Review of "Battle for Sanskrit"
rniyengar
sunil bhattacharjya
--
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.
Bijoy Misra
shivraj singh
Injudicious flatterers of Akbar have printed much canting nonsense about his supposed desire to do good to the conquered peoples by his annexations.[43]
Rajput Wives of Akbar
Rajput ladies who entered the Delhi royal harem became Muslims and were buried in Muslim cemeteries, they could no longer visit their parents' houses or dine with them.[46]
- With such examples as Marwar and Amer (of giving their daughters to Mughals), and with less power to resist the temptation, the minor chiefs of Rajasthan, with a brave and numerous vassalage, were transformed into satraps of Delhi.
- But these were fearful odds against Pratap. The arms of his country turned upon him, derived additional force from their self-degradation, which kindled into jealousy and hatred against the magnanimous resolution they lacked the virtue to imitate. When Hindu prejudice was thus violated by every prince in Rajasthan, the Rana renounced all matrimonial alliance with those who were thus degraded. To the eternal honour of Pratap and his issue be it told that, to the very close of the monarchy of the Moguls, they refused such alliances not only with the throne, but even with their brother princes of Marwar and Ambar. It is a proud triumph of virtue to be able to record from the autograph letters of the most powerful of the Rajput princes, Bukhet Singh and Sawai Jai Singh, that whilst they had risen to greatness by the surrender of principle, as Mewar had decayed from her adherence to it, they should solicit, and that humbly, to be readmitted to the honour of matrimonial intercourse and "to be purified," " to be regenerated," " to be made Rajputs" and that this favour was granted only on condition of their abjuring the contaminating practice (of giving daughters to Mughals) which, for more than a century, had disunited them.[52]
Hindu temples saved
Hindu temples destroyed
On the 1st Rajab 990 AD 1582 Akbar's forces encamped by a field of maize near Nagarkot. The fortress (hissãr) of Bhîm, which has an idol temple of Mahãmãî, and in which none but her servants dwelt, was taken by the valour of the assailants at the first assault. A party of Rajpûts, who had resolved to die, fought most desperately till they were all cut down. A number of Brãhmans who for many years had served the temple, never gave one thought to flight, and were killed. Nearly 200 black cows belonging to Hindûs had, during the struggle, crowded together for shelter in the temple. Some savage Turks, while the arrows and bullets were falling like rain, killed those cows. They then took off their boots and filled them with the blood and cast it upon the roof and walls of the temple.[56]
Jihad against Hindu Kings
This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful — we spend our precious time to the best of our ability in war (ghiza) and Jihad and with the help of Eternal Allah, who is the supporter of our ever-increasing empire, we are busy in subjugating the localities, habitations, forts and towns which are under the possession of the infidels (Hindus), may Allah forsake and annihilate all of them, and thus raising the standard of Islam everywhere and removing the darkness of polytheism and violent sins by the use of sword. We destroy the places of worship of idols in those places and other parts of India.[65]
Places and lands (India) which from the time of rise of the sun of Islam has not been trod by the horse-hooves of world conquering princes and where their swords had never flashed have become the dwelling places and homes of the faithful (Muslims). The churches and temples of the infidels (Hindus) and heretics have become mosques and holy shrines for the masters of orthodoxy. God (Allah) be praised![68]
Taxation on Hindus
Reaction of Hindus
When Akbar began his Qamargah hunt in the Bhera-Rohtas-Girjhaka area, many of the (Hindu) Rajput chiefs accompanying the emperor were encamped on the bank of the river Jhelum. On Akbar's reaching there the chiefs went to meet him. One Rajput chief, Danhaji, was a bit late. Akbar whipped him himself. A young Rajput prince, Prithvidipa, was allowed to play on by his maternal uncle. Akbar ordered the poor uncle to be whipped, and the self-respecting Rajput, unable to bear the insult, stabbed himself thrice with his own dagger, thereby infuriating the emperor even further and making him pass an order for having the dying rajput trampled to death by an elephant. ... When prince Dalpat Singh of Bikaner and his companions saw Akbar after cremating the Rajput's body they found him shouting "Let the Hindus consume cows .....". Stories of the way Akbar treated Hindu rajputs must have reached Maharana Pratap and made him realize the utter ignominy of submitting to Akbar.[79]
... breaking the massive bronze gates, tearing away the costly ornaments, and destroying everything which they could not carry off. Their wrath against their Mughul oppressors led them to a still more shocking outrage. Dragging out the bones of Akbar, they threw them into the fire and burnt them.[84]
rniyengar
Bijoy Misra
rajivmalhotra2007
My response to Shri Shatavadhani R. Ganesh: Abstract
I just read Shri R. Ganesh's critique
of my book, The Battle For Sanskrit.
I am going to develop a detailed point by point response in the next few days.
But meanwhile, I wanted to say a few things to prevent hasty judgments by
anyone:
I wish to start by thanking him for showing so much interest in my work. It is
a very useful criticism for various reasons. For one thing, all such responses,
regardless of their substance or reliability, serve to wake up the traditional
scholars and compel them to pay more attention to the prevailing intellectual
battlefield. Furthermore, such criticisms also give me a chance to take my
book’s debates deeper. His criticism is well-intended, and he seems to want to
“outsmart” my purva-paksha of Pollock by offering his own. That is helpful and
welcome because it expands the discourse.
However, there are numerous serious errors, misunderstanding and
contradictions, both in substance and in the logic used by him.
For one thing, he does not seem to have read much (if anything) of Pollock
directly, and uses my work as secondary access to the subject matter. (Ironically,
he criticizes me for relying upon secondary works on Sanskrit texts.) This
deprives him of the full context of Pollock's writings that I am evaluating. He
also lacks an adequate understanding of the broader Western idiom and theories
in which Pollock's work is couched. It is misleading (though a common bad habit)
to surgically pluck out a sentence here and there and rely solely on it.
Pollock's work has to be understood holistically
first, and it becomes clear that Ganesh has not taken the time to do that. My
detailed response will show this shortcoming of Ganesh in specific cases.
Nor does he seem to have understood my book correctly. He also cites one of my
prior books, but misunderstands it on important issues. For instance, he
asserts that I am against the diversity of Indian traditions. Nobody who has read
my work in detail ever said such a thing. In fact, my earlier book, Being
Different, which he cites, says the exact opposite: it contrasts Indian
diversity with the Western normative quality and Abrahamic emphasis upon
"one truth".
Actually,
a central highlight of Being Different
is that it goes beyond the common platitudes we read about our diversity, and
proposes a comprehensive theory on why
there is diversity. The contrast between what I call history-centrism
and adhyatma-vidya are key building blocks I have introduced to explain
not just the diversity in our traditions, but more importantly why this diversity
exists. This insight as to the underlying causes
of diversity in one civilization and monoculture in the other civilization is
worked out in considerable detail in my work. I doubt Ganesh has understood the
depth and implications of this theory.
Later on, in my subsequent book, Indra's Net, I develop this thesis further into what I call the open architecture of dharma systems. Not only is there immense diversity, but at the same time there is profound underlying unity - hence there is no fear of chaos as in the case of the Abrahamic systems. There is no control-obsession in our culture to the extent of the West. I explain why this is so, whereas most writers have been content merely stating that this is so, without adequately asking why.
Given that this theory of our diversity
has been one of my important areas of work, I find it disappointing that Ganesh
not only remains ignorant of it, but that he misrepresents me in exactly the
opposite direction.
Besides his inadequate understanding of both Pollock’s and my writings, Ganesh
is also making some illogical
statements. Ironically, these are made with the stated purpose of exposing
"Malhotra's pseudo-logic". I will explain this in my detailed article.
I will also argue against Ganesh's understanding of our tradition in specific
instances, the area where he should be much more qualified than I am. No doubt
he has immense memory and citation expertise. I admire him greatly for these
accomplishments. But just as an ipod machine can recite millions of things
without understanding them, I will show where he lacks proper understanding of our
traditional worldview on some of the very topics he discusses in this article.
Finally, I will address the issue he starts out with to frame me negatively in
the eyes of readers: whether I am qualified to do such a project. Our tradition
has encouraged and even valorized innovative thinkers who seemed to lack formal
training, but who successfully challenged those with eminent “credentials”. This
way to brand me right up front is an instance of his arrogance, and in my full
article I shall dwell upon the merits of a given individual’s background. I
will explain what exactly the project I have started is about (which he does
not seem to grasp properly), and my relevant experience and expertise in doing it;
I will let the reader decide for himself.
In fact, I will question whether Ganesh has the required intellectual training in specific areas of competence that are necessary for this kind of work that I have undertaken. I doubt he has much real-world experience in the global intellectual kurukshetra, which is not to be confused with meetings of “like-minded people” exchanges accolades sitting in India. For the global battlefield, what would be the relevant experience equivalent to his 1,000 avadhanas? I submit it is the experience of going out of one’s comfort zone, and into the line of enemy fire, surrounded by a hundred or more opponents, and being able to tilt the discourse in one’s favor, and come out stronger for the next encounter. I have had a very large number of these live experiences in audiences where I was the only Indian or Hindu, where there is blatant intimidation and mockery, where every attempt has been made to belittle our identity, and where I had nothing personal to gain and all my reputation and social credibility to lose. I have also had a large number of very direct online encounters with some of the toughest and most renowned Hinduphobics. Mere theoretical knowledge is not enough to be qualified in this battlefield – as I am sure Ganesh will agree, given that his avadhanas are the field-experience necessary to train him in his domain of expertise.
My point is that these are two different
types of yajnas Ganesh and I have done. They entail two distinct battlefields,
with different kinds of opponents and issues. In my case, this entailed quitting
my thriving professional life in order to dedicate myself for 25 years to do
this with full intensity. I will explain in my article what I have learned that
is critical for the present undertaking, and how the lack of this type of yajna
is a handicap Ganesh is blissfully oblivious of.
While I am aware of my shortcomings, and explain in my book the necessity for more qualified insiders like Ganesh to join as team players, he does not appreciate his own limitations in this battle. So the appreciation and respect is one-way: I do appreciate his value as an intellectual warrior. Unfortunately, his view of the kurukshetra is a limited one, having never stepped into it to experience close encounters personally – not in the global arena. This is why he could not be a team leader, being content living on a high pedestal. The kurukshetra we faace required boots on the ground as well as star wars from the sky.
I am preparing a more detailed response
to some of the glaring errors in Ganesh's article. I shall do this in the spirit
of the Indian tradition to debate opponents with mutual respect. We must set
aside issues of personality, who is who in credentials or public image. Let us
focus only on facts and arguments.
I will be back with a fuller article in a few days.
Regards,
Rajiv
sunil bhattacharjya
krishnaprasad g
--
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.
--
KP
Bvk sastry
Sent from my iPhone
Rajiv Malhotra
Sent from my iPhone
krishnaprasad g
Mr Rajiv
I am big fan of Sri Ganesh. He did not appoint me as attorney.
But I am not protecting any one.
Nethier you or any one from your family cannot become well versed in both traditional and modern subjects. So have respect
rajivmalhotra2007
Response:
- Bringing families into this is in bad taste. Please avoid this.
- What I can or cannot do is not up to you to assess, just as I do not try to pass judgment on you personally. My intent is to critique what is written by whosoever.
- I showed lots of respect for Ganesh in my post, in fact not raising issue with the numerous personal judgments he made of me - i.e. ad hominem attacks.
- Let us move on to discussions of scholarship, not personalities, please.
- Regarding my comment on iPod: I wish to clarify this is not anything intended to be personal about one individual. Rather, I wish to raise the following scholarly issue for discussions: In this age of mechanized memories, is it as important as it once was to learn huge quantities of information by heart? Is that requirement obsolete? These days many people even perform yajna, pujas, etc using recoorded chants. In my lecture at Maharishi University I asked whether this is authentic mantra. My answer was that the absence of prana makes it less useful even though the sound might be perfect. So if one agrees with me on this, then one cannot say Sanskrit mantras have nothing unique. But Ganesh said Sanskrit is merely a language and has nothing special for knowledge per se. If that is so, then why bother memorizing and why not replace all that with iPods? Please see this as a serious issue about the special status of mantra.
Thanks and regards,
rajiv
Kalicharan Tuvij
"Mediocre people are good at inventing endless objections against people who really make a difference. In this case, moreover, making a fuss about his personality is yet another way of ignoring the topics he has raised."
These are some observations, worth pondering, by Indologist Koenraad Elst.
Bijoy Misra
Rajiv Malhotra
Sent from my iPhone
Bijoy Misra
Shrinivasa Varakhedi
I appreciate all of you for taking part in this debate. But, I am sorry to note that being a member of this scholarly family I do not endorse the exchanges of words in personal level. All discussions must happen in a modest way and with a respect to each other.
Here I found that a reviewer did a critical remarks in a blog. The author can respond to him on the same blog or in any other blog and send the link to this list. I think that's better. May responses confine to the questions raised in this list. Let's not bring outside issues here and debate, when they are not directly relevant. If some scholar or author feels so, let him do so with an objective justification why he is compelled to do so.
Secondly criticising others or opponent scholar s in personal level or describing him as "ignorant" or passing a judgement about his scholarship or knowledge is not a good practice. The list Managemnt does not approve this. I am not writing this on behalf of BVP manamegemt but as a member of the list I just want to request honourable members not to force the Managemnt to keep the members under moderation or to impose restriction on him or her.
The BVP list is not a place for personal battle. It's is a place of dialogue. Please keep the spirit of dialogue.
With best regards,
Shrivarakhedi
Shrinivasa Varakhedi
Yours is a very balanced view. I like it.
If Rajiv Ji wants to win over the western schools then he has to accept the views and concerns expressed by Indian scholars. Insiders have also divergent views. However the powerful view which can be used as weapon against western scholarship should be acceptable for us. Let's try to consolidate the views.
With best regards
Shrivarakhedi
Rajiv Malhotra
Sent from my iPhone
BVP Management
Personal attacks, writing in capital letters quoting irrelevant texts, mindless extrapolation is not allowed.
Posting from Blogs and advertisements are not allowed.
Please keep these two guidelines in mind before posting further on this thread or any thread.
Ramananda Chatterjee
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:12 PM, rajivmalhotra2007 <rajivmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
My response to Shri Shatavadhani R. Ganesh: Abstract
I just read Shri R. Ganesh's critique of my book, The Battle For Sanskrit. I am going to develop a detailed point by point response in the next few days. But meanwhile, I wanted to say a few things to prevent hasty judgments by anyone:
I wish to start by thanking him for showing so much interest in my work.
It is a very useful criticism for various reasons. For one thing, all such responses, regardless of their substance or reliability, serve to wake up the traditional scholars and compel them to pay more attention to the prevailing intellectual battlefield. Furthermore, such criticisms also give me a chance to take my book’s debates deeper. His criticism is well-intended, and he seems to want to “outsmart” my purva-paksha of Pollock by offering his own. That is helpful and welcome because it expands the discourse.
However, there are numerous serious errors, misunderstanding and contradictions, both in substance and in the logic used by him.
For one thing, he does not seem to have read much (if anything) of Pollock directly, and uses my work as secondary access to the subject matter. (Ironically, he criticizes me for relying upon secondary works on Sanskrit texts.)
This deprives him of the full context of Pollock's writings that I am evaluating. He also lacks an adequate understanding of the broader Western idiom and theories in which Pollock's work is couched.
It is misleading (though a common bad habit) to surgically pluck out a sentence here and there and rely solely on it. Pollock's work has to be understood holistically first, and it becomes clear that Ganesh has not taken the time to do that. My detailed response will show this shortcoming of Ganesh in specific cases.
Nor does he seem to have understood my book correctly.
He also cites one of my prior books, but misunderstands it on important issues.
For instance, he asserts that I am against the diversity of Indian traditions. Nobody who has read my work in detail ever said such a thing. In fact, my earlier book, Being Different, which he cites, says the exact opposite: it contrasts Indian diversity with the Western normative quality and Abrahamic emphasis upon "one truth".
Actually, a central highlight of Being Different is that it goes beyond the common platitudes we read about our diversity, and proposes a comprehensive theory on why there is diversity. The contrast between what I call history-centrism and adhyatma-vidya are key building blocks I have introduced to explain not just the diversity in our traditions, but more importantly why this diversity exists. This insight as to the underlying causes of diversity in one civilization and monoculture in the other civilization is worked out in considerable detail in my work. I doubt Ganesh has understood the depth and implications of this theory.
Later on, in my subsequent book, Indra's Net, I develop this thesis further into what I call the open architecture of dharma systems. Not only is there immense diversity, but at the same time there is profound underlying unity - hence there is no fear of chaos as in the case of the Abrahamic systems. There is no control-obsession in our culture to the extent of the West. I explain why this is so, whereas most writers have been content merely stating that this is so, without adequately asking why.
Given that this theory of our diversity has been one of my important areas of work, I find it disappointing that Ganesh not only remains ignorant of it, but that he misrepresents me in exactly the opposite direction.
Besides his inadequate understanding of both Pollock’s and my writings, Ganesh is also making some illogical statements. Ironically, these are made with the stated purpose of exposing "Malhotra's pseudo-logic". I will explain this in my detailed article.
I will also argue against Ganesh's understanding of our tradition in specific instances, the area where he should be much more qualified than I am. No doubt he has immense memory and citation expertise. I admire him greatly for these accomplishments. But just as an ipod machine can recite millions of things without understanding them, I will show where he lacks proper understanding of our traditional worldview on some of the very topics he discusses in this article.
Finally, I will address the issue he starts out with to frame me negatively in the eyes of readers: whether I am qualified to do such a project. Our tradition has encouraged and even valorized innovative thinkers who seemed to lack formal training, but who successfully challenged those with eminent “credentials”. This way to brand me right up front is an instance of his arrogance, and in my full article I shall dwell upon the merits of a given individual’s background. I will explain what exactly the project I have started is about (which he does not seem to grasp properly), and my relevant experience and expertise in doing it; I will let the reader decide for himself.
In fact, I will question whether Ganesh has the required intellectual training in specific areas of competence that are necessary for this kind of work that I have undertaken.
I doubt he has much real-world experience in the global intellectual kurukshetra, which is not to be confused with meetings of “like-minded people” exchanges accolades sitting in India. For the global battlefield, what would be the relevant experience equivalent to his 1,000 avadhanas? I submit it is the experience of going out of one’s comfort zone, and into the line of enemy fire, surrounded by a hundred or more opponents, and being able to tilt the discourse in one’s favor, and come out stronger for the next encounter. I have had a very large number of these live experiences in audiences where I was the only Indian or Hindu, where there is blatant intimidation and mockery, where every attempt has been made to belittle our identity, and where I had nothing personal to gain and all my reputation and social credibility to lose. I have also had a large number of very direct online encounters with some of the toughest and most renowned Hinduphobics. Mere theoretical knowledge is not enough to be qualified in this battlefield – as I am sure Ganesh will agree, given that his avadhanas are the field-experience necessary to train him in his domain of expertise.
My point is that these are two different types of yajnas Ganesh and I have done. They entail two distinct battlefields, with different kinds of opponents and issues. In my case, this entailed quitting my thriving professional life in order to dedicate myself for 25 years to do this with full intensity. I will explain in my article what I have learned that is critical for the present undertaking, and how the lack of this type of yajna is a handicap Ganesh is blissfully oblivious of.
Shrivathsa B
It is funny to see the extent to which people can hero worship :-)
Krishnaprasad, your post is in extreme bad taste.
Rajiv Malhotra
Krishnaprasad cannot be blamed. The truth can at times be hurtful to some.
Sent from my iPhone
Rajiv Malhotra
Sent from my iPhone
--
Ajit Gargeshwari
Rajivji,
Here is my suggestion. Instead of making this thread a question and answer session let’s move to the issues raised. You are at liberty to justify you position there is no second doubt but you need not retort to every post Thanks
Rajiv Malhotra
Sent from my iPhone
Bvk sastry
I am not holding any brief or advocacy for Ganesh!
2. The merit based argument need not yield place to personal attributions in public space .
3. It is true that classical Sanskrit 'vadas' have used derogatory and abusive language in many vedanta debates, even by people of high spiritual excellence and profile. And it is taken as an expression of passion for their view than personal attack.
One sensitive word like ' maayaa-vadi' can split the most close knit group of vedanta scholars debating the most esoteric seminal issues in divine language! And it has happened! For centuries, leaving scars and wounds.
Should that happen here also? Is there a way to avoid it ?
4. The fight here is on common enemies and threats . It is not in- house internal splits.
Ganesh does seem to understand SP debate as serious and common threat to Samskruth as you have presented.
Ganesh may have different POV for his preferred reasons.
Should that be a ground for taking out common enemy battle ground issues?
I hope friends of Ganesh help to bring this clarity in their responses.!
Regards
Bvk Sastry
Sent from my iPhone
krishnaprasad g
If my words show bad taste. Then why not Rajivs
Is this a way to write about a scholar by non- scholar who doesn't even know Rama shabda
And more over he said Ganesh cannot understand Western. Isn't that shows a bad taste of him.
In his lectures he has said umpteen times that you can't understand Western Philosophy. Isn't that a bad taste ? Is me and my family are different?
Ajit Gargeshwari
Dear Krishna Prasad,
I am writing this message as a list member. Can we please move on. Let Dr. Ganesh respond if he chooses to do so. Please don’t bring in phrases such as ‘Is me and my family are different?’ etc. Lets remove the personal elements out and write only about the issues raised. I hope you have agreed to the moderators note that was sent by the moderators team and also the request made by Prof. Varakhedi not as a moderator in one of his mails on this thread. There is proverb oft quoted ‘United we win divided we fall’
krishnaprasad g
I hope friends of Ganesh help to bring this clarity in their responses.!
Regards
Bvk Sastry
Sir please tell me one valid point for why Rajiv criticizing Sri Ganesh. If he has nothing but do personal attacks what could I give clarity. If he has any thing to show he is wrong he should have written without personal attacks. Even a fool can understand his intension of his article. Just jaleousy that Ganesh did not appreciate his work.
One thing is sure. Sri Ganesh sir is doing extreme service to Indian tradition. Which Rajivs book is not even comparable.
The battle for Sanskrit should be with in. And this is doing by our Ganesh sir.
He is not selling anything for money. He gives discourses every day. By his lectures many youth from IT and other MNCs have started learning Sanskrit. He even teaches through Skype all over world and not for money. He never advertised till now or he did sell his knowledge.
Basically he is a Rank holder in Engineering. And later a product of IIsc. He is also well versed in Botany Chemistry Metallurgy. He knows more than 20 language.
Now tell me being a fan of him how can I keep mum ?
As in traditional books ,as you said, scholars uses a word Randa putra etc. also. But I did not do that.
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Best regards,
Vidyasankar
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
Is this a way to write about a scholar by non- scholar who doesn't even know Rama shabda
And more over he said Ganesh cannot understand Western. Isn't that shows a bad taste of him.
In his lectures he has said umpteen times that you can't understand Western Philosophy. Isn't that a bad taste ? Is me and my family are different?
www.lalitaalaalitah.com
Ganesh R
Salutations to all the members of this honoured list.
While thanking all the esteemed friends here for their active participation in this thread, I must confess with all my humility that both positive and negative references at the personal level become equally embarrassing and they would silence any body with a sense of discomfort. It would be more so in such forums which are devoted for objective interactions. Hence my request is for an objective cooperation.