (the foundational factor and so on) via “commonalization” (this is the kena, or sadhana or karana), which for its part is made possible by the unique powers of literary language (this is the katham oritikartavyata).” The term of art by…

51. Abhinava tries, quite shamelessly, to reappropriate this triad for his own view (DhAL, p. 189; Ingalls et al., p. 225).

The reference 51 calls Abhinava Gupta shamelessly appropriating!! Anyone who has read Pratyabhijna and Trika Shastra understands the importance and use of Triads is much older and a fundamental spiritual approach to understand world.

Published: March 14, 2016

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. Jagrit Bharat is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of Jagrit Bharat and Jagrit Bharat does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.