Murthy foundation under fire

[V Subrahmanian]

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/murthy-foundation-under-fire/article8297745.ece#.VtUqhtJ5Fec.gmail

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Whats new? Its already being discussed. Please post under the right thread

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:07 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/murthy-foundation-under-fire/article8297745.ece#.VtUqhtJ5Fec.gmail

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

[Venkateswaran N E]

It is interesting to note that staff reporter of The Hindu has mentioned only Prof. Pollock's support for the JNU issue as the only reason for the petition against his involvement in Murthy Foundation, and conveniently ignored all the other reasons detailed the the petition including Prof. Pollock's technical incompetence in taking up such a role.

It is sad to see that Indian media bias against anything bharateeya is at its helm currently.

Venkateswaran N E

[rajivmalhotra2007]

The matter should have nothing to do with JNU.

It is a choice with long-term implications between two approaches:

• One is Murthy Library.
  
• The second is Sampadananda Mishra's "Vande Matram Library" proposal mentioned in the thread titled "Adding Beauty and Perfection to all that we do for Sanskrit".

These options should be debated without personal acrimony, politics, etc. The stakeholders are not just wealthy donors and hired scholars, but also all the Bharatiyas who cherish their samskriti with shraddha.

Responsible media ought to frame this issue properly and not as shortsighted sensationalism.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

The petition to the Murthy family has drawn a strong response from Rohan Murty, son of Narayana Murthy.

I would like to draw particular attention of members to Mr. Rohan Murty's statements quoted at the conclusion of this article. "The root of the problem, he said, is that there aren't more scholars in India capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature. "What can we do to address this? Everything else is just noise." "

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51231553.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Given that there are scholars from India, on this very forum, working at various Indian educational institutions, many of whom have also signed the petition, it may be more constructive to analyze why there is such a huge perception problem. What are the personal and institutional factors that keep Indian patrons like the Murthys, with resources at their disposal, from even being familiar with the existence of this vidvat in India? It cannot be a simple and blind hero worshiping of the American Ivy League. There is a lot more to it, isn't there?

Best regards,

Vidyasankar 

[kali]

HariH OM!

Pramanams to all scholars in the forum.

I agree with the contention of Shri Vidyasankar Sundaresan in this regard.

The sweeping statement of Shri Rohan Murthy as "The root of the problem, he said, is that there aren't more scholars in India capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature. What can we do to address this? Everything else is just noise." betrays his western education and scientific approach and analysis of a given task. When he makes this statement does he mean to say that he has explored and exhausted all avenues of available knowledge resources in this country?  If so, instead of asking the scholars why they didn't come forward to criticize the works published by the 'classical library', why can't he lay open the kind of search he made and the methodology he employed to gather information on the kind of talent that he was looking for?  Did he exhaust scanning of all available talent before concluding that there 'aren't more scholars in India capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature'?

This is certainly a problem of perception, as pointed out, born due to exposure to western medium of education and lack of faith in the traditional scholarship in the country. It is another matter that the present generation has been brought up on the distorted version of Indian history which to a large extent generates blind faith in the western wisdom.  They go by anglicised version of our Vedas, Upanishads and Shastras and believe the accuracy of the western translations, rather than taking a treasure hunt of indigenous scholarship.  This is the right time for all the indigenous scholarship to come together and arrest this distortion and deviation.

DhganyavadaH

Kalivaradhan

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I wouldn't place the blame on western education and scientific approach and analysis. If you look around at the members of this very forum, all of us have had western educations and many of us are scientists. We have people with bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees in various science and technology fields here. Yet, none of us would make this kind of sweeping generalization about scholars who stay and work in India. Yes, there are lots of factors that compromise output and impediments in the way of quality, but that is not due to intrinsic lack of ability or qualifications. These problems are more institutional and environmental in India, in my opinion.

Indeed, I would argue that Indian scholarship could benefit with a healthy dose of proper scientific approach and analysis. Not just in Sanskrit or Tamil/Telugu/Kannada/Hindi related fields, but also in the more modern humanistic fields derived from the West. This is just my opinion, but it was rather unscientific of Mr. Murty to have dismissed things like this. I'm sure lots of things are said in the heat of the moment, in reaction to provocative statements, but I hope cooler heads prevail and something positive emerges out of this intellectual churn.

At the very least, it should be obvious that professors in Indian universities and institutions like the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan have a huge public relations job to do at home, with respect to what it is they do and what values they stand for.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear list members

We have to respect Mr. Murty's decision and I hope everybody, including the petitioners, learns something from the outcome. One may disagree with a specific statement and the tone of the other statements in Mr. Murty's response, but we have to look at his statements dispassionately. When Mr. Murty says, “I want to hear in which book we have published, in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why,” he is making a fair point. MCLI books are available on Amazon India (harcover versions are expensive, but paperback versions are not), it would have been better if these books were critiqued before such a petition. When Mr. Murty says “What stopped any of these people from getting in touch with me? Not one single person came forward, which is incredible,” he is making another point.

Let me point out some more things about this petition which are concerning: 

1) The name of the original petitioner on the change.org petition is not the same as the name of the current petitioner. The petition did not mention this change.

2) The number of scholars mentioned in the list changed after the petition was published, a couple of names dropped out, and one (or two) names were added later. The petition did not mention these changes.

3) After Dominik Wujastyk objected strongly to an out-of-context quote on the Indology list, 88 words in the petition were replaced by 16 words, with a terse footnote saying this quote is more appropriate (not saying the earlier quote was out-of-context) 

Was the credibility of the petition not impacted with these changes? Was the original petition not careless in citing a quote out-of-context? Not one of the signatories bothered to cross-check the context of the quote and it was somebody on the Indology list who pointed out this error? Any possibility the signatories were misled or swayed by some individuals?

These are questions to ponder over.

Thanks, Nityanand

[krishnaprasad g]

What stopped any of these people from getting in touch with me? Not one single person came forward, which is incredible,”

Why should one go to him bugging. He could have at least approached  Indian scholars before appointing Sheldon Pollock.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 09:56:28 UTC+5:30, krishnaprasadah wrote:

What stopped any of these people from getting in touch with me? Not one single person came forward, which is incredible,”

Why should one go to him bugging. He could have at least approached  Indian scholars before appointing Sheldon Pollock.

 

If we take the view “Why should one go to him bugging,” then why should we one bug him with a petition to remove Pollock either? If he has gone with Pollock, let him stay with Pollock. Why can we not start a [bigger or better] library by approaching the cash-rich Hindu temples like TTD, or the highly organized RSS-backed Samskrita Bharati, or the rich descendants of rulers of Rajasthan/Mysore/Travancore, or the Marwaris who feed crores in Kumbha Mela-s?  

[krishnaprasad g]

Dear Mishra ji
You said is correct. And most correct. We should start and then he notices the mistakes.

--

[krishnaprasad g]

One more thing to add.
Now he made such statements only beacuse filing petition. It's shame to command over on some one in the matter of spending ones own hard earned money.
Advaitins never stood in front Buddhists and stopped people to follow them. Instead they wrote books to shew how wrong they were.
The people who started petitions is obviously not a traditional Sanskrit scholar.

As you already mentioned , mistake falls on us as we failed to read the books and shew any mistakes.
Though Rajiv jis intension may be good but he failed to show how wrong Pollock was. Because he lacks knowledge in Sanskrit.

It's waste of time and money to print the books unless it shows the perfect problems.

[Kalivaradhan krishnamurthy]

HariH OM!

Namaste sarvebhyo,

"The people who started petitions is obviously not a traditional Sanskrit scholar" is not the correct assessment of the mood and strategy of the people who initiated the petition and the dialogue in our forum. So many eminent professors and scholars are swept under this tag.

If we don't show our disagreement and remain passive, I am afraid, we shall be mute witnesses to destruction of our traditional knowledge and values.

At least with the protest will evolve a strategic thinking to counter the menace to our age old wisdom buried in the treasury of Sanskrit.

Kalivaradhan  

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/7496FVsX3UI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kalivaradhan

 

" आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः " ( ऋग्वेद १.८९ )

 

"Let Noble thoughts reach us from all directions! "

[krishnaprasad g]

Sorry
I meant, that,  it is not the way to show our non acceptance being a scholar. Sorry and I will take it back

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The petition was misconceived and should act as an eyeopener to all those who blindly sign petitions without have read Prof. Pllock works in full. A Survey needs to be done among the 10,000 Participants how many have read Prof. Pollocks works completely in original.How many including scholars have read MLCI books what are they objecting to needs to specifically mentioned instead of being verbose generic . There is no point getting emotional when there is no reason. Its best to be always objective.Then changes might happen and will be meaningful.

There is no point in discussing too much beyond meaningful academic discussion either books of Prof Polock or Rajivs Malhotras book. If the difference is on ideology and point of view then no two persons need to concur. Everyone is entitled to have their own ideology including University scholars. Whats the guarantee that Indian scholars will not bring in their ideology and views and why should they not? Its for readers to decide about truth.

​We also need to discuss with Prof. Pollock directly or on forum which he prefers to answer question. I don't think an academician needs to write or talk outside forums which he doesn't like.​

We also need to decide Should future and present chairs created out of private money be put public Vote. Should all books thesis and articles brought out by scholars should they put to a public vote for its merits and demerits?

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

Specific    observations and pointer to questions raised  in reported news of  ‘ Rohan Murthy’   defending Shedlon Pollock and casting serious aspersions on Indian Scholarship.

 

                            Reference URL http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51231553.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst  

 

 

The young 33 years Harvard groomed NRI seems to be great haste to  conclude  using  some ‘ undisclosed’ objective way of assessing ‘ live Samskruth Tradition’    to ascertain  <  "The root of the problem, he said, is that there aren't more scholars in India capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature. "What can we do to address this? Everything else is just noise.".

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51231553.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst   >.

 

Rohan Murthy is right in identifying the problem,  but ends up in making wrong  conclusion and supporting self-defeating actions.    Probably if  the young Rohan had the exposure and  patience to get the taste of  Samskruth originals through the writings of  Masters like Professor M.Hiriyanna (Art Experience) and Anand Coomaraswamy ( The dance of Shiva), the line of action would have become clear.

 

Rohan Murthy and the like do not seem to have been groomed to the ‘ same cultural ethos and prioritized value system of Dharma –Standards’ as their grand parental generation ; Or they might have given it up to find an accolade at a different environment. It is indeed highly appreciated that the young person asks the question ‘ What can we do to address this’ ?  

 

Had Rohan Murthy had the advantage of  being exposed to  ‘ Indian Traditional Equivalent of Harvard’, the debate would have taken a different turn altogether.   The challenge of Translation and its presentation would have become clear; and it would have solved the question -  ‘Who needs to be placed in charge of SUCH TRANSLATIONS and How to Support the project’ .  In Traditional approach, and also internationally , ‘ Translation’ does not mean ‘ Telling a Story in a cinematic mode to entertain’ . Translation (Bhashaantra ) has to respect the proper flow of the Essence and emotion (= Rasa- Bhava-nirantara pravaaha) of the source work.  To do Such translation, the eminent translator must have command  over the languages of the  source and target  and on top of it what ‘ Sa-Hrudayataa’ (a non translatable, technical Samskruth word for Standards of Translation) - Resonating Head and Heart and deep sensitivity of taste of a connoisseur  and  a clear vision as clear as Valmiki had expressed  in the words ‘Sanmanushya mano yathaa’.  Every one who reads one of the thousand versions of Bible translations  Or the watchers of ‘ Ten Commandments  Movies’ do not become qualified to do the Bible translation or perform the Sermons in a Church.

 

If Rohan Murthy does desire to dawn the mantle of  ‘Harbinger of Good News’ and ‘ Savior of Indian Traditions in a world preferring languages other than Sanskrit’, then the best way is to see How Sanskrit was presented in Indian regional languages for several millennia.  The  trends set by nineteenth and twentieth  century in getting  ‘All Four Vedas translated to Kannada under the patronage of The Maharaja of Mysore, The translation of Ramayana and Mahabharta  in to Kannada by individual scholars with great passion,    will point out what needs to be done and cautions that need to be exercised.

 

Surprisingly – Ronahn Murthy’s response as reported does not  make any  objective pointers and filters  based on which  the damaging and damning  conclusion was drawn on Indian scholarship ! Probably Rohan Murthy’s perceived Sanskrit the same way as Sheldon Pollock  –‘ Sanskrit is Dead’ !  In this path, the next project point for historic research would be to identify  the cutoff date when ‘Scholars in India became an extinct species , incapable of making Good World Class Translations’ ? And projects to invest on  modes for ‘ resurrection and ascension’ of Sanskrit Classical Scholarship ?!   For a reference to trigger such studies, the publication dates  of  English  writings by  eminent personalities like Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, Dasgupta, Srinivasa Sastry,  scholar-Saints  from many institutions of eminence like Ramakrishna mission,  which presented  Indian Samskruth texts and messages  effectively all over globe, can be used.   And this would serve, certainly better than ‘ Sacred books of East’ series and the fall outs of its genre as the cutoff date for reference.

 

In this sense, Rohan Murthy’s reported statement as  above  is nothing short of ‘ arrogance’ which in traditional model , using Banabhatta , would superbly fulfill all the four conditions in the  Subhashita <  Yauvanam, Dhanasampattih, Prabhutvam , Avivekitaa; ekaikamapyanathaya, kimu yatra chatushtayam’ >.

 

Coming to specific of ‘ Line and Page reference and resource where things have gone wrong’ in such projects.   

I am placing below the extract from the URL : :  http://www.claysanskritlibrary.org/about_ramayana.php   This URL presents the summary of Ramayana Chapters by eminent Translators like Robert Goldman, Sheldon Pollock…:  . Please go through the same and see what is missing ‘ in the Translation –summary –orientation’  of Ramayana and  how it is out of tune with tradition  and culture.    The generations that have grown up with  Valmiki Ramayana  and Tusli /Kamba / Torave Ramayan  will understand what is the error in the first reading, even with Indian incompetence for English!  The approach of Clay Sanskrit Library and the like may be sensed  by reading this one opening paragraph below. Do we get any link between Valmiki’s Rama as  ‘ Maryada Purushottama Sri Rama as Avatar of MahaVishnu for Dharma –upholding’ in this sampler – translation ?

 

 

Ramáyana Synopsis

By John P. Clay

Boyhood (Book One) Translated by Robert P Goldman Rama, the crown prince of the City of Ayódhya is a model son and warrior. He is sent by his father the king to rescue a sage from persecution by demons, but must first kill a fearsome ogress. That done, he drives out the demons, restores peace, and attends a tournament in the neighboring city of Míthila; here he bends the bow that no other warrior can handle, winning the prize and the hand of Sita, the princess of Míthila. He and Sita and his brothers and their wives return in triumph to Ayódhya, and are fêted. Ayódhya (Book Two) Translated by Sheldon I Pollock The king decides to abdicate in favor of Rama; but just as the celebrations reach their climax, a court intrigue forces Rama and Sita into fourteen years banishment; they dutifully accept their fate, and go off to the jungle. The other brothers refuse to benefit from his misfortune, which leaves nobody to run the city; eventually one of them is persuaded to act as regent, but only consents to do so on condition that he lives outside the city and acts in Rama's name. The Forest (Book Three) Translated by Sheldon I Pollock The skies darken for the exiles. First one demon, then another, attempts to harm or corrupt them. When these efforts fail, an army of demons is sent, and then a bigger one, but each time Rama again defeats them. Finally Rávana, the supreme lord of the demons, decides to cripple Rama by capturing Sita; he traps her, and carries her off under heavy guard to the island fortress of Lanka. Rama is distraught by grief, and searches everywhere without success.

 

 

The generations that are growing up with Ramayana presented as the  comic strip model    ‘ACK’ (= Amar Chitra Katha) and Hollywood model of  Sagar  Ramayana,  Sony versions of Hanuman and Mahabharta, Superman models of Ganesha -  fail to understand why the above is not a true representation of ‘ Tradition – A Text of Classical Tradition OR a Classic Text’.    ‘Sita Sings the Blues’ is a good entertainment that comes as an offshoot of  ‘SUCH TRANSLATIONS’ for ‘ PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT’.  The travesty of telling Ramayana as ‘Hari-Katha’ to spread DHARMA  ends up in the ‘ Theatrical Shows highlighting the  Indian Male oppression , projecting violation of Human rights and Gender bias’ ?!

 

NOT surprising !  because ‘Academic Freedom’ is the Achilles  Shield which guards t ‘ Such Translation and Translator’.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Rohan Murty's father holds the Indian institutions in high esteem. He once gave a statement that he sent his son abroad for his studies only after his son could not get a seat in IIT. Now on the issue of removing Sheldon Pollock from the Murty Library, Rohan Murty may be having a dilemma. He has to back the Harvard scholars, more so as he is a junior fellow there. Sheldon Pollock also has a Harvard degree. But we can surely ask Rohan Murty as to whether he approached any of the Indian scholars regarding the scheme for translation of the Indian Sanskri textst, before approaching Sheldon Pollock or was it originally Pollocks idea to get finance for such a project. If that was Pollock's idea, then of course Pollock does get due credit for that.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[Bijoy Misra]

Sri Nityanand Misra makes some judicial points which have nothing to do with the competence of Prof Pollock

in assuming a role in educating our children.  Some of us who live abroad would depend on such translations

for the future.  I have not seen the latest productions, but I did see the Ramayana translation, which is a total

trash.  The beauty of Valmiki is lost.  The trouble is institutions like the Gita Press copy these and create

further useless dissemination.  

Yes, it is a valid question.  What does a poor man's child read?  Somehow he/she does not read the parents'

language.  The parents do not know how it has happened.  Now the children are fed material that the parents

have no time to check.  I am not a scholar of colonialism, but I see the power of subjugation in the process.

I would have been more comfortable if Prof Pollock was respectful to the language and the idioms.  I am 

convinced that it would not be easy for  a non-native user of the language to understand the nuances of 

the use of the metaphors.  You open up any page of the translated Ramayana and check the slaughter in

print.  

The protest must continue.  Some may say that they are "educating".  They are "destroying."

if the young Rohan is arrogant, his father should be approached.  The slaughter must stop.     

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Krishnaprasadah wrote: "As you already mentioned , mistake falls on us as we failed to read the books and shew any mistakes.

Though Rajiv jis intension may be good but he failed to show how wrong Pollock was. Because he lacks knowledge in Sanskrit."

Response: Have you read my book, "The Battle For Sanskrit"? I doubt it. It is full of careful, point by point analysis of Pollock's writings and my assessments. You violate your own principle that opinion should be given only after carefully reading a work.
This book is based on reading dozens of Pollock's writings - something no other Indian scholar did among the numerous I went asking for help.
Please do read it and then let us discuss my clear and explicit critique of Pollock.

You seem to be mixing the petition with my book - these are separate. The one quote used erroneously in the petition (i.e. from heidelberg lecture) is NOT used in my book. It was IITB petitioners' own evaluation of Pollock, but is not found in my book. Other than that issue, which is the only problem people have found in the petition, there is nothing else wrong with the petition.

So my request to you is:

• Please critique the petition point by point. One error in the quote they selected (which they replaced a day later with a correct one), is to be criticized. But no scholar dismisses an entire thesis because of a single technical error.
• Please do not let your critique of the petition turn into a statement about my book, especially since the issue raised about the petition is not found in my book.
  

I hope you consider this fair.

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Nityanand Misra wrote:

"Why can we not start a [bigger or better] library by approaching the cash-rich Hindu temples like TTD, or the highly organized RSS-backed Samskrita Bharati, or the rich descendants of rulers of Rajasthan/Mysore/Travancore, or the Marwaris who feed crores in Kumbha Mela-s?"

Response: Such an initiative has already been floated by Dr Sampadananda Mishra. It is being pursued. Please see:  http://beingdifferentforum.blogspot.in/2016/03/project-b-vande-mataram-library-to.html

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Bijoy Mishara says "The protest must continue.  Some may say that they are "educating".  They are "destroying."

if the young Rohan is arrogant, his father should be approached.  The slaughter must stop.

Ajit's Response: "Why should one waste time protesting? Why not write and market something better?.  As Rajiv Malhotraji has been doing.  This is a better way to protest. We are good at planning and poor when it comes to implementation. That is where the problem lies may it be Education, Sanskrit Education or Humanity Studies in general.

Nityanand Misra wrote:

"Why can we not start a [bigger or better] library by approaching the cash-rich Hindu temples like TTD, or the highly organized RSS-backed Samskrita Bharati, or the rich descendants of rulers of Rajasthan/Mysore/Travancore, or the Marwaris who feed crores in Kumbha Mela-s?"

Raj Malhotra's Response: Such an initiative has already been floated by Dr Sampadananda Mishra. It is being pursued. Please see:  http://beingdifferentforum.blogspot.in/2016/03/project-b-vande-mataram-library-to.html

Ajit's Response: I feel this the best way to go forward.Time should not be wasted in proving I am right and others are wrong. I doubt religious organization should be involved for their primary intent is to propagate their faith and not necessarily Sanskrit.

[rajivmalhotra2007]

I agree with Shri Nityanand Misra ji that the IITB petitioners made a technical error by citing one Pollock quote erroneously. I have no clue why they chose this particular quote. They have my book, and it contains 100s of quotes they might have considered instead. My book does not use this particular quote. So I cannot explain this error.

However, you must evaluate the overall thesis contained in their petition, which I find compelling. Their main points are:

1. Pollock's work has biases - this is adequately established in my book backed by 100s of quotes, so please do read it.
2. For example, Pollock dismisses the sacred element from the tradition, regards "political philology" as the correct methodology to use, finds social abuses in the texts (against dalits, women, muslims) as the predominant quality, and calls his peers to expunge the Sanskrit tradition of its inbuilt oppressiveness.
3. He is a very political animal, having initiated and participated in numerous political petitions against Hindus. A chief editor must be more neutral.
4. The editorship of such a monumental work must be more diverse, and must represent the broad cross section of Indians.
5. Standards and underlying assumptions to be used in the series must be transparently discussed up front.
6. Such a massive ecosystem being built should be done in India, where it is more sustainable long term. No other major civilization outsources its study to foreign institutions in a similar manner.
   

I cannot believe that you are able to set all this aside just for one technical error. I request that you set aside the media sensations, which the opponents can create because of their power base and not because of merit. Please read the petition closely point by point. Judge it by itself and please present your views.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 15:53:36 UTC+5:30, Bijoy wrote:

Sri Nityanand Misra makes some judicial points which have nothing to do with the competence of Prof Pollock

in assuming a role in educating our children.  Some of us who live abroad would depend on such translations

for the future.  I have not seen the latest productions, but I did see the Ramayana translation, which is a total

trash.  The beauty of Valmiki is lost.  The trouble is institutions like the Gita Press copy these and create

further useless dissemination.  

Dear Prof. Bijoy Mishra Ji

Which book of which institute has copied the Ramayana translation for further dissemination? I cannot believe Gita Press copying from Western translations: the Gita Press is the biggest publisher of religious books in India. Can you please share more details? 

 

Thanks, Nityanand

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The focus should be on point 4,5 & 6. Rest everything else is ideological driven. The petition is misguided. have you read my earlier post on the petition in the same thread?

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[rajivmalhotra2007]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:12:43 AM UTC-5, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

The focus should be on point 4,5 & 6. Rest everything else is ideological driven. The petition is misguided. have you read my earlier post on the petition in the same thread?

Response:

• Since you agree with points 4, 5 & 6, that suffices to reach the same conclusion as the petitioners.
• To evaluate my separate points 1,2 & 3, kindly read my book as I spend considerable detail. For instance, would you agree with Pollock's dismissal of the oral tradition - something he is explicit about in a sweeping manner?

 

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Rajiv Ji

I did read the petition, it was forwarded to me along with an appeal to sign by an acquaintance. I did not sign the petition: not because of the error, but because of two reasons (1) I have not had the opportunity to read either Pollock's work or your book, I would like to assimilate both sides before I can form an opinion on it. (2) I believe it is Mr. Rohan Murty's prerogative on who he chooses for a library he sets up with his own money. 

I am aware of the recent solidarity statement to which Pollock was signatory and have opposed the statement both here on BVP as well as on Indology list.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Bijoy Misra]

Ajitji,

Others are not wrong.  Cultural issues are local.  Culture develops over thousands of years.

The question comes whether arbitrary interpretation should be accepted by "people."

Denouncement is not of the effort, it is of the quality of material produced.  "Free speech"

is not "Hate speech".  The question is how "wealth" and "power" should be used in the

society.  The so called translation effort is an immediate dis-service to millions of people

of Indian descent living abroad.  They do not have organization. They depend on the 

mother country to assist them.  

I agree that people should read and evaluate.  I only knew after getting interested in the

Ramayana.  Rajiv Malhotra has brought in further analysis which needs careful consideration.

Prof. Pollock said that the Ramayana got out of hand because a Committee did the

translation. My view is that the talents for the work did not exist.  Talents don't develop

in time.  Poetry is not translated using word by word dictionary meanings.

Can people of Indian descent do better?  People must try.  To find people who have

good bilingual skills is the key.  Mr. Murty should scan the world to discover such

individuals through applications and scholarly interviews.  Taking a business short cut is 

an insult to the literature and great literary tradition of the subcontinent.      

Best regards,

BM

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

No it does not Rajiv ji These were points

1. The editorship of such a monumental work must be more diverse, and must represent the broad cross section of Indians.
2. Standards and underlying assumptions to be used in the series must be transparently discussed up front.
3. Such a massive ecosystem being built should be done in India, where it is more sustainable long term. No other major civilization outsources its study to foreign institutions in a similar manner.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[rajivmalhotra2007]

In support of your views on points 4, 5 & 6, here is a new blog today: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-pollock-petition-what-rohan-murthy-missed

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I was only responding to point 4,5,6 on its face value not is association with any blog. Thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:53 PM, rajivmalhotra2007 <rajivmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

In support of your views on points 4, 5 & 6, here is a new blog today: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-pollock-petition-what-rohan-murthy-missed

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nityanand,

Please refer to the Gita Press's English translation.  Again open any page.

I am away.  I do not know if they copied Goldman/Pollock text, but it is

equally chopped up.  The Gita Press does not say who the translator is.

I assume they copied, since a good translator would know the idiom and

the metaphor.  The trouble is the the word by word translation of the idiom.

They come out as jokes!  Please check if you have access. 

The translator also gets lost in Sanskrit syntax.  Valmiki's sentences are

long and they are not left to right, To transform them to English 

Subject-verb-object scheme needs much diligent work.  One can slaughter

easily.  

I discovered translation when I did a piece for Oxford University Press 

for a chapter on a Krishna book.  I did translation of a 15th century Mahabharata

text in Oriya language.  It took me five years for a translation of fifty pages.

I called it Srikrishna-Jagannatha.  People can check in the book "Krishna- A Source Book"

of OUP -ed Ed Bryant, 2007. Oriya is harder because inflections are less.  

The same word can be used as a noun or a verb or an adjective.  No philology

here it is pure idiom.

 

I have taken up a new Valmiki translation upon myself.  It is slow.  i might

complete by 2020.  I love his expressions.  I read it loud myself and then

I read and talk to a group every two weeks.  After some time, the poet may

talk inside (this is the foced part, it is not mechanical).  I started pieces for 

my own grandchildren, but got hooked. 

Best regards,

BM

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Prof. Misra,

Gita Press Books are published to create awareness to the common man about various Hindu texts. They are not meant for scholars. A translation is not a substitute for the original. Each translator will translate differently. Individual tastes varies. If you want to discuss further please make a new thread

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Bijoy Misra]

If you think appropriate, we might do a translation thread.  

But I do not know if we have enough people in the list with

translation interest.  We can try and generate interest.  

I can share my experience.  translation is a literary activity.

Rohan Murty can also say that he is creating "awareness",

but most times "awareness" is the only knowledge we get!

This is particularly true for the youth.  

Let me think of a thread.  I will write Monday.

[Kalivaradhan krishnamurthy]

HariH OM!

Namaste Nityanand ji,

I agree partly with your viewpoint 2 that it is Mr. Rohan Murthy's prerogative on who he chooses for a library he sets up with his own money.

Agreed.  Say, tomorrow some cash rich X Y or Z from a distant land, could be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, undertakes a project to translate our shastras and literature with a view to projecting an untrue and antagonistic  picture of them, shall we be just mute witnesses?  We may know that that is all rubbish that is depicted therein.  But what about our children and forthcoming generations fed up with untruth or partial truth?  Will it not be similar to the present agony that we are facing because of distorted Indian history wilfully orchestrated by the erstwhile foreign rulers? Are we not aware of the wilful distortions to some of the Upanishads by some of our own so-called Christian and Muslim Scholars?  We have to face two kinds of distortions 1 - In the garb of neutral True translations  2 -  Inimically inclined Translations.  I am reminded of the saying ' A known enemy is better than an unknown friend'!

When there is enough political noise on issues directly affecting our culture and tradition, will our passiveness not amount to encouraging those forces?  Especially, when a known Indian entrepreneur accords his resources and umbrella to such inimical distortions?

Yes, we must register our protest, irrespective of the reactions from them.  At the same time, the kind of initiatives suggested by Shri Rajiv ji should be pursued and supported wholeheartedly by every self-respecting Hindu.  Let us move on to that next stage together.

DhanyavadaH

kalivaradhan 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/7496FVsX3UI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:18:35 UTC+5:30, Bijoy wrote:

Dear Sri Nityanand,

Please refer to the Gita Press's English translation.  Again open any page.

I am away.  I do not know if they copied Goldman/Pollock text, but it is

 

Thanks Prof. Mishra for confirming that it is your assumption ("I assume they copied"). I do not have the translation by Goldman or Pollock. I have the Hindi translation by Gita Press, but not the English one. When you have a chance please provide an example or two. I doubt if Gita Press copied from Goldman or Pollock, but if there is evidence it may be brought to this list. 

Kind regards, Nityanand 

[Bijoy Misra]

Please identify who did their translation if you have access.  

We might start a thread on translation if there is enough bilingual interest.

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:37:01 UTC+5:30, kali wrote:

HariH OM!

Namaste Nityanand ji,

I agree partly with your viewpoint 2 that it is Mr. Rohan Murthy's prerogative on who he chooses for a library he sets up with his own money.

Agreed.  Say, tomorrow some cash rich X Y or Z from a distant land, could be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, undertakes a project to translate our shastras and literature with a view to projecting an untrue and antagonistic  picture of them, shall we be just mute witnesses?  We may know that that is all rubbish that is depicted therein.  But what about our children and forthcoming generations fed up with untruth or partial truth?  Will it not be similar to the present agony that we are facing because of distorted Indian history wilfully orchestrated by the erstwhile foreign rulers? Are we not aware of the wilful distortions to some of the Upanishads by some of our own so-called Christian and Muslim Scholars?  We have to face two kinds of distortions 1 - In the garb of neutral True translations  2 -  Inimically inclined Translations.  I am reminded of the saying ' A known enemy is better than an unknown friend'!

When there is enough political noise on issues directly affecting our culture and tradition, will our passiveness not amount to encouraging those forces?  Especially, when a known Indian entrepreneur accords his resources and umbrella to such inimical distortions?

Yes, we must register our protest, irrespective of the reactions from them.  At the same time, the kind of initiatives suggested by Shri Rajiv ji should be pursued and supported wholeheartedly by every self-respecting Hindu.  Let us move on to that next stage together.

DhanyavadaH

kalivaradhan 

I agree with you, we cannot afford to be passive, and I did not imply that. If we think a translation does not do justice to the work, we certainly have to come up with better books. If such a library is set up in India, I will be happy to contribute in whatever capacity I can.

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Since some folks here criticized the petition generated at IITB, and they know only one side of the story as it was covered in mainstream media, I would like to post below the response by Prof Ramasubramanian (IITB) whose name appeared as the first petitioner.
----------------------------------------------------

From: Krishnamurthi Ramasubramanian <mullai...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Against the petition against Prof. Pollock
To: Dominik Wujastyk <wuja...@gmail.com>
Cc: Mandyam D Srinivas <mdsrin...@gmail.com>


Dear Prof. Wujastyk,

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

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

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

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

Thanks much, and
Best regards,
-ram.

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

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

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

He has referred to the following passage cited in the earlier version of
the petition from the 2012 Heidelberg lecture of Prof. Pollock:

"Are there any decision makers, as they refer to themselves, at
universities and foundations who would not agree that, in the cognitive
sweepstakes of human history, Western knowledge has won and South Asian
knowledge has lost?  ...That, accordingly, the South Asian knowledge South
Asians themselves have produced can no longer be held to have any
significant consequences for the future of the human species?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

त्वत्कारुण्ये प्रवृत्ते क
इव नहि गुरु: लोकवृत्तेपि
भूमन् ?

Prof. Pollock only betrays his deep prejudice against the Vedic culture
when he concludes the abstract with another pronouncement that

“... [In sastras,] progress can only be achieved by a regressive
re-appropriation of the past The eternality of the Vedas, the sastra par
excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of
sastra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and
de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of
power.”

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

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

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

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

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

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thanks for posting Prof. Ramasubramanian (IITB) views. I don't know if he is a member or not. If we comment without getting his responses it might be unfair

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you, we cannot afford to be passive, and I did not imply that. If we think a translation does not do justice to the work, we certainly have to come up with better books. If such a library is set up in India, I will be happy to contribute in whatever capacity I can.

​These points of Rajiv Malhotra jis can be considered

1. The editorship of such a monumental work must be more diverse, and must represent the broad cross section of Indians.
2. Standards and underlying assumptions to be used in the series must be transparently discussed up front.
3. Such a massive ecosystem being built should be done in India, where it is more sustainable long term. No other major civilization outsources its study to foreign institutions in a similar manner.

​

​Even I agree, If such a library is set up in India, I too will be happy to contribute in whatever capacity I can.​ Lets first set up one get the books. Lets devise methods of funding etc.

[ram]

I am indeed a member, though I do not closely follow.

However, both myself and Prof. Srinivas would like to see responses of scholars on the issues raised by us in our response. Perhaps it may be a good idea to change the subject line to something like -- "Response to Dominik's posting".

Best regards,
-ram. 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

= Mod note====

Please Change the subject line and start a new thread and post discussion on that thread Thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[shivraj singh]

Murthy foundation can do what it feels like. No question about it. It is their money after all.

But the fact that they do not perceive that India has quality scholars of Sanskrit equivalent to the stature/erudition of Dr Pollock is a widespread perception.

Why is this the case?

Do Indian sanskrit scholars not publish in International journals?

Do they not write enough Sanskrit related books in English?

Even amongst PhD's from top Indian universities the perception is that research on Rg Ved or other Veds is of much higher quality in universities outside of India. Why should this be the case? Or because of our religion somehow we cannot parse our texts with critical eye? I don't  beleive this but there must be a reason.

Take another example of the recent debate between Dr Iyengar, RN  and Dr Achar, Narhari. Why is it that the might of BVPARISHAT cannot fix the date of Mahabharat war? After all the number of extant Mahabharat texts is finite and so should be the interpretations of them. But no one is doing it. This date could clinch a whole bunch of other debates like Aryan Invasion, is Indus valley civilization contemporary of Aryans, are both harappans and aryans the same etc?

Many more such examples I can give.

Indian scholars need to take a stand on various controversial issues related to Sanskrit texts, the datings (archaeo astronomical) , the geography contained in the texts and so on so forth. But we do not do it. What stops us?

Regards,

Shivraj

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 04-Mar-2016 10:20 am, "'shivraj singh' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Murthy foundation can do what it feels like. No question about it. It is their money after all.
>

If Murthy foundation is free to do what they feel right, why this petition to remove from its library and why this much hue that it is on fire?