My review of The Battle for Sanskrit

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear list members,

Please find my detailed review of Rajiv Malhotra’s The Battle for Sanskrit:

Online reading: https://www.academia.edu/25071774/The_Battle_for_Sanskrit_Review

Download link: https://www.academia.edu/attachments/45394244/download_file

The abstract is below. Your feedback and comments are welcome. 

Thanks, Nityānanda

Enter Dhṛṣṭadyumna, Pāṇḍava-s awaited

Boldly strong, The Battle for Sanskrit is an effective war cry

Despite its neglect by scholars in the Western academic world, Rajiv Malhotra’s recent bestselling and impactive book ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ (TBFS) succeeds in its objective and will resonate with its target readers: traditional Sanskrit scholars in India as well as English-speaking right-leaning Hindus across the world. Malhotra raises hard questions and presents grim facts in lucid vocabulary and a style which is a combination of academic, critical, trenchant, and motivational. He summarizes debatable and objectionable views and theories of Sheldon Pollock and what he calls ‘American Orientalism’; offers counter-views and alternate theories; and exhorts traditional Sanskrit scholars to critique Pollock’s works, views, and theories more substantially. In this article, I present a detailed review of the book and highlight what in my opinion are the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Although I have a favourable opinion of Malhotra’s book, I hope the contents of the article will prove useful, for the purpose of discussions and debates around the issues raised in the book, to even readers who are neutral or opposed to Malhotra’s views. In addition to an appendix on proofreading errors in TBFS, the article includes two more appendixes—one critiquing Pollock’s claim of an instance of semantic inversion and another analyzing contents of a recent statement that Pollock signed.

Keywords: Keywords: The Battle for Sanskrit, Rajiv Malhotra, Sheldon Pollock, Sanskrit, Indian studies.

[S Saha]

>It is shocking to read that young students are made to recite a Hinduphobic song by anunnamed untouchable and compose their own responses addressed to the Hindu God Rāma.

What. Really?What is the song,by the way?

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 6 May 2016 11:33:44 UTC+5:30, S Saha wrote:

>It is shocking to read that young students are made to recite a Hinduphobic song by anunnamed untouchable and compose their own responses addressed to the Hindu God Rāma.

What. Really?What is the song,by the way?

It is on pages 339 and 340 of TBFS. My copy of the book is marked with my notes, so I would rather not post the snaps. Perhaps somebody can post the snapshots or type it out. 

[Sivasenani Nori]

I think the full section needs to be read to understand the context. I am attaching the same.

Regards
N Siva Senani

[Nityanand Misra]

Many thanks to Sh. Sivasenani Ji for sharing the snaps.

[rajivmalhotra2007]

First of all, I want to thank Nityananda Misra ji (NM) for putting in so much effort to read my book closely and write a balanced review. It is indeed very helpful to me. I will pass on many editing issues he has raised to my publisher for correcting future print runs.

There are a few important points I wish to make below, some of which are responses to the review, while others serve to add further clarification.

1) American Orientalism:

Since each civilization has had its own history of encounters with the west, each has its own distinct kind of experience of Orientalism. The Chinese have a field of study called Occidentalism in which they reverse the gaze upon the west. Blacks call this Whiteness Studies (led by Nell Painter who wrote “The history of white people”, and numerous others). Hispanics have produced extensive work giving their side. Edward Said’s Orientalism was largely the Arab experience of the west though it did lip service to India.

However, the Indian study of Orientalism has been most intensely from the Left in its postcolonial studies. I have written before on this, as to where it falls short. First, it is NOT done from a Vedic traditional standpoint at all, and it regurgitates the liberal white American self-criticism. So these Indians are parroting what liberal white Americans write about their culture a critical way. This has morphed into subaltern studies, where it adopted the western liberal lens that had been developed to sympathize with the non-white oppressed, and they started to use that lens to attack Indian civilization’s “oppression of the masses”. So it turned into self-hatred in the hands of the Left. Second, these leftist/postcolonialists are fed by the US establishment, and hence their tendency is to respect certain boundaries when it comes to criticizing the west. Third, such criticisms tend to conflate USA and Europe with a single brush, which is patently wrong. The very purpose of chapter 2 is to highlight this difference between Europe and America.

In particular, the Pollock school per se has not come under the microscope now. I will return to this issue in the final point below.

2) Dalit anti-Ram song:

Please note that this song appears in a section of my book, titled, “Third party echoes: Pollock’s ideas go viral”. The purpose there is to show how his ideas went viral through third-party echoes. In other words, the examples being cited in this section are not Pollock’s own writings but those of others who have become influenced by him, and who started to echo them forcefully in many forums.

The anti-Ram song I cite was in a teacher training manual funded by the US federal government’s National Endowment for Humanities. This was in the mid-1990s. Lynn Cheney, wife of Dick Cheney, was the head of the NEH. The purpose of this US gov’t project was to bring “multiculturalism” into US schools by teaching the Ramayana as an example of non-Christian faiths. The book was a guide for teachers to teach the Ramayana in US schools, purportedly under the guise of bringing them an appreciation of the third world. It was clearly a method of popularization that was clearly driven by human rights agendas. That was still the early stage of US interventions in Dalit affairs.

Soon after it came out in the mid-90s, I started a campaign to criticize it on grounds that it was inappropriate for American teenagers, because they lacked the maturity and background about Hinduism to be able to appreciate such material a balanced manner. Please read the protest letter we wrote to the government authorities:  http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITnehletterframeset.htm

There was feeble support for my efforts from political/religious Hindu leaders at that time. They were too arrogant, defensive, dismissive of my findings, etc. Only many years later they started to show interest in these issues I had raised.

I am glad to say the US government decided to end this program to “popularize the Ramayana” in US schools.

This was one of the mobilizations we did long before it became fashionable for Hindu groups to fight against school textbook biases. In fact, it was such early activism by a few of us that gave birth to most of the groups that are active today - such as HAF, DANAM, CAPEEM, etc.)

3) NM wrote: “it is a bit too much to expect a chair professor on Hinduism in Western academia to be an active disciple of a guru and have a traditional lifestyle.”

Response: There is precedence for this in US academics. Please note that almost all the faculty for Judaism Studies are officially ordained rabbis. Many Sikh studies chairs and Buddhism chairs are practicing persons and teachers from their respective faith. In the latter case they tend to be disciples of the Dalai Lama. I also have experience installing such faculty in a manner that achieves our goals without violating the rules of equal opportunity for hiring. If one wants to do this, there are some methods available.

But the Columbia chair bandwagon was enamored by the secular, critical and leftist (so-called “objective”) approach. They were going with the flow of the academic momentum and not wanting to question it at all. This is what happens when our side lacks any critical response capabilities and the audacity to carry it out.

The real issue is whether Sringeri has the faculty to supply. The individuals would need not only Sanskrit knowledge and training in multiple ways, but also English and modern idiom competence. Why should the center started by Adi Shankara based on his debating and scholarly skills be incapable of supplying the finest experts on the same topic today?

4) NM wrote: “writing new itihāsa‑s or smṛti‑s in Sanskrit may not serve much purpose…”

Response: I accept that it need not be in Sanskrit. So let it be in English and Indian languages for the public. I am not thinking of itihas and smriti in the old sense. Think of Harry Potter movies as western attempts to produce their equivalent of purana/itihas and kavyas. We need modern contemporary works inspired by and consistent with our own values. Who will do this?

I find leftist’s and Christians hijacking the performing arts, especially dance. A common theme now is to perform Hindu dance with proper dress/symbols and grammar, but telling stories about Jesus and about human rights abuses in Indian society. (A conference is being discussed that would expose this influence of Pollock and give responses from our side.)

 Regarding new smritis: Pollock’s liberation philology is in fact a movement by his school to develop what amounts to the equivalent of new smritis. These works would champion human rights of the oppressed through new theories, codes, regulations, quotas, laws, and even international legal dictates imposed upon India. I regret to say that our thought leaders are on the defensive, rather than leading such innovation from our Vedic perspective.

NM wrote: “all leaders or teachers of Hindu religious institutions and movements cannot be expected to understand and debate Islam and Christianity.”

Response: Not all, but the major leaders must have this experience, especially those sent to represent us in global forums. A competitive team must know the theater it will play in, and understand the other teams it will be playing against. In my 46 years living in the west, I did not find our representatives (government, Hindu organizations, Hindu political groups) to be on par with others in this capability. I found them very ignorant and not even aware of their own limitations. Too blind sighted and arrogant to listen and understand to new inputs.

5) NM wrote: “he ignores works like Satyārtha Prakāśa and Vedārthapārijātaḥ when he asks why Hindu leaders failed to do ‘purva-paksha of Islam, Christianity and Western secular thought’.

Response: I am aware of these works, but aren’t they dated? Are we assuming the world has been static since then, and so we can rest passively because “someone long ago already did it”? Even to the extent such works would still be up to date, they are hardly taught, hardly mainstream in our collective consciousness. This is an area that needs constant activity by our side. There is no such things as ultimate/final purva-paksha/uttara-paksha of the dynamic, competing civilizations that are on the march.

6) My two important concluding remarks on this review:

A)   A) Nityananda Misra ji completely ignores discussing Pollock’s lens/tool kit. He picks small issues of isolated factoids here and there. But what makes Pollock important in the first place? What is new and different about him compared to earlier Indologists? Until this is clear, it would seem like a lot of fuss about one Western scholar out of so many. In fact, I wrote this book to address this issue. Figuring out Pollock is what took most of my time, and not minute details here and there. I refer readers to my summary article, “The challenges of understanding Sheldon Pollock”. Read: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/rajiv-malhotra-explains-the-challenges-of-understanding-sheldon-pollock

B)  

B) This takes me to the final point: Where are the Pandavas? My book diagnoses why this kind of response from our side did not happen all these decades, and what blockages we must remove in order to facilitate it. Rather than leading such a Pandava force, some of our prominent leaders got defensive, and started attacking me for suggesting that they must wake up and do something. One of them has famously claimed that all this response to the Pollock school had already been done, and he listed 40 names. I responded by requesting for a bibliography of such writings that critique Pollock’s work, and I am yet to hear back with any shred of evidence. The fact is that very few among our senior leaders truly understand the nature of this threat we face. I am fortunate to have the blessings and endorsement from many of them. I am humbled by the support I get from them. Here is my view of the way ahead: What we need to do (and will do) is to develop new Pandavas. Prof Kannan’s forthcoming conferences on responses to Pollock will be the start of such a Pandava response. The leaders with cynical attitudes toward this mobilization will be bypassed. We hope they will leave us alone to do our svadharma.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 7 May 2016 20:18:54 UTC+5:30, rajivmalhotra2007 wrote:

First of all, I want to thank Nityananda Misra ji (NM) for putting in so much effort to read my book closely and write a balanced review. It is indeed very helpful to me. I will pass on many editing issues he has raised to my publisher for correcting future print runs.

Rajiv Ji

Thanks for your comments, it is useful to read your views. I agree with many things you say, and disagree with some others, but I guess that is but natural: muṇḍe muṇḍe matirbhinnā. 

I would like to mention two things

1) The focus of my article is the book TBFS, and not Pollock's oeuvre or lens. My comments on Pollock's statements are mostly in footnotes or appendixes: these being tangential to the main article, it is natural that the treatment is superficial. If I were to write a paper (like the one by Hanneder) or a book (like TBFS) to specifically critique a paper or the body of work of an author, the focus and hence the treatment will be much different.

2) It is not easy to develop new Pāṇḍava-s. It takes natural talent and years of sādhanā to be a Bhīma or an Arjuna, many can be like them (bhīmārjunasamā yudhi, BG 1.4) but not equal to them. The words of a senior leader may amount to criticism, but there does exist a nyāya that criticism is not for criticizing something but for praising what is praiseworthy: na hi nindā nindyaṃ nindituṃ pravartate’pi tu vidheyaṃ stotum. We can surely learn a lot even from the criticism of tall scholars.  

We live in interesting times. 

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nityanand,

I have difficulty to understand the observation in your mail.  If you have not spent some time in understanding

Prof Pollock's views, how would you disagree with what Rajiv Malhotra is observing.  The point that Rajv

makes is not that Prof Pollock is not studious, what he says is that Prof Pollock uses a political lens.

Rajiv's observation might look distant because of his insertion of Shankara chair episode, but that

won't diminish the power of his presentation on the denigration of the scriptures and the cultural use 

of Sanskrit language.   

My father was freedom fighter.  He would tell us stories about how informers would caution the activists

on the impending British raid.  Rajiv is such an informer.  To evaluate the quality of messaging is different

than to appreciate the message itself.  "House is under attack" has content value and no speech value.

The reason I admire Rajiv because it is a different kind of journalism.  We don't check the style, syntax

or the packaging, but the contents.  That he has made a readable book on a difficult topic to alert immigrants 

like me and native scholars like you is the compliment we offer.  

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

--
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.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 9 May 2016 08:21:17 UTC+5:30, Bijoy wrote:

Dear Sri Nityanand,

I have difficulty to understand the observation in your mail.  If you have not spent some time in understanding

Prof Pollock's views, how would you disagree with what Rajiv Malhotra is observing.  The point that Rajv

makes is not that Prof Pollock is not studious, what he says is that Prof Pollock uses a political lens.

Rajiv's observation might look distant because of his insertion of Shankara chair episode, but that

won't diminish the power of his presentation on the denigration of the scriptures and the cultural use 

of Sanskrit language.   

My father was freedom fighter.  He would tell us stories about how informers would caution the activists

on the impending British raid.  Rajiv is such an informer.  To evaluate the quality of messaging is different

than to appreciate the message itself.  "House is under attack" has content value and no speech value.

The reason I admire Rajiv because it is a different kind of journalism.  We don't check the style, syntax

or the packaging, but the contents.  That he has made a readable book on a difficult topic to alert immigrants 

like me and native scholars like you is the compliment we offer.  

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

Dear Bijoy Mishra Ji

My statement (I agree with many things you say, and disagree with some others) was in response to Rajiv Malhotra Ji's mail on this thread. In the mail, Rajiv Ji said many things apart from his observations on Pollock's lens. So what led you to conclude that I disagreed with Rajiv Ji's observations on Pollock's lens? If you read my article, I have covered, and also agreed with, Rajiv Ji's observations regarding the political side/aspects of Pollock's writing at several places. 

You say "We don't check the style, syntax or the packaging, but the contents." To you, a book review should perhaps focus only on the message of the book. I am a bibliophile, and I love the whole process of producing a book (design, typesetting, printing, binding, etc). To me, a book review should also talk about these finer aspects. That does not mean I discount or ignore the message of the book. I cover these aspects over half a page in a 30-page article. I hope that is not too much? You may want read note 75 on page 18 in my article.

Most book reviews do not include comments on design and typesetting, and most book reviewers do not know these fine aspects well enough. Contrast this with movie reviews where technical aspects like visuals and special effects are commonly commented upon. To me design and typesetting are very important in a book as they impact readability, though not as important as the content of the book.

As well as the first statement in section 5.2 on the same page

Finally, some comments on finer aspects of the book which are primarily the publisher’s responsibility but with which the author should be concerned.

Thanks, Nityanand 

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

I don't think one should not include comments about design, typesetting etc in book-reviews, but it's not the same as visual effects in a film. Visual effects in a film most often happen to be well integrated with the content and contribute towards रस etc, like वर्ण-s in a good काव्य. On the other hand design and typesetting generally don't relate to the content except in the case of themed design which I think is not present in the book under question.

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

I don't wish to argue,.  I gave an example of "House is under fire."

In our fields of physical sciences, it is called the signal theory.

In certain situations the signal itself is the rasa!

One could imagine this by meeting one's mother as might have

happened to many on Mother's Day yesterday!

Best regards,

BM 

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:30 AM, उज्ज्वल राजपूत <ujjwal....@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think one should not include comments about design, typesetting etc in book-reviews, but it's not the same as visual effects in a film. Visual effects in a film most often happen to be well integrated with the content and contribute towards रस etc, like वर्ण-s in a good काव्य. On the other hand design and typesetting generally don't relate to the content except in the case of themed design which I think is not present in the book under question.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Bijoy Mishraji,

We have to look critically at what Sheldon Pollock says or writes and fight against what he does detrimental to us. Actually, what Pollock did was to put his findings/observations in the chronological framework so meticulously prepared by his western predecessors. Added to that was his western theological convictions,and  we have what Pollock said. Today we can fight it out with this Pollock, but tomorrow another Pollock will rise to take the present Pollock's place.  I think it is important that we demolish the western-conspired Indian chronology once-for-all and establish the true Indian chronology, so that no more Pollock can rise in future.

Regards,

[Mārcis Gasūns]

Namaste,

And state that Sanskrit is 10 000 year old? Pollock came after Whitney and same wave of shock came after. He is asking - what has come to India? How come?

[Sati Shankar]

mAnyavar

Situation is becoming clearer now with new discoveries based on scientific testing, we have to come out with all the mental and social taboos, we are no more colonized and are free to think and breath.

Quoting the link from this thread... http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/linguistics/science-indus-script-sanskrit-language-01777.html

Stay fast to re-write own history and destiny.

Best wishes

Sati Shankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Now it is widely known that the archaeological findings like those in the Indus valley (Saraswati-Sindhu basin) site-exacavations  have pushed back the Indian antiquity. If I remember correctly, even the famous historian Romila Thapar also concedes that the historical implications of these new archaeological findngs have to be recognized.

Added to this, the recent availability of the sophisticated astronomical softwares, combined with search for the appropriate data and their proper interpretation, given us new tools for historical work. Recent astronomical studies by Prof.date of the Narahari Achar on the dates of Lord Buddha and  of King Kanishka  have convincingly proved that the historicai information given in the Puranas and in the Rajatarangini are right. It is little known that Dr. Achar has worked on the astronomical dating of Adi Shankaracharya also.

The Rajataarangini, the Mahabharata and the Puranas have abundant historical and astronomical data, which should be utilized to examine the traditional beginning of the Kali era, when Lord Krishna passed away and the Pandavas installed Parikshit on the Hastinapur-throne and then they left for vanavasa. The date of the Mahabharata war is an extremely important milestone in the ancient Indian History and I sincerely hope that a fresh study of the astronomical and other data given in the Mahabharata and the use of the astronomical tools will help us in finding the date of the Mahabharata war.

Regards,

Sunil Bhattacharjya

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Kindly permit me to send the message anew, as it remained incomplete and there was some garbling in that last mail.The corrected mail is as below:

Namaste

Now it is widely known that the archaeological findings like those in the Indus valley (Sarasvati-Sindhu basin) site-exacavations have pushed back the Indian antiquity. If I remember correctly, even the famous historian Romila Thapar also concedes that the historical implications of these new archaeological findngs have to be recognized.

Added to this, the recent availability of the sophisticated astronomical softwares, combined with search for the appropriate data and their proper interpretation, have given us new tools for historical work. Recent astronomical studies by Prof. Narahari Achar on the dates of Lord Buddha and of King Kanishka have convincingly proved that the historical information given in the Puranas and in the Rajatarangini are right. It is little known that Prof.. Achar has also worked on the astronomical dating of Adi Shankaracharya.

The Rajataarangini, the Mahabharata and the Puranas have abundant historical and astronomical data, which should be utilized to examine the traditional beginning of the Kali era, when Lord Krishna passed away and the Pandavas installed Parikshit on the Hastinapur-throne and then they left for vanavasa. The date of the Mahabharata war is an extremely important milestone in the ancient Indian History and I sincerely hope that a fresh study of the astronomical and other data given in the Mahabharata and the use of the astronomical tools will help us in finding the date of the Mahabharata war.

These datings will automatically prove beyond doubt the antiquity of the Sanskrit language.

Regards,

Sunil Bhattacharjya

[Sati Shankar]

mAnyavar

An internet group by its own nature works as motivator. Once attention is craved to some idea,possibly after a numerable conversation, it says good bye.... 

 What is important is that those who feel capable of contributing and when find topic of a thread compatible to their capability should begin sticking to that topic like professionals, 

introduce division of labour to avoid repetitions, and contribute to develop the topic, and after some significant amount pf contribution is made, they can put all together as a workshop for final discussion. and finally output should come to public as contribution to the topic. This way we can add more value to the time we devote to read threads.

I am writing this not to suggest or hurt in any way the learned members of this group, but is what I have been feeling myself. We come cross so many topics, become excited for some time and the out of sight out of mind.... 

Regards

SS

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 9:57:30 AM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Sati Shankarji,

 

We have discussed the book enough. Research is always incremental it was happening in the past, now and future. I do not see any point in opening this thread and discussing the same topic. Our Group member has reviewed the book and the review is available publicly. One cannot stick to one topic for ever .

[Sati Shankar]

Dear Ajit ji

Yes i agree . what I said is not confined to this, but in  relation  to our  history and new findings.

I am afraid two topics got mixed.

regards

ss

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 9:57:30 AM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote: