​Removal of Prof. Sheldon Pollock as mentor

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

Just got this mail- (copy pasted below as received) 

I signed the petition-

Sharing here - if anyone in the mail group would like to sign.

(Sorry for cross-posting)

-उषा

------------------------

​PLEASE GET EVERYONE in your contacts to sign. An awareness of Sanskrit scholarship will help all.

I just signed the petition "Mr. N. R. Narayana Murthy and Mr. Rohan Narayan Murty:

​​

Removal of Prof. Sheldon Pollock as mentor and Chief Editor of Murty Classical Library" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

 You can read more and sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library?recruiter=30248362&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive​

--

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[G S S Murthy]

I went through the petition and the list of signatories.

Sanskrit and the Vedic civilization has stood the test of time for so long that it does not need such petitions for survival. Let there be people expressing contrary opinions. It only strengthens Sanskrit and Vedic civilization. This way of smothering contrary opinion is alien to our culture.

Regards,

Murthy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Vardhan Taltaje]

With due respect to Shri G S S Murthy, I don't see it as an attempt to smother contrary opinion.

We are living in a system that respects numbers. Unless some raise their voice, no one listens. This petition is an effort in that respect.  Not doing anything when we see something wrong is not the correct approach.

[Sanju Nath]

I also signed this petition after reading that hundreds of books will be translated into English under the guidance of someone who has little respect for the original authors' respect for the Vedas and India's tradition.

Regards,

Sanju

[Taff Rivers]

Let humanity prevail.

A simply message of support to three guys at Harvard University:

Carry on with the good work, lads!

This K. Ramasubramanian, should be ashamed of himself.

 

Vairāgya is very much absent in the utterences of these particular adhi-kāra's.

As is saṃyama.

 

 

From where I stand, all I see is an ugly appeal to Nationalism in as a desperate last resort attempt to cling on to imagined prestige.

 

You don't have to be steeped in Grecian culture, to understand Plato.

You don't have to be in Arabia to learn algebra (arabic al-jabr). 

           And you certainly don't have to be in Bombay to read a book or listen to a CD.

 

Cheers,

    Taff

(The) Petitioning  (of) Mr. N. R. Narayana Murthy and Mr. Rohan Narayan Murty, Harvard University USA

 

          (for the) Removal of Sheldon Pollock as mentor and Chief Editor of Murty Classical Library

          (by) Prof. K. Ramasubramanian, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay

[Naresh Cuntoor]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Taff Rivers <eddie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let humanity prevail.

*Rolls eyes*

Auditioning for a melodramatic role, are we?

 

A simply message of support to three guys at Harvard University:

Carry on with the good work, lads!

This K. Ramasubramanian, should be ashamed of himself.

Sign the petition/don't sign the petition - that's your choice.

But you certainly don't help your case when you make statements like these. Leaving aside the hissing "this" aside, why should anyone be ashamed for speaking one's mind?

 

May I suggest you (and others as well) search for Prof. Ramasubramanian's lectures on youtube? You may learn a thing a or two.. If that's at least part of the reason you are here, that is.

Naresh

[Sanju Nath]

Please read Mr. Pollacks's work which emphasizes the exact opposite of Vairyaga, Samyama and respect for the great Saints of India who lived these values in the pursuit of truth.  Throwing words like nationalism for a discussion on merits of one's argument and meeting criticism with sound answers - that's what is required by Mr. Pollack and perhaps Mr. Rivers given his support for Mr. Pollack.  

Convene a conference of purva-pakshi and siddhanti to defend the stand  - instead of a one sided assault from those who lead Sanskrit, Indian, Vedic studies at Harvard, Columbus, University of Chicago and other places in the West with mostly money power. Try doing it on Islamic culture and the real meaning of Nationalism will dawn.

Indians only want to debate, but this onslaught will also come to pass on a culture that has been around for millenia while many empires have come and gone because Vedas are based on Sat.

Cheers to all,
Sanju

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Looking at the emotional aspects of some of these messages, I thought I should share the response of some dispassionate responses from which one can pick up a leaf or two:

 

First is the response from Prof. Dominik Wujastyk and the second is by the venerable young genius Sri Nityanandji both on the Indology forum.

 

1. Prof. Dominik Wujastyk :

I discovered yesterday that there exists a petition

<https://www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library>

launched by Prof. K. Ramasubramanian that asks for Prof. Sheldon Pollock to

be removed from his editorial leadership role with the Murty Library.

 

The argument against Pollock is based on the idea that, "he has deep

antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished and practiced in

our civilization." The most prominent evidence given to support this

assertion is a quotation from a 2012 lecture that Prof. Pollock gave at the

South Asia Institute in Heidelberg, titled, "What is South Asian Knowledge

Good For?"  Prof. Ramasubramanian states that Prof. Pollock "echoes the

views of Macaulay and Max Weber that the shastras generated in India serve

no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express

themselves."  Unfortunately, Prof. Ramasubramanian has not correctly

understood these passages in Prof. Pollock's paper, nor the meaning of the

2012 lecture as a whole.

 

Prof. Pollock cites Macaulay and Weber as पूर्वपक्ष positions to his own,

opposite view.  Prof. Pollock presents Macaulay and Weber as examples of

the worst kind of misunderstanding of Indian wisdom.  He does this in order

to build his own argument that there is a deeper knowledge in India than

Macaualy or Weber realized, the knowledge that is the "South Asian

Knowledge" of his title.  This is the knowledge of the Indian शास्त्राणि,

the Indian knowledge systems that Prof. Pollock is defending.

 

Prof. Ramasubramanian then cites a passage in which Prof. Pollock says,

 

Are there any decision makers, as they refer to themselves, at universities

and foundations who would not agree that, in the cognitive sweepstakes of

human history, Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has

lost?  ...That, accordingly, the South Asian knowledge South Asians

themselves have produced can no longer be held to have any significant

consequences for the future of the human species?

 

In this passage, Prof. Pollock is *criticising* the administrators of

western universities who do not give proper recognition and value to Indian

knowledge systems, and only view India as a place to make money or to make

practical applications of knowledge systems of the West.  Again, this is

the पूर्वपक्ष.  Prof. Pollock's central argument is that the special,

unique knowledge systems developed in India, mainly recorded in Sanskrit,

are of great value, and that this fact is not recognized by "universities

and foundations" who, like Macauley and Weber, think that Indian knowledge

systems have been superseded by Western ones.   Prof. Pollock's point of

view is that the शास्त्राणि , representing South Asian Knowledge, are

precious, worth studying, and still have much to offer modern cultural

life.  On pages six and seven of his lecture, he gives the examples of

व्याकरण and the theory of रस as forms of knowledge that were developed to a

uniquely high degree in early India, and that still have the power to

enrich thought today.  On the subsequent pages, he begins to make the even

more difficult argument for finding modern value in even more

internally-oriented Indian sciences such as मीमांसा, अलङ्कार  and

नाट्यशास्त्र.

 

The larger point of Prof. Pollock's article is that the institutions of

higher education in America and elsewhere have found it difficult over the

last fifty years or more to develop institutional structures to support the

study of *Indian* knowledge systems, and that the South Asia Institute in

Heidelberg is a model of success in allowing those who develop knowledge *about

*India to work in harmony alongside those who deepen their appreciation of

the knowledge that was developed *by *India.

 

It would be possible to make similar arguments for the other evidence

referred to by Prof. Ramasubramanian, e.g., Prof. Pollock's 1985 paper on

the character and importance of शास्त्राणि, of South Asian knowledge

systems.  In that paper, Prof. Pollock says that, "Classical Indian

civilization, however, offers what may be the most exquisite expression of

the centrality of rule-governance in human behavior" and that śāstra is "a

monumental, in some cases unparalleled, intellectual accomplishment in its

own right."  One could discuss this paper further.  But to cite it as an

example of a criticism of India is the opposite of the truth.

 

It is regrettable that Prof. Ramasubramanian has misunderstood Prof.

Pollock's views by 180 degrees.  Prof. Pollock is a champion for the same

values of Indian culture as Prof. Ramasubramanian.  That is why Prof.

Pollock devised and brought into being the Murty Classical Library.

 

Many people have signed Prof. Ramasubramanian's petition, presumably

without having read Prof. Pollock's work for themselves, or having failed

to undestand it.  The damage done by this misunderstanding is likely to

last a long time, and hamper the efforts of Prof. Pollock and others who

seek to bring the glory and subtlety of ancient Indian knowledge to the

attention of the modern world.

 

2. Sri Nityanandji:

 

It is the season of petitions and statements! Adding some more details
before my comments:

1) While the petition of change.org has been started by Prof. K
Ramasubramanian, as many as 131 Indian intellectuals apart from Prof. K
Ramasubramanian signed the original plea to Mr. Narayana Murthy and Mr.
Rohan Murthy. I do not know if it was covered in a mainstream media source,
the much less-known newsgram.com carried it:
http://www.newsgram.com/132-indian-academicians-call-for-removal-of-sheldon-pollock-as-general-editor-of-murthy-classical-library/
I personally know and have met with many scholars on the list: and some of
them are very well respected in India, in addition to being well-known.
Prof.  Ramasubramanian himself is a recipient of the Badarayan Vyas Samman.

2) Apart from the aspects highlighted in Dr. Wujastyk's email, two other
aspects which are very relevant to this petition: the letter by the
academicians mentions Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's *Battle of Sanskrit* as well as
Prof. Pollock's recent signing of the solidarity statement with the
“students, faculty, and staff of JNU”: the petition against Prof. Pollock
may well be a reaction to this. On the first aspect: Recently, Mr. Rajiv
Malhotra's book has been widely discussed in Indian universities of late.
Mr. Malhotra has been hosted by several Indian universities and institutes
(e.g. Karnataka Sanskrit University and TISS) for talks where he has
received both support and opposition, but more support than opposition as
far as I can say. On the second aspect, there was a discussion on the
*Bhāratīyavidvatpariṣat
*mailing list (Mr. Rajiv Malhotra recently joined this mailing list). The
thread was started by me, and I remarked in my short initial post “Before
the Indian courts decide, 455 academicians have already reached a
decision.” The discussion can be read here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/cTgsJDKjA8I

My quick comments:
If it can be argued that the petition against Prof. Pollock is based on
‘misunderstanding’ or ‘wilful misconstrual’ (as members on this list have
described), then it can also be argued that the solidarity statement (to
which Prof. Pollock is a signatory) on the JNU issue is based on a ‘lack of
understanding’ of jurisprudence in India or ‘wilful misrepresentation’ of
facts. On jurisprudence: The Delhi Police has the documentary (video tapes)
and non-documentary (eye-witnesses) evidence, and the Indian courts will
examine the evidence and rule on the matter: then in what capacity does the
solidarity statement declare thrice that the police action on JNU was
‘illegal’. On misrepresentation, the solidarity statement misses that fact
that a large section of JNU students and teachers did support the police
action on JNU. This was also covered in the news:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/180-JNU-Teachers-Take-the-Sarkari-Side-Demand-Action-Against-Students/2016/02/16/article3280826.ece

As I see it, both petitions are rooted more in strong differences of
opinion/ideology than in misunderstanding or wilful
misconstrual/misrepresentation.

Thanks, Nityanand

  

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Correction:

 

I wanted to send as

 

Looking at the emotional aspects of some of these messages, I thought I should share some dispassionate responses from which one can pick up a leaf or two:

 

not as

[Nagaraj Paturi]

On the following positive note from Mr Taff Rivers in a related thread:

 

> May the times come when the salmon shall spawn in the Ganges!

and

 

Since I brought two posts from Indology on this earlier , I want to share my own post on that forum here:

 

In an earlier post of mine on Prof. Pollock's 2012 lecture, I said I would

make a separate post on deexoticization. Here it is:

 

 

1. Dealing with the classics of a community which has living practitioners

of various aspects of culture such as the religion contained in those

classics,  is different from dealing with the classics of a community which

no longer has living practitioners of the religion and other such aspects

in those classics. Availability of these living practitioners is both a

problem and an opportunity. Problem because the practitioners react/respond

to what has been said about what they live, in the study of the classics

that contain the aspects that they put in practice;  opportunity because

the student of the classics can take the help of study of the practice in

understanding the classics.

 

2. What Prof. Ingalls did to Sanskrit studies, in the form of exposing,

criticizing and countering the “monstrous” (-not my word-) Eurocentric

study of Sanskrit material, was very much similar to what cultural

relativists did to the study of various world cultures. He made

Sanskritists aware of the cultural sensitivity keeping in view the

sensibilities of the culture insiders.

 

Cultural relativists evaluate the validity of their study by taking back

their study to the studied people and testing it for cultural sensitivity.

 

3.  Deromanticization, i.e., undoing of the romanticized presentation of

the ‘positive’ of a culture studied need not necessarily be in the form of

the other extreme, the romanticized presentation of the ‘negative’ of the

studied culture.

 

When I go to fieldwork in Indian villages, the villagers keep asking me,

“Are you going to present the same old feudal time picture of our villages

that the movie guys present, a cruel landlord replacing the bullocks of a

cart with the agricultural laborers and whipping them to bleed and so on?”

 

 

It is heartening to see that there are still a very big number of Sanskrit

scholars in US, who still live the sensitivity encouraged by likes of

Prof. Ingalls. Though uneventful journeys do not get reported as

news, they are the ones passengers love!

 

Thanks and regards,

 

-N