How Hinduphobia Rears Familiar Head In American AcademiaPressure from Hinduphobic academicians has forced the administration of University of California, Irvine to backtrack unprofessionally after announcing the setting up of chairs for the study of Indic civilizational studies.

The gatekeepers of American academia have struck again. This time, the gate has been slammed on the face of Dharma Civilization Foundation (DCF), a California non-profit that aimed to promote the multidisciplinary study of Dharma at accredited institutes of higher education. “We were motivated by the desire to advance an integral and transformative approach to understanding the Indic culture, religions and civilization that will support a narrative of India’s past which is consistent with the actual lived experience of dharma,” says Dr Shiva Bajpai, President of DCF.

DCF’s vision found enthusiastic support from donors such as the Thakkar family which contributed US$ 1 million to set up a chair in Vedic and Indic Civilization Studies at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Other donors came forward to establish chairs in Sikh studies, Jain studies and Modern India studies and soon the UCI was all set for four chairs with grants amounting to a total of US$ 6 million.

At a gathering in the UCI campus attended by 100 people in May 2015, the Dean of UCI’s School of Humanities Dr Georges Van Den Abbeele thanked thedonors and held out a hope for creating a Center of Excellence for Indic Civilizational Studies at UCI.

Meanwhile, the old guard steeped in what is now recognized by many as leftist-secular or Hinduphobic ideologies, saw a grave danger to the established order and fell into a massive seizure. Led by professors from the UCI’s Centre for Asian studies, who were perhaps miffed at the idea that an independent chair on Indic studies could soon challenge their ideologies, a campaign was orchestrated to halt DCF’s initiative.

A petition was launched to declare that both DCF and donors were a part of “right-wing Hindu group of organizations that has been known to undermine Indian pluralism” and that they would lead to “a privileging of upper-caste ‘Vedic’ Hindu identity. An alarm was raised that only “certain kinds of religious practitioners” who would “not represent the intellectual richness andrigour” of the university would be selected to teach courses, which would lower the “standards of academic excellence”. The petition was signed by over 400 academicians including prominent personalities such as Wendy Doniger, Michael Witzel and Sheldon Pollock who have built their reputation with papers portraying Hindus as oppressive, casteist, misogynist, sex-starved and violent.

Let us examine just one of the signatories of the petition: Shefali Chandra, Associate Professor of South Asian History, Washington University in St. Louis.She has published a paper titled “The World’s Largest Dynasty: Caste, Sexuality and the Manufacture of Indian “Democracy”” which makes the casethat “the myth of India is a necessary camouflage for an upper caste

autocracy characterized by militarism, genocide and occupation.” The entire list of signatories reads like the Who’s Who of Hinduphobes.

The petition against the establishment of the DCF-Thakkar Family Chair at UCIwas followed by demands for a review of the agreement between the concerned parties. Allegations were made against the Dean and other administrators for not having a meaningful consultation with other faculty.

Kalyan Viswanathan, Executive Vice-President of DCF sought to allay apprehensions by explaining that the aim of establishing the chairs was to widen and diversify the study of Indic traditions and culture; from being predominantly focused on applying Western models to being more culturally sensitive. In an article on the DCF website he said it was important to take seriously the self-understanding of non-western Indic cultures and religions as“lived traditions” of fellow Americans, and include dimensions such as philosophy and ethics from an insider’s (emic) perspective which barely exist today. He pointed out that ‘Women’s studies’ have benefited from having women scholars, ‘African American studies’ have benefited from having African Americans scholars, and Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, or Islamic Studies, have all benefited from respectively having scholar-practitioners as active participants in these fields. “Such scholars are not questioned about their objectivity, but are, in fact, respected for their unique experiences and perspectives, as well as the depth, nuance, and academic rigor they are able to bring to academia,” said Mr Viswanathan. “DCF holds that such scholar-practitioners of Hinduism would bring the same to Hindu Studies,” he added.

However, in a development that can only be called a matter of shame for the University of California, Irvine, the authorities decided to discard the US$3 million gift they received for the DCF-Thakkar chair and to review the remaining US$3 million gifts for other chairs. By buckling under pressure froma vicious campaign organised by a few South Asian faculty members, the Humanities Executive Committee and the Dean of the School of Humanities displayed a complete lack of spine.

The review committee that forced UCI to discard the donors came up with a comment that the terms of DCF were exclusionary, preventing some from applying for positions, which was against the public-hiring rules that UCI is governed by. The ridiculousness of the comment can be understood by askingif there us any discrimination involved when a job position specifies a PhD degree. If not, then why should an emic-seeking group be pilloried with “discriminatory” labels, when it seeks emic-candidates? An etic (outsiders) perspective invariably views Hinduism through privileged lens of Western experiences, whereas an emic perspective will offer a different viewpoint thathonours the sacred.

The review committee also made unsubstantiated charges against Dharma Civilization Foundation raising “Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt” (FUDs), which are commonly used in disinformation campaigns.

Said Mr Viswanathan: “The overwhelming message that these faculty

members have delivered through their public petitioning, and highly prejudicial open letters, is that the Hindus are not welcome to participate at the academic table. We have to wonder, what indeed is the academic freedom that these faculty members are defending? Is it the freedom to accuse, abuse and slander freely and without any check? Why single out the Hindu American community when Religious Studies Chairs and centres are currently funded, as a norm, by various religious communities with diverse viewpoints? Why so much irrational hostility towards the Hindu community?”

The UCI petition brings back memories of the California textbook controversy of 2005. At that time, the Hindus of California had called out the innumerable inaccuracies in the depiction of Hindus in school textbooks and requested for editing them out. To take one example, they had asked for assertions such as “Men had many more rights than women,” in ancient India to be corrected to “Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed.”

California’s Curriculum Commission had endorsed most of the edits suggested by Hindu groups. This caught the attention of Professor Michael Witzel of Harvard University, who organised a campaign along with fellow Indologists (some of whom have also signed the latest UCI petition) to opposethe edits on the grounds that they were unscholarly and politically and religiously motivated. Ultimately, more than 80% of the corrections proposed by Hindu groups were not approved.

From 2005 until now, clones of Professor Michael Witzel have multiplied manifold within an academic ecosystem that only supports peers who look at Hinduism through the lens of Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis and atrocity perpetuation. Ironically, a large section of these peers are of Indian origin.

Thus, even today, a high schooler studying ‘World Civilizations: Global Experience’ (AP Edition) textbook will come across sentences such as: “The Indian caste system is perhaps the most extreme expression of a type of social organization that violates the most revered principles on which modernWestern societies are based.”

Intellectual honesty would demand that instead of taking the moral high ground, these books would dwell equally on the issues of inequalities, racism and human rights violations of various kinds that continue to plague societiesall over the world, including modern, western societies.

Meanwhile, there is a growing build-up of opinion led by thinkers such as Rajiv Malhotra that it is pointless to set up chairs on Indic civilization or Hinduism studies within western academia. Given that it costs as much as US$ 4 million for setting up one academic chair in USA he believes it would be far better to use the money to set up a whole department of scholars in India with the concentrated goal to develop a new discourse. “As an example,a centre to develop a Hindu perspective on women’s status and role could be tasked to produce game changing discourse on that theme,” he argues in an article in Swarajya.

In his recent best-selling book “The Battle for Sanskrit”, Mr. Malhotra has argued for rebuilding the traditional institutions of learning in India, which have been stripped of their spirituality by western Indologists and their cohorts. He has even named the sophisticated perpetrators of “American Orientalism” who have captured the discourse on Indian history and culture with scant regard for sacred traditions, while pretending to be well-wishers of all things Hindu or Indian.

Mr Vishwanathan perceives the situation differently. While he agrees with Mr Malhotra that there is a need for a new corpus of content and discourse, he does not think it has to only come from India. For the generations of Indian-origin children who will pursue an education in America, there is an urgent need for schools and colleges that offer Indic civilization studies from the insiders’ or emic perspective. “We live in a global world and academicians from India will have to collaborate with the world in inaugurating this new corpus of content and discourse,” he asserts.

According to him, India is disadvantaged by two historical realities:

1) that a flourishing discipline within the academia, which is equivalent to thestudy of divinity within a Hindu context, was never allowed to develop; and

2) that the brightest students in India still favor the disciplines of science, math, engineering and medicine.

“The argument that investments can be better safeguarded in India, while not so much in the West, belies the reality that India is also infiltrated heavily by the same mentalities that make scholars hostile towards Hindu Dharma,” says Mr Viswanathan. “The question is not whether we invest a mere US$4 million here in the West or in India - which represents a scarcity mentality. Weneed to be looking at how to generate US$400 million, where US$200 million can be invested in India, and US$200 million around the world.”

Every community has had to struggle against prejudice and bias that gets entrenched in institutions, and masquerades for a time as the truth - the Jewish community has had to fight for respect and legitimacy. Women have had to fight it. In the early days even Catholics had to fight for this in America.

Intellectual freedom of the academia is essential for the progress of society. That freedom was intrinsic to ancient India. What we are witnessing today is adomination of academia by etic voices, especially with regard to Hinduism. It is high time the voices of traditional scholars with an emic perspective were included. Pluralism is integral to freedom.

The latest clampdown by a blatantly Hinduphobic American academia has made it imperative for all those who stand for justice to join hands and collaborate. There is a need to speak in one voice against the biased dominant academic consensus.

Indic knowledge Hinduphobia United States of America9197Sahana SinghSahana Singh is a writer /editor who specializes in environmental issues, current affairs and Indian history. She is a member of Indian History Awareness and Research, a think tank based in Houston.

She can be reached by email Sahana.singh@gmail.com, on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/sahana.singh.10) and Twitter (@singhsahana).

50 CommentsSwarajyamag Login1 Recommend 8 ShareSort by BestAvatarJoin the discussion…

Avatarpshakkottai • 13 days agoThere is a need to promote Dharma studies in India. The West had a field day for 200 years doing mischief and almost eliminate Sanskritic culture and claim that the West knows more than India on Indian culture. This is rubbish. They don't know Indic cultures and misinterpret every thing from their view point, political power play. If you let foreign powers control the studies how long will it last? We know the West has ulterior motives regarding Indic Civilization, essentially destroy and harvest souls. India made a mistake with Islam. It can't continue these mistakes again.9 • Reply•Share › Avatarbeanpole • 12 days agoThe brilliant petition has a COLONIAL MAP of the "INDIAN EMPIRE" in 1909, with utterly pseudo-scientific division of India into "races" by a COLONIAL SUPERINTENDENT Herbert Risley in 1901. "Races" like "Aryo-Dravidian", "Scytho-Dravidian", "Indo-Aryan", "Turko-Iranian", "Mongolo-Dravidian" etc etc - supposedly revealing present day India's "diversity".

Thumbnail

Just brilliant show of scientific rigour. "Scythian", "Aryan", "Dravidian" etc are now RACES.

More on Herbert Risley, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"As an exponent of race science, he used the ratio of the width of a nose to its height to divide Indians into Aryan and Dravidian races, as well as seven castes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...see more6 • Reply•Share › Avatarbeanpole beanpole • 12 days agoPS - These people should be exposed for what this reveals about their "Idea of India".3 • Reply•Share › AvatarSSM • 12 days agoAmong liberal circles in the US, it has become fashionable to be pro-Islam andanti-anything that Islam hates (including Hinduism). Why do you think so many people are rejecting these liberals and voting for Trump?6 • Reply•Share › Avataramart • 13 days agoRajiv Malhotra has highlighted beautifully this problem in his book breaking india.6 • Reply•Share › AvatarAChakra • 13 days agoThe article is a brilliant one. However it overlooks the fact that no doctrine is taken seriously in alien land unless the same has strong roots at home. The study on Dharmic tradition must be started in India. To raise funds, the scholars must pursue indian billionairs. The target students need not be thoseseeking employements. This is marketing.Target students could be somewhatsettled and educated businessmen, the monks of various traditions like RK mission, Mata Amritanandmayi Ashrams etc. The pvt university must give Masters and Doctorates. Professional priests also can be among the target students. ( A yajman is more likely to prefer a priest with a doctorate in Dharmic studies) . Our major risk is not from foreigners who donot understand dharma. But major risk arises when Indian themselves do not understand Dharma. If we need to engage with foreigners at all, then it must start with commentary on Abrahmic religions by the dharmic scholars. Then the west, rather than us, would be anxious for engaging with us.5 • Reply•Share › Avatarpshakkottai AChakra • 12 days agoThe West has been engaging with us for a few hundred years unsuccessfully. Ihope it continues the same way. Success for the West was colonization and soul harvesting. They are still at it.4 • Reply•Share › Avatar

Ergo AChakra • 12 days agoGreat ambition. But based on imagination. 80 crore of Indian population of whom more than 80% are Hindus of whom, your priests, your monks, are infinitesimal. And all of them won't join any seminars let alone international like Swami Vivekananda. They will received their masters and bachelors and see how best they can use the paper degrees for their and their loved ones welfare. Sastra University, Thanjavur has recently started MA degree course in Vaishnavism. In Madras University, it was already there for decades. Annamalai University conducts diploma course in Saiva Sithantham. Since all are correspondence courses, pensioners and persons about to retire, join the courses; to acquire knowledge to better understand their respective sect, not Hindu religion entire. The departments are wooing candidates but they come from pensioner groups or priests only. Rarely some others. But never a youth.

To start with commentary on Abrahamic religions, first and foremost, you should know such religions deeply. With ignorance, you cannot approach the subject of giving them fit reply. I will give you one example. In TN, when the anti brahmin movement was on high tide, the brahmins and their supporters vs Dravidian leaders. A debate took place in Madras University between the popular Dravidian leader who later became CM of TN by name Annaurai and the HOD of Tamil department R P Sethupillai on Ramayanam. The debate is still available in print. Awesome mastery of both ithihasas from Annadurai. Another example is Zakir Naik. He has mastery of Hindu scriptures which he uses for his purpose.

The moral of the story is that if you want to argue with other religious people,you must first know them. And it is well nigh impossible to find interested people from among the Hindu population. I don't hope you can make them aware. For politics based on religion, it may be possible but for spiritual pursuits like understanding the religion, they have no time and capability.2 • Reply•Share › AvatarJayZ • 13 days agoBrilliant article,3 • Reply•Share › Avatarkrishna • 12 days agoMost of US media, academia , politicos sold out to Saudi and Islamic money . Rot in these areas and divisions sowed in US societiy is deep and surely US going Nehru way from Obama onwards. Saudis are to Obama as Gsndhi was to Nehru.1 • Reply•Share › Avatardr.viraj pradhan • 12 days agoThere is a need to speak in one voice---Very correct but who is listening?All are so self-centered and wish to show themselves to be secular,oh-so British/American that this very idea is defeated.We have been complacent thinking that we are in majority here in India and no one can hurt us.Even a Hindu( at least name-wise) journalist asked what are you worried about if Christians and Muslims rise numerically?We are being deliberately lulled into

believing this,while the Marxists and others are systematically gathering strength,joining forces and trying to implode Hindus and India from within.The silly people in H.M. also should realize that giving speeches is exposing oneself to another onslaught.Everything needs to be done unitedly and surreptitiously.1 • Reply•Share › Avatardr.viraj pradhan dr.viraj pradhan • 12 days agoThanks,Harsha Varshan for up voting me. • Reply•Share › AvatarRVenkatanarayanan • 13 days agoIn dealing with the false premises on which some known Hindu phobic and Marxist cum Freudian pseudo-scholars on ancient Hindu Dharmic texts, have harmed the DCF-Irvine venture, we should not get side-tracked in to the debate whether practitioner scholars should be assembled only in India or within foreign Academia too. Both are required and one will not harm or retard the other. There is substance in Rajiv Malhotra's stand that Indic studies must be promoted in India. I am all in favour for years now of an Institute of Heritage Studies being established in India. But on this score Malhotra's opposition to the DCF venture does not become legitimate. In a recent posting he has even cast a slur on a woman scholar working with DCF. This is unfair.R.Venkatanarayanan1 • Reply•Share › AvatarSruti RVenkatanarayanan • 13 days agoI agree. Unfortunately, Malhotra uses every opportunity to leverage himself and wants to bring the DCF under his wing. His recent and most derogatory comments about Kalyan Vishwanathan and Rita Sharma are most unbecoming of someone who claims to want to serve the Hindu tradition.1 • Reply•Share › AvatarPV Sruti • 12 days agoYou are seriously misled about Rajiv and DCF. There is a 11 point rejoinder to DCF on his breaking India forums if only you wish to get his perspective. Anyhow, DCF is suck up for now. Unbecoming???? • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo RVenkatanarayanan • 13 days agoAnd he wrote in swarajyamag recently to ban all foreigners from visiting Kumbh Mela. He was taking up the issue of Harvard University sending a team to Ujjain. He is afraid that such a team is coming only with the intentionto malign Hindu rituals and ceremonies and hold them up for ridicule to the West. He seems to be unaware of the fact that Modi sarkar as well as MP sarkar are promoting the Mela through ads pasted behind the flight seats, in flight magazines, and in Satatapti express on train magazine of IR, in the Bus stands with a glare of lights to catch the attention of the public, in airports to attract the tourists.

If they will malign, why should they malign only the Mela? They can travel all over the country and capture all festivals and why won't they malign them also? If he fears for their potential mischief, isn't better if all tourists and foreigners are permanently banned from entering India, which will turn this country like North Korea? Living inside iron curtain.

In India, we need an academy for Indian heritage studies - your point, isn't it?That is welcome and they will get a color of restricted atmosphere and clientele. All researches and books that issue from such Institute will be stamped with the label that It is the viewpoint of Hindu scholars only. Whether fair or foul, the label will remain permanently attached. Like political pamphlets to project one point of view only. If anyone who wants to know what is the viewpoint of a Hindu scholars of India, she will go to that book. Like Radhakrishan's titled his book Hindu View of Life. We will have Hindu view of Hinduism. Christina view of Hinduism. Muslim view of Hinduism. Jewish view of Hinduism. Western view of Hinduism. Latin American view of Hinduism. All are good. Let thousand flowers bloom in the garden of scholarship. But prepared: each one will look at the matter from her point of view, which, more often than not, will hurt you.

Western view vs Indian view of Hindu religion and culture. They exist in separate places in the world. One refusing to benefit from the other because one calls the other biased and bogus scholarship.

Instead of having such a separate entity, set up the Chairs for Indic studies inthe major Indian universities. Cost effective. When Madras University set up the Department of Vaishanavism, no one interfered. • Reply•Share › AvatarRVenkatanarayanan Ergo • 12 days agoERGO,An Institute of Heritage Studies in India will encourage original scholarship of practicing Hindus, which currently is lacking. May be the output will be flagged as Hindu view of Hindu heritage. Is it not better than the present situation where the so called "scholars" from the West tell Hindus who they were and are, when they were born , what they did and did not do, and aboveall what is all wrong with Hinduism and Hindus. This one-sided relentless "study" by the West of India has led to so much diffidence in India over the last 200 years. Look at China. You go to main land China universities and you see how different they are from the Indian in the matter of belief in themselves and in their identity and destiny.As for Kumbha Mela there is a lot of substance in what Rajiv says and fears. Itis not based on any a priori theory. See on the ground in India how Western "academia" studies Hindu festivals and sacred events and what they pick andchoose and how they do negative portrayal. Of course these great academic intellectuals do not do a single such study of Islamic society or event in India. Why? Hinduism, Hindus and their practices are safe target.R.Venkatanarayanan1 • Reply•Share › Avatar

Ergo RVenkatanarayanan • 12 days agoLast line was many times faced with the statement: If you want Hinduism alsoto be a closed affair - only for Hindus in intellectual studies of academic scholars whose studies will naturally contain negative aspects of the religion, just like Islam, then admit that you want to islamise Hinduism. Why not be bold to say we are Islamised Hindus as you want their core ideology of xenophobia and attack on foreigners to adopt and put in practice ?

Other points:

An academy founded by a particular group for study of the group's affairs only will definitely be one-sided. It is no rocket science to conclude so. There is no question of MAY BE. A positive side will be projected and disseminated, which, as you said, side needs to be focused, exposed and disseminated merely because the rival group does not want to do so; as they will expose only that side which they like which is here alleged to be malignity. Theirs too is one-sided affair.

In the process, where can a student who wants unbiased research go?

Do set up an Institute of Hindu studies; invite Hindu scholars who are Hindus by birth; and who are devoted to the religion. Leave the rest to future. If you can make people read your output and get themselves cleared of the impressions created by the output of western scholars, that will be a good service to Hindu religion. But nothing can be saidfor sure, now.

By supporting Rajiv Malhotra, you are evading my point that, his dream of keeping Hindu religion away from the sight of foreigners in order to protect it from their 'conspiracy to malign Hindus' is possible only if you can stop all foreigners at airports and send them back to their countries. In other words, acountry of iron curtains. Religion is not the be-all and end-all for Hindus or Indians. Therefore, they won't allow Rajiv Malhotra to turn their country out ofbounds for foreign visitors.

And note, in a globalised technological world, you cannot keep a huge gathering of ten lakhs of people at a Kumbh Mela out of sight. Indians too cancapture pictures/images and pass stories to foreigners based on which thesescan be authored abroad and preserved. • Reply•Share › AvatarRVenkatanarayanan Ergo • 11 days agoErgo,Why not tackle the points made by me in a focussed manner? Have Judaic scholars set up Judaic institutions to study their past and present and future? Have Christian scholars not done so? Have, above all, Islamic scholars done so? Why do you fear that if Hindus set up a Heritage Institute its output will be one-sided? That is apriori condemnation of Hindu scholarship because thatis Hindu!Have you visited Kumbh Mela and watched foreigner "scholars" and camera-

wielding "oglers" do there? Of course there are many many foreigners who are sincerely devoted to the festival and are as devout as any Hindu. Rajiv Malhotra does not want to "hide" Kumbh Mela. Your comment insultingly tritr. What he says is that such Hindu festivals and observances are made an object of "study" which produces flimsy, superficial and pedantic jargon whichdetracts from the sacredness that Hindus see in them and ends up judgemental about them. Let the American University scholars go to Mecca and Medina and also "study" the festivals. Will they dare? Will you ask them to do so?R.Venkatanarayanan • Reply•Share › AvatarMastKalandar Ergo • 13 days agoYES JOOKER...let THOUSANDS OF FLOWERS BLOOM....and CRUSH HINDUISM with a BOOM !!! WHY DONT YOU SERMONIZE THIS SAME IDEA TO CALIFORNIAUNIVERSITY AND ALL THE HINDU-PHOBES ??? • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo MastKalandar • 12 days agoWelcome in a new ID

My reply to you---

If I live there, I will. Single idea is Hitlerist. In academic scholarship it is impossible. There is no end. Thousands of ideas will always exist.To strangulate the ideas you dislike, join ISI to get training how to cut off theirheads. • Reply•Share › Avatardisqus_Dm5vppZhYg • 20 hours agoSo why, if Pollock was a fine scholar, did he have to pressurize through petitions to pulp certian chairs? Couldn’t he have a genuine debate and free flow of ideas? Why did his student Ananya Vajpayee sign a petition to pulp Rajiv Malhotra’s books the result of which, Pollock is being known for his views among the common public? • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo • 13 days agoWritten soberly. Congrats the author. The last para reminds me of Thriuvalluvar, the ancient Sangam poet of Tamilnadu. He wrote:

If you do harm to someone in the morningThe harm will return to you in the evening.

The couplet is nothing but summing up of the saying: As you sow, so will you reap.

This article talks about intellectual freedom of the academia for the progress

of society. and calls for the voices of traditional scholars with an emic perspective. Pluralism is integral to freedom, it affirms categorically.

When you pulped Doniger and hooted and heckled other emit voices, the same would have occurred to them. Indeed, Doniger told the TOI reporter thesame. She said, whether one is an outsider or insider, both of them ought to be allowed and heard. But Hindutva forces want to strangulate the outside voices as, in their opinion, only the emic perspective is valid. Like you affirm here, when books of western Indologists are banned in India, or hooted down,their supporters asked for such freedom then.

Now, in USA, they don't want to allow you. And you are crying Unjust and Unfair. Academic freedom is strangulated. Academia will stagnate. Whither learning, knowledge and wisdom?

Mahatma Gandhi famously quipped: Indians practice untouchability and don'tfeel the pain of the so-called untouchables. When they go abroad, the white man does the same to them. They feel the pain. It is poetic justice. (Not exactquote) • Reply•Share › Avatarthesteelguy Ergo • 13 days ago" She said, whether one is an outsider or insider, both of them ought to be allowed and heard. But Hindutva forces want to strangulate the outside voices as, in their opinion, only the emic perspective is valid."

Unnecessary conflation between 'hindutva forces' and the calls for native scholarship in this article. Also, strawmen.

your argument is mainly inaction in the breadth of 'you had it coming'. How pathetic and unproductive.6 • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo thesteelguy • 13 days agoYes you are correct. I am saying 'You had it coming!'. If you block western scholars here, they block you there. Give freedom of expressions to all; then ask for it for yourself if denied. Deserve before you desire.

It is an essential point most appropriate here to link the banning of western scholarship in India to blocking of Eastern scholarship there.

She said both native scholarship and foreign scholarship can give their respective views. Why to block one and allow only the other? It is essential, touse the words of Sahana Singh, it is high time the voices of traditional as well as modern scholars with both emit and etic perspectives were included. Pluralism is integral to freedom which will facilitate progress of society. If we read the conclusion of the essay we can know: It applies to all unequivocally. • Reply•Share › AvatarSrivi Ergo • 13 days ago

uhh the point is, it is they who were preaching about freedom of expression, openness, inclusive etc.... it was they who made a joke out of Mr. Batra for legally fighting a battle against what he considered misrepresentation. It is now they who make silly points about hindutva forces to try and block perceived antagonists.

Look it cannot be "i will have my cake and eat it" (to quote another cliche) you either are with FoE fully and you allow all voices or you impose conditions. If you expect that your interpretation of hinduism as a sex obsessed religion should be accepted wholeheartedly as an alternate interpretation then give space to hindus who want to interpret hinduism (the utter horror of it, how can these pagans know anything about anything, muchless their own religion, better than us).

You cannot claim to be a scholar and academician if you continue to cling on to your position by essentially degrading, blocking and discrediting others. Your scholarship is proved when you can play on a level playing field and prove your credentials.6 • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo Srivi • 13 days agoIt is they (you mean the western scholars) who want freedom of expressions but they called Batra a joker for legally fighting a battle to ban the book by Wendy Doniger. Whether legally or otherwise, why was there a necessity for him to fight? If he felt that the book is distortion of Hindu religion, shouldn't he meet the book with his or emit scholars' books? So, there was intolerance to deny freedom of expression to the outsider. Then, how come they are the first to deny it? I don't know the chronology. In case Batra was only retaliatingto denial of freedom of expression by the outsider, I withdraw my comment. Who did it first to Wendy book? He or they?

The article speaks about the latest development. You are speaking about development involving Batra and Wendy book that happened earlier. A point to note.

//If you expect that your interpretation of hinduism as a sex obsessed religion should be accepted wholeheartedly as an alternate interpretation then give space to hindus who want to interpret hinduism (the utter horror of it, how can these pagans know anything about anything, much less their own religion, better than us).//

Wholeheartedly? No scholar writes a research book with that condition. If she does it, she is not worthy to be called a scholar, but a third rate politician, a fanatic. It is the professional ethic of a scholar to present her views only. No more no less.

Did Wendy ever say her thesis should be accepted wholeheartedly? She said let western scholars write from this side, Indian scholars write from other side. Let both enrich intellectual milieu. Is it strangulation of liberalism? or a call for liberalism? Please read her TOI interview. The interview was given

even before Batra went to court. Because the anger against her book was swelling and she was aware of it; so she explained it away.

As the article says, the outsider group who includes the Columbia scholar andthe Harvard scholar, interfered to issue the caution that the Chair funded by DCF and other Hindu rich of USA will be biased and that will vitiate the academic scholarship. It is there in US. Here in India, we heard the chorus that the white will vitiate scholarship with their biased i.e. anti hindu, approach against Hinduism.

Here, who is the first? Outsiders or Insiders? According to you, the outsiders are the first to go against freedom of expression. Please prove it chronologically. I am ready to accept all that you wrote. Both are committing an antidemocratic acts. And those who support - either side - are doubly indulging in the act. • Reply•Share › AvatarPV Ergo • 13 days agoEver heard Saama Dhaana Bheda Dandopaya. A thief comes to steal your precious belongings and let's see...Ergo "sir" will be preparing for an intellectual debate. Why? He wants the thief to have his freedom of expression!!! LOL. • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo PV • 12 days agoIn swarajyamag, no thief is coming to snatch away my belongings. So, intellectual debates are possible. • Reply•Share › AvatarSrivi Ergo • 13 days agoI do not want to engage in a debate of who did what first? that is just not important.

My point was not on chronology, it was about ethics, about saying something and doing something else.

If you speak of FoE and say that your book should be allowed because everyone has a right to have their opinions and propagate them, then you follow that principle yourself.

Just remember that opinions are precious to people who hold them. You may judge somebody and think that "a perticular group" s view is abhorrent. Realise that for that "perticular group" your opinions are equally abhorrent.

If you take up the mantle of FoE champions and say "hear my alternate opinion", then you should be ready to allow the same to any "rich hindu" organisation and then you can present the case to the world to judge who is better. You cannot block an alternate view point to yourself, using your clout and then say " FoE". That is just making a mockery of it.

BTW many people wrote good critique of her work, it did not make a difference, it was not a level playing field.

If you also think wendy and her coterie is the same as " far right" who hold one opinion and not allow contrasting opinions to find place, then i have nothing to say. Yes batra started it and wendy continued it. • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo Srivi • 12 days agoThanks for the comment on Batra. We cannot single out the man. He represents the pent-up aspirations of many, some of them can be seen here and they are all educated persons.

To everyone her doll is precious. We find it right from our nursery class, don't we?

I understand your point is if Wendy asks for freedom for her book to be released in India (vide TOI interview) she and Co should give the same to Hindus in the USA to set up Chairs in US universities.

My point is (leaving chronology out in deference to your wish) that what is happening is tit for tat in USA i.e. if western scholars are attacked in India for their ideas and prevented from releasing their books here, it is right for them to retaliate there. Human beings never leave out their childhood play. In UN, in Indian Parliament etc..we are watching the play. if you do to me, I shall alsopay back you in the same coin. Privilege motions moved by Cong and BJP are examples. UN quarrels between countries on many issues are another example. How can academic scholars be different? Aren't they humans too?

Your reply also gives me understand that you are concerned with FoE only when we speak of the Western scholars. Why do you leave out Indians who hooted WD out denying her the FoE? Do you imply that the FoE is not liked byIndians and they are by nature autocratic; and so, it is right for them to crush different ideas - of course, through legal means ! whereas westerners are wrong (no ethics ! to use your word) just because they have advocated FoE? Westerners are expected to be democratically spirited; and when they are not, they are unethical. Indians are free to be autocratic and no ethics apply to them. Hope I have correctly brought out your points. • Reply•Share › AvatarSrivi Ergo • 12 days agoNo I am not saying that FoE should only be practiced by western scholars. I am saying that if you say that you champion FoE, then you champion it completely. Some people think FoE should be absolute and some people think it should not be, my ask is to be truthful to what you claim to believe , thats all. You cannot use FoE as a convenient tool when it suits your interest. the fight is not with the principle but with its so called practitioners.What is happening now is like saying "because we do not like you we will condemn and demonize you, but if you do not like us, then you are wrong and

cannot criticize us or take action as we are right'That will not work. • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo Srivi • 12 days agoYour speech and your act should 100% tally. Isn't your point? I have addressed it, saying all humans behave only as they like and as circumstances demand it. Democracies are finding it difficult to stand on the bases created by the originators. So, a number of democracies have changed, morphed etc. Pure democracy is impossible today. Similarly it isn't possible to keep 100% promise. TIT FOR TAT is being applied here; to acheive that the objectors are ready to dilute their democratic principles.

It will work. Why not? They will write books that suit their preferences. And, readers are not forced to read them. Still, they will have their readers across all sections; whereas yours will be restricted to the Hindu Right.

If you want to dislodge them from their fan base, create yours to oversmart them, and attract their readership. Like horse-trading in politics.

What is not being faced here is the following:

You have not shown any democratic principles in allowing them here. You are turning fanatical day by day in keeping foreigners off from your religion. You have gone to court and arm-twisted the publishers. She is a Columbia University professor who has carved out her niche in western scholarship. The Harvard Prof is also facing your ire. Rajiv Malhotra wants Harvard University students to be debarred from Ujjain Kumbh Mela.

Now, in their country, you want to establish a Chair for your religion and restrict it to propagate only the rosy side of your religion as they apprehend. By reading you all here, it is clear you want to conceal some on the grounds there are many more positives in the religion which are concealed by them.

And you expect large heartedness from them preaching like this:

//Intellectual freedom of the academia is essential for the progress of society. That freedom was intrinsic to ancient India. What we are witnessing today is adomination of academia by etic voices, especially with regard to Hinduism. It is high time the voices of traditional scholars with an emic perspective were included. Pluralism is integral to freedom.//

Preaching comes from persons who want SINGLE IDEA to prevail. :-)

The academic atmosphere in religious studies have already become perverted. And the blame for perverting is to be shared by both sides. • Reply•Share ›

AvatarSrivi Ergo • 11 days agoI get your point, you are trying to say the same thing i am saying from the other end. You are saying if you protested against them in your country, expect that they will protest against you in their country. But my point is more generic and is more to do with the failure of so called liberals. See, when mr. batra makes a point or when mr. owaisi makes a point, there isa certain connotation that comes with it. there is a certain public reputation that they carry. There will be people who will agree/disagree/conditionally agree/partially agree with them and when they do, they know what they are agreeing with or disagreeing with. But some people have a public reputation (being challenged now) of being objective, progressive and call themselves liberals. Until recently, they remained unchallenged, they set the narrative. Even now, this group of journalists/academics/left leaders/historians/economists/activists .....form a formidable group, they quote each other, they back each other and together present a facade of progressive, liberal ideas. when they are this strong, the opposition will be aggressive and sometimes blind to their own extremes, that is natural.My concern is not with the opposition to the liberal ideas, that will sort itself out. My concern is for the hypocrisy that i am seeing in this group, who are powerful and call themselves liberals. I am concerned about their bias, their agendas and their narratives. when the so called liberals do not uphold true liberal priciples then the whole idea gets a bad name and terms like "adarsh liberals" spring up.

I was watching an interview with a young actress from down south. In her interview she said that her inspiration was nanditha das, as she felt that ms. das was not only a good actress but she had also contributed immensely to the society and was also smart and progressive. This impression that the young actress had of Ms. Das was because of the public perception. Itw as because ms. das won the french award, was the first indian in the women hallof fame and such.

Now this same ms. das's father overstays in government accomodation in a posh locality, for decades http://www.hindustantimes.com/...the same Ms. Das wrote open letters to public to elect a secular party, then clarified it saying vote against modi, wrote articles saying "if modi comes muslims will feel insecure" (fear mongering) and generally made out as if sheis very concerned about the fate of the nation if modi comes to power. after all that rants, on the election day, she is so concerned about the fate of India that she is not even in India to vote https://storify.com/KartikeyaT...

Knowing this can there not be a question raised "did ms.das oppose modi on ideological basis, or was she just afraid that her cosy life will be over with a different govt in power"so what will a person do who has previously admired ms. das? Will they not question their own beliefs and maybe even turn the opposite way? On the other hand mr. batra will never say or do anything that contradicts what he issaying. He is what he is, you either take him or reject him.

That is what i am concerned about. I am neither right or left. I believe that every idea needs to be heard and individuals will make a decision based on their own exposure to different ideas. so create that level playing field, if batra can be criticized and ostracized so can wendy. On the other hand, if wendy is welcome with her alternatives, so is batra with his alternatives.

in this level playing field, ergo can admire wendy and dismiss batra, somebody can admire batra and dismiss wendy and srivi can happily disagree with both and propound her own aletrnative • Reply•Share › AvatarRVenkatanarayanan Ergo • 12 days agoERGO:A limited and specific question: Do you believe that in the last 100 years if not more, Western academia allowed a level playing field to Eastern scholars on their own past? Is it not right for the latter to wake up, stand up and call the former's bluff? How they should go about it must not again be on terms set by the dominating Western scholarship. Do you agree?R.Venkatanarayanan • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo RVenkatanarayanan • 12 days agoI don't read research studies on religion. If at all, I read to know the fundamentals of a religion as an average person should broaden her mind. Otherwise, she will be a religious fanatic. I come to know about Wendy Doniger or Rajiv Malhotra only from websites like this and newspaper articles.Assuming that they (the White) have personal axes to grind i.e. to malign Hindu religion, my point is that they write books or author theses from their academai aborad i.e in own countries and their books get published here as there are many Indians who want to read them.

How is it possible for you to say they should not write as they want? Can you stop me If I do a research on a religion practised in Papua New Guinea and release my discoveries here?; and it so happens that a publisher in Australia gets interested and publishes it in Australia which is close to PNG and PNGians come to know me. In case my opinions are negative to their religion,for e.g. they are cannibals and their gods want to them to be so, if they don't want that, can I stop my research? Islam threatens and people don't do research for fear of life. You want to do so? That is my persistent question.

As for my opinion, if they malign you, you can't go against them as their country affords room for liberal studies. It doesn't gatecrash into any academy and indulge in arson as Shiv Sainiks entered and broke Bandarakar Library in Pune since it helped an American do a research on Shivaji which SS didn't like. It does not happen there; so they enjoy freedom of expression.

If they step in here, catch them and proceed against them in court as Batra did and pulp their books. That is all you can do.

As for bluff, it is so for you, please note this important fact, Sir. If it is not for them, what can you do Sir but to write books and books rebutting them word for word, Sir. You are running into problems even with Indians who have different opinions on the religion which you don't like: for e.g. Mahisashura Story. Did you allow it? No. For you, it is blasphemy. • Reply•Share › AvatarRVenkatanarayanan Ergo • 10 days agoErgo,We have exchanged a lot of notes. It is clear to me that you do not understand that there is enormous frustration, pent up over centuries, surfacing among conscious Hindus and Hindu practicing scholars. The Western interpreters of India and Hinduism ( not Christianity or Islam in India)have had their way unhindered to beat up India, Hindus and Hinduism. They want to continue to do so under theories devised again by them, namely freedom of expression! When I say, "beat up" do not jump to say, "victimhood". The long colonized mind of the Hindu is getting de-colonized. Yes, Hindus can not prevent them from writing what they want. Hindus must show their plus points by writing equally frequently, and ALSO by writing about THEM. But do they allow it? NO. If any Indian student wants to do research in any of the Western Univs.. the academic cabal controlling funds and other resources scotch it.Are you aware that these cabals do not even invite or allow people like Rajiv Malhotra to attend Conferences where Hinduism is castigated. It is this context that I wish you to consider. Of course the theory of free expression in abstract is attractive. In my view the practical way for remedying the situation:i. Try to do research work in foreign academia wherever possible and bring out quality material to show where and how the Western/American Indology has gone wrong;ii. Start an Institute of Heritage Studies in India centered round growing Indian, Hindu scholarship;iii. Engage in expert translations of manuscripts in India;iv. Rebut fearlessly whenever some slanted or nonsensical stuff is put out by the Western scholars--such as Ganesha's trunk is a symbol of limp phallus; or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was a homo sexual; or Shivaji was an illegitimatechild etc. Lastly, if level playing field is not allowed Hindus have no option other than going the Islamic way, which you acknowledge.I shall feel satisfied in engaging these exchanges if you tell me specifically where you agree and where you do not, on the paras in this long posting.RVN • Reply•Share › Avatarpshakkottai RVenkatanarayanan • 9 days agoIndians are already doing it (replying to Western criticisms of shock value) . "Invading the Sacred" byKrishnam Ramaswamy , Antonio de Nicolas and AditiBanerjee, Rupa and co, New Delhi 2007 is one such. It points out many errors in the language and stories mistranslated by Wendy Doniger. • Reply•Share ›

AvatarRVenkatanarayanan pshakkottai • 9 days agoThanks for calling my attention to "Invading the Sacred". It was perhaps the first effort long back, as a response and reaction. It was a good joint effort. I would however add, in the present context:i. Practicing Hindu scholars must thoroughly study books and writings broughtout by Westerners, masquerading as Hinduism experts and write rebuttal books, with references properly lsted from primary sources.ii. As a proactive step, some of the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions and scholarly writings on them, must be studied by Hindu scholars and treatises must be produced.iii. Systematic scholarship on the various aspects of Hindu heritage must be produced under the auspices of a Heritage Institute set up in India outside the ambit of the government of the day.Without such action plan and its execution, "scholars" like Wendy Doniger, Pollock et al will continue to write provocative nonsense or bless young Indians who are willing to do so for money and career, under their tutelage.RVN • Reply•Share › Avatarpshakkottai RVenkatanarayanan • 9 days agoDefinitely. If you don't listen to what your opponent is saying you will assume something non-sensical. India assumed "all religions are equal" with disastrous consequences. • Reply•Share › Avatarthesteelguy Ergo • 12 days agoi wouldn't consider that blocking. murthy is free to select whoever he pleases.it's a petition to reconsider his decision. i see nothing wrong with that.1 • Reply•Share › AvatarPV Ergo • 13 days agoErgo..Your moronic rants never cease. Before crying a river of sympathy for Doniger, you should know that Rajiv's actions were opposed just like that. There is a whole mafia out there and it is fair to say that you know zilch aboutto it. Doniger and her clan acted in the same way against Rajiv which you are now attributing to Indians and the pulping incident. Rajiv mentioned on more than one occasion that he favoured debates with the likes of Doniger and not banning books. Doniger neither has the spine not the intellect to do that. The next time you should read up a little more to gain better perspective before randomly pulling out a quote from another Tamil poet or any scholar, and trying to fit it in vain. The quote you used is just out of context. By the way, the whole race of Tamilians were fighting bloody battles opposing Hindi at one time. They were so scared and swept by paranoia that you should apply Thiruvalluvar's quote to that entire race! It would be apt for the context.1 • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo PV • 12 days agoOne point I share with you: THE WHOLE RACE of Tamilians are bad because they opposed imposition of Hindi on them. I am happy I am at long last

agreeing with, at least, one point. SIR! • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo PV • 12 days agoRajiv Malhotra is not under debate. Batra who went to court and successfully pulped the book and the author Wendy Donigar are discussed. • Reply•Share › Avatarthesteelguy Ergo • 12 days agostop shifting goalposts.1 • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo thesteelguy • 12 days agoShow the goalposts in a few words hereinnow, Sir.1 • Reply•Share › AvatarSubroto Gangopadhyay Ergo • 12 days agoThe publisher withdrew the Doniger book, the book was not "banned by court". The withdrawal was prompted by factual inaccuracies pointed by scholars. To cover this, it was turned around as "Book Banning" by Hindutva forces,which helped the author cover herself with a martyr's glory instead of criticism for shoddy scholarship. Salman Rushdie's book was actually banned by the UPA govt, to protect Muslim sentiment. Fatwas from middle East helped, threat of violence is helpful to Western liberals to shift their gaze. Western Scholars focus on particular subjects - mystical symbolisms of a sexual nature and social issues. They do not focus on secular arts and sciences which is very much a part of the Corpus of Hinduism. Therefore theirscholarship is motivated, narrowly focused and derogatory in nature. In absence of such scholarship directed towards Judeo-christian faiths where such material is far more plentiful and direct, they do demonstrate a collective goal. By not allowing opposing voices from the tradition (and only allowing western trained scholars) they thrive on monoculture which they cannot impose on Islam, Judaism, Christianity or for that matter on China, Japan or Russia if countries and cultures are concerned. This leads to the conclusion that West exerts and responds to power paradigms only.India mustrespond in Kind, When playing fields are not level they must be leveled. Imperialism is not just conquest by force, it also controlling the discourse, controlling the economic system or exerting control through human rights organizations, through NGO's and other tools as well. Congratulations to the Author1 • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo Subroto Gangopadhyay • 12 days agoThe book was not banned by Court. The publishers pulped it. thousands of copies, incurring huge financial loss. They don't have any stake in the book but to save their business. It is like forfeiture of smugglers' properties. Just jail, court and sentences won't break their will to break law. So, stop their source of income which facilitates their illegal activities. If you threaten the publishers, other publishers won't dare to publish any book like Doniger's. Economic terrorism, Bombing terrorism. Now, spiritual terrorism. Batra went

to court; and there was a huge number of supporters. The publishers saw all this and took preventive steps. From the above what is the inference easily derivative?: fear for life. If it is not terrorism, what else?

If a book carry glaring irregularities - for whom? For persons like Batra and hissupporters. Not to the author and her fans or for western scholars. A book of such a nature cannot be an open and shut case. It will have many guesses, conjectures, and generalisations within also because the subject is religion, not science or arithmetic; that too, the Hindu religion, for which there are no direct claimants, no age, no period, no certain authors, and no fixed interpretations. It is ancient. No one knows its source and time. And, no one isinvested with any authority to 'fix' the religion so as to say only this is HINDUISM and nothing else. and so, no one has the right to go out of the falsely fixed circumference; and, further, all should write only with deep devotion and reverence and respect to each and every aspect of the religion like a devotee standing within the circumference with folded hands. And they should write as we demand. Scholars get out. Devotees enter. if there is sex, no word of it; shut up!. If you speak about it, it will be treated as a selective attack to insult my religion. (Will Islam allow you to write as you please? Theywill cut off your head! Agreed. Then admit that you want an talibanised Hindureligion. You cannot have the cake and eat it too!)

So you are being talibanistic. Blasphemy, burning or banning or threatening through court case - a culture of islamisation.

On the contrary, allow people to write a book on the religion as they see it. If there is sex, and if she writes about it, to arm twist her is to allege falsely thatthere is no sex in it. All religions have all kinds of facts. When there is sex, there will be a paper on it. You cannot help it. If you want to say it is only a small part of it, and there are humongous other parts to overshadow or eclipse that which I don't like, please go and write such a book. Why to stop other books?

If the book has glaring mistakes, what is preventing you to say so, in another book? Why not meet intellectual perversion with intellectual appropriateness?Why to go to court for a decree, and indirectly threatening the publishers? Book not banned, but publishers backtracked - is a brownie point.

There, they put a bounty on the head, here you put a court case on the writer. It is a difference of a degree, not kind.

She said: Allow both voices, thereby enriching the field of academic scholarship with a multi-hued ideas. Hindutva voices and western voices can both contribute to that. By saying this, is she seeking a halo of martyrdom? Why are you not allowing different ideas or theses? Why do you want a SingleIdea to be forced? These are the questions directed not towards Hindu fanatics, but Hindu scholars and thinkers.

I have touched one point only. • Reply•Share ›

AvatarSubroto Gangopadhyay Ergo • 11 days agoErgo ; It is difficult to debate one who will not reveal his/her identity, will not do the due diligence (on scholarly rebuttals to the the concerned book, submitted to the publishers) and only indulge in sweeping generalizations with calumny about extremism. Terms like "Spiritual Terrorism"; "Talibanisation" etc with the "You" being used to label "all" as part of a single entity,affiliates of one organization. The suggestion is to write books about " Wendy's Books", then I suppose Wendy will write books about those books, but wait, it is she who has the privilege of dismissing others, while others have to write books. The American State should write books about the Quran and the Saudi Arabians about Christianity to solve the worlds puzzles, Until then drones and ISIS are fine and so is the Taliban, it is only the Hindus that cannot exhibit the extremism of protesting inaccuracies about a Western PhD to a publisher who decides it is better to sell the flawed product outside India as it affords better publicity and actually enhances sales, which it did. Thank you so much for your Wisdom. • Reply•Share › AvatarErgo Subroto Gangopadhyay • 11 days agoDon't debate. Avoid me. I am going to avoid because you want to win a brownie point for displaying your name. Sorry...bye

Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine

Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine

We write to you to express our concern regarding the initiative to establish four endowed chairs at the University of California, Irvine: the Thakkar Family-Dharma Civilization Foundation Presidential Chair in Vedic and Indic Civilization Studies, the Dhan Kaur Sahota Presidential Chair in Sikh Studies, Shri Parshvanath Presidential Chair in Jain Studies, and the Swami Vivekananda-Dharma Civilization Foundation Presidential Chair in Modern India Studies.

While such endowments have the potential to greatly enhance the study of South Asia, we are troubled by news reports that the Dharma Civilization Foundation (hereafter DCF) has put forward its own list of acceptable candidates based on race and religion. Further, we are concerned about reports that the DCF has already brought their favoured candidates to the UC Irvine campus, in the absence of any advertised search for these positions. According to Inside Higher Ed’s report on December 21, 2015, the DCF has

proposed a list of possible candidates to fill the chairs, as well as a list of proscribed candidates, describing these lists as a “suggestion” to the University. Prevailing normative codes at public Universities and standard academic procedures require an advertised search where qualified candidates are vetted by established scholars selected from a wide pool of academic expertise. Reshaping academic selection via criteria based on ethnic origin or religious belief opens the door to discriminatory practices thatare consequential for educators and students everywhere, not just at UCI.

Donors’ intentions to fund only certain kinds of religious practitioners, or only supporters of certain religiously-defined communities, contravenes not only anti-discrimination law but also standards of academic excellence. While it is possible that scholar-practitioners of a religion can enrich its study, it is widely accepted that being a practicing member of a religious group should not be a requirement for studying and teaching that religion. We fear the DCF’s efforts will lead to the appointment of scholars who do not represent the intellectual richness and rigour in religious studies and South Asian history. South Asia is a deeply heterogeneous multi-religious sub-continent, and its religious practices are highly decentralised, varying across region, class and caste. Academic study requires empathy, curiosity, and rigour, not a certificate of belonging or a methodology that is monitored by donors. We are particularly concerned about the specific ideological sympathies of DCF associates, and the commitment to compliance with donors’ intent currently embedded in the gift agreement (as published in the Orange County Register on December 16, 2015).

The DCF is part of a right-wing Hindu group of organisations that has been known to undermine Indian pluralism through an agenda that seeks to redefine true “Indianness” in terms of a historically-fabricated continuity in “Indic” religions (a list of religions that excludes the sub-continent’s traditionsof Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism), and a privileging of upper-caste, “Vedic” Hindu identity. The DCF, although registered as a US non-profit organisation, is directly tied, through its office holders and its ideological roots, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (hereafter RSS), an organization that is the main proponent of the political ideology of Hindu nationalism, or "Hindutva." DCF office holders have held, or continue to hold, positions withinthe Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (hereafter HSS), which is a global partner organisation of the RSS (with an international program to extend RSS ideology, including raising money in the UK and US to be used for RSS schools).

The RSS and HSS misrepresent not only Hinduism’s relationship to other religions but also the historical fluidity and philosophical complexity within Hinduism itself. The RSS defines ‘Hindu-ness’ using an especially narrow interpretation of Sanatana Dharma and Vedic thought. The RSS is a militarist organization that has upheld violence as a means to reach political goals; it has used fatal force against religious minorities and political adversaries in the past. The RSS has been banned three times in India for its active participation in mass violence against Christian and Muslim minorities and its role in the 1948 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The HSS promotes a

similar sectarian, exclusive, and xenophobic idea of Hinduism. Organisations linked to the DCF have been actively involved in hate campaigns and public smearing of diverse scholars of Hinduism who disagree with their interpretations of Indian history. Many members of the DCF board are office-holders and members of the HSS, and have tried to advance their ideological agenda in other educational settings. DCF affiliates have attempted to introduce factually inaccurate changes to California sixth-grade textbooks about Hinduism. The right-wing Hindu campaign to change California textbooks promoted a reductive idea of the religion, seeking to introduce elements that had been widely discredited by scholars of Hinduism. The Endowed Chair agreement between the DCF and UC Irvine, to our surprise, specifies that adherence to this intellectually discredited interpretation of Hinduism will serve as a litmus test for future faculty in the UC system. The candidates hired will be required to forge “partnerships with the Vedic and Indic heritage community in the Western diaspora,” and to fulfill the “Donors’ primary foundational intention” to uphold their vision of “Applied Dharma.” It is a matter of scholarly and financial concern that a gift agreement would specify that candidates prove alignment with Donor intent in order to be hired, and that certain faculty members of the UC system will be required to meet annually with private donors “to preserve a constructive collaboration with the Donors’ intent” in perpetuity.

We value the mission of the University of California and its commitment to robust faculty governance, public education and academic freedom. We support the diversification of research and pedagogy, but urge you to recognise the danger of privileging forms of expression which present themselves within the spectrum of “diversity,” while promoting or justifying religious or ethnic hatred, discrimination, or intolerance. Based on recent statements by the DCF and our understanding of the agreements that the School of Humanities signed, we are extremely concerned that it will be difficult to maintain a clear separation between “donor intent” and university processes. If UCI is unable to establish clear academic criteria for the vetting and hiring of candidates based on wide consultations with present faculty who teach South Asia-related courses, and if UCI is unable to ensure that there is no involvement of donors in academic decisions, we urge UCI to return the gifts and to end this relationship with the DCF and its associates.

Academic research and decision-making processes ought to evolve in the best traditions of independent thought and inquiry. At a time of State disinvestment from public education and the rising importance of private money in the growth of education, we understand the pressures on administrators to promote fundraising initiatives. However, the University of California has the responsibility to conduct due diligence, to protect its faculty, staff and students, and to follow ethical guidelines for broad democratic participation in our joint educational futures. We urge the University of California system to uphold the best ideals of academic freedom, and to reject partnerships with donor organisations or individuals who propagate narrow sectarian agendas that violate the very spirit and mission of a public university.

Sara Abraham

Researcher, Lahore University of Management Sciences

Meena Alexander

Distinguished Professor of English, Graduate Center/ Hunter College, City University of New York

Frederick M. Asher

Department of Art History,University of Minnesota

Jayadev Athreya

Director, Washington Experimental Mathematics Lab University of Washington

Gajendran Ayyathurai

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Göttingen University, Germany

Paola Bacchetta

Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley

Amit R. Baishya

Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Oklahoma.

Sarada Balagopalan

Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Childhood Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Sukanya Banerjee

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Srimati Basu

University of Kentucky

Dr. Rachel Berger

Associate Professor, History Department, Concordia University

Varuni Bhatia

Assistant Professor, Hindu Studies, Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Nilanjana Bhattacharjya

Honors Faculty Fellow, Barrett, the Honors College, Arizona State University

Tithi Bhattacharya

Director, Global Studies, Associate Professor, History, Purdue University

Debjani Bhattacharyya

Assistant Professor, Drexel University, Department of History, 3250-60 Chestnut Street, Suite 3025 MacAlister Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Purnima Bose

Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington

Timothy Brennan

Professor, U of Minnesota

Laura C. Brown

Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh

Madhurima Chakraborty

Assistant Professor, Department of English, Columbia College Chicago.

Mrinalini Chakravorty

Associate Professor, English, University of Virginia

Shefali Chandra

Associate Professor of South Asian History, Washington University in St. Louis

S. Charusheela

Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell

Partha Chatterjee

Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University

Indrani Chatterjee

Professor, History, UT Austin

Angana Chatterji

Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley

Swati Chattopadhyay

Professor, History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara

Zahid Chaudhary

Princeton University

Preeti Chopra

Professor, Department of Art History, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Rohit Chopra

Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University

David Clingingsmith

Dept. of Economics, Case Western Reserve University

Ananya Dasgupta

Assistant Professor, History, Case Western University

Veena Deo

Professor, English,CLA, Hamline University

Jigna Desai

Chair & Professor, Dept. of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University of Minnesota 425 Ford Hall

Wendy Doniger

University of Chicago

Richard M. Eaton

Professor of History, University of Arizona

Mayanthi L. Fernando

Associate Professor of Anthropology, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz

Keya Ganguly

Professor, Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Minnesota

Toorjo Ghose

Associate Professor, Chair,School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania

Bishnupriya Ghosh

Professor, English, UC Santa Barbara

Jayati Ghosh

Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Prof. David Gilmartin

North Carolina State University

Priyamvada Gopal

University of Cambridge

Inderpal Grewal

Yale University

Richard Grusin

Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Charu Gupta

Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Delhi

Mary Hancock

Professor of Anthropology and History, University of California, Santa Barbara

Ziaul Hasan

Retired Professor, University of Illinois, Chicago

Qadri Ismail

Associate professor, University of Minnesota.

Dr.Chinnaiah Jangam,

Assistant Professor, Department of History, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Pranav Jani

Associate Professor, English, Ohio State University

Vidya Kalaramadam

Assistant Professor, William Paterson University of New Jersey

Sangeeta Kamat

Associate Professor, Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Suvir Kaul

A. M. Rosenthal Professor, Department of English, University of Pennsylvania

Prashant Keshavmurthy

Assistant Professor of Persian-Iranian Studies, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University

Jesse Ross Knutson

Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Sankaran Krishna

Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Aishwary Kumar

Stanford

Smita Lahiri

Visiting Lecturer, Anthropology, Harvard University

James W Laine

Professor of Religious Studies, Macalester College, Saint Paul. MN

Joy Laine

Philosophy Department, Macalester College

Vinay Lal

Professor of History, UCLA

Premesh Lalu

Director of the DST-NRF Flagship on Critical Thought, Centre for Humanities Research, University of the Western Cape.

Jean M Langford

Professor, Anthropology, U of Minnesota

David Lelyveld

Professor (retired), William Paterson University

Simon Leung

Professor, Department of Art UC Irvine

Ania Loomba

Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania

Kama Maclean

University of New South Wales, Australia

Sudhir Mahadevan

Associate Professor, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of Washington, Seattle

Saba Mahmood

Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley

Sunaina Maira

Professor, Asian American Studies UC Davis

Neepa Majumdar

Associate Professor, Department of English, University of Pittsburgh,

Marc Matera

Assistant Professor, department of history, UC Santa Cruz

Biju Mathew

Associate Professor, College of Business , Rider University, New Jersey

Saloni Mathur

Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Studies, Chair, Art Journal EditorialBoard, UCLA | Dept of Art History

Monika Mehta

Associate Professor of English, Binghamton University

Dilip M Menon

Director Centre for Indian Studies in Africa, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa

Raza Mir

Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson University

Madhuchhanda Mitra

Professor, English, College of Saint Benedict/St. John’s University

Durba Mitra

Assistant Professor of History, Fordham University

Megan Moodie

Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz

Projit Bihari Mukharji

University of Pennsylvania

Sucharita Sinha Mukherjee

College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University, Minnesota, USA

Rahul Mukherjee

University of Pennsylvania

Richa Nagar

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Vijaya Nagarajan

Associate Professor, Dept. of Religious Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, University of San Francisco

Sandhya Devesan Nambiar

JMC, University of Delhi

Balmurli Natrajan

Associate Professor, Anthropology, William Paterson University of New Jersey

Britta Ohm

Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bern, Switzerland

Goldie Osuri

Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Warwick

Shailaja Paik

Assistant Professor of South Asian History and Women, Gender, and SexualityStudies Affiliate, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Joyojeet Pal

Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, School of Information

Gyan Pandey

Emory University

Vasudha Paramasivan

University of California, Berkeley

Andrea Marion Pinkney

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University

Sheldon Pollock

Arvind Raghunathan Professor of Sanskrit and South Asian Studies, Chairman,

Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Africa Studies, Columbia University in the City of New York

Gyan Prakash

History, Princeton University

Shalini Puri

University of Pittsburgh

Neshat Quaiser

Associate Professor Department of Sociology, Jamia Millia Islamia, Central University New Delhi

Gloria Goodwin Raheja

Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota

Arvind Rajagopal

Professor, Dept of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University

Rajeswari Sunder Rajan

English, New York University

M. V. Ramana

Nuclear Futures Laboratory & Program on Science and Global Security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Lucinda Ramberg

Cornell University

Maia Ramnath

Professor of History and Asian Studies, Pennsylvania State University.

Anupama Rao

History, Barnard College, Columbia University

Raka Ray

Professor, Department of Sociology, Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Chandan Reddy

Associate Professor, English and Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies

Vanita Reddy

Assistant Professor, English, Texas A&M University

Marcus Rediker

University of Pittsburgh

Sharmila Roy

Attorney at Law, Laveen, Arizona 85339

Modhumita Roy

Associate Professor of English, Tufts University

Parama Roy

University of California, Professor of English, Davis

Poulomi Saha

Assistant Professor of English, University of California, Berkeley

G.S. Sahota

Assistant Professor, Literature, UC Santa Cruz

Yasmin Saikia

Hardt-Nickachos Chair of Peace Studies & Professor of History, Arizona State University

Laila Shereen Sakr

Assistant Professor , Department of Film and Media Studies, UC Santa Barbara

Bhaskar Sarkar

Associate Professor, UC Santa Barbara

Priya Satia

Associate Professor, Department of History, Stanford University

Freya Schiwy

Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside

J. Barton Scott

Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

Arijit Sen

Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Nayan Shah

Professor, American Studies & Ethnicity and History, University of Southern California

Svati P. Shah

Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

S. Shankar

Professor and Director of Creative Writing, Department of English, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Aradhana (Anu) Sharma

Chair and Associate Professor, Anthropology, Wesleyan University

Jenny Sharpe

Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Gender Studies , Department of English, University of California, Los Angeles, CA

Elora Shehabuddin

Rice University

Dr. Zoe C. Sherinian

Associate Professor of Ethnomusicology, Women and Gender Studies (AffiliateFaculty), University of Oklahoma

Greg Siegel

Associate Professor, Department of Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

Pritam Singh

Professor of Economics, Faculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University

Shana Sippy

Religion Department, Carleton College

Ajay Skaria

Professor, Department of History/Institute for Global Studies, University of Minnesota

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

University Professor, Columbia University, New York, USA.

Mytheli Sreenivas

Associate Professor of History and Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Ohio State University

Tulasi Srinivas

Associate Professor, Emerson College.

Banu Subramaniam

Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Ajantha Subramanian

Professor of Anthropology and of South Asian Studies, Harvard University

Abha Sur

Program in Women's & Gender Studies, MIT

Raja Swamy

Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee

Ratnakar Tripathy

Senior Research Fellow, Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI)

Siva Vaidhyanathan

Director, Center for Media and Citizenship, Robertson Professor, University of Virginia, Department of Media Studies

Vamsi Vakulabharanam

Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Peter van der Veer

Director Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany

A.R. Vasavi

Social Anthropologist, Bengaluru, India

Gowri Vijayakumar

UC Berkeley

Rupa Viswanath

Professor of Indian Religions, University of Goettingen, Germany.

Gauri Viswanathan

Class of 1933 Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University

David Gordon White

J. F. Rowny Professor of Comparative Religion, University of California, Santa Barbara

Michael Witzel

Wales Professor of Sanskrit, Harvard University

Benjamin Zachariah

University of Trier, Germany

HIGHLIGHTSJanuary 31Petition has reached 100 signatures! January 30Sign on with your name and be sure to add your affiliation! January 30We are now live!COMMENTSFilterma nithya saralanandaFrance, Le Pellerin Mar 02, 2016 l'hindouisme est la plus ancienne et la plus vraie de toutes les religions sur notre Terre. Elle est authentique et enrichi tous ceux et celles qui la découvrent, et qui l'apprennent à travers le monde, partout !

Arnab ChakrabortyIndia, Kolkata Feb 26, 2016 Ex-Postgraduate Student of English, Jadavpur UniversityWinifred PosterUnited States, Saint Louis Feb 22, 2016 Washington University,St. LouisMargaret Brose United States, Santa Cruz Feb 18, 2016 Prof. of Literature University of California, Santa CruzSee MoreSign in to commentSIGNATURESzainabCanadama nithya saralanandaFranceRoss HeckmannUnited StatesArnab ChakrabortyIndiaChirinjev PetersonUnited StatesPedro FerreiraDenmarkWinifred PosterUnited StatesAneil RallinUnited StatesMargaret BroseUnited StatesMukhtiar SinghCanadaHarendra SinghIndiaJulie CarlsonUnited StatesIsh MishraIndiaChet andeep MandairUnited StatesRavi Arvind PalatUnited StatesSucheta Rakshit-SeusGermanyNarendra SubramanianIndiaHaimanti RoyUnited StatesManisha PatelUnited StatesAman KumarIndiaJoseph A Adler

United StatesMinakshi MenonGermanyMinakshi MenonGermanyAnne HardgroveUnited StatesKathryn Lum Assistant Professor Department of Global Studies Nottingham Trent UniversityUnited KingdomSusan MorrisseyUnited StatesSonja ThomasUnited StatesDavid PanUnited StatesAsisranjan SenguptaIndiaJustus WeissGermanyAshish ShredthaUnited StatesDebra RichardsonUnited StatesShiva ShankarIndiaElaine AndresUnited StatesJ DevikaIndiaSonalee RashatwarUnited Statesneo muyangaSouth AfricaCatherine LiuUnited StatesMagda El ZarkiUnited StatesTanner SmithUnited StatesParshan KhosraviUnited StatesDr Yolanda L MarquezUnited StatesMadelyn DetloffUnited StatesTiffany HerardUnited StatesWilliam DawleyUnited States

BaluIndiaSneha DesaIndiaSuvadip SinhaUnited StatesDerek NystromCanadaVishal KalhanNew ZealandProfessor Helen KingUnited KingdomMonica H GreenUnited StatesSafoora ArbabPakistanAli Karjoo-RavaryUnited StatesAnanya ChakravartiUnited StatesMubbashir RizviUnited StatesDaniel BassUnited StatesDonald AdamsUnited StatesUtathyaIndiaV V GaneshananthanUnited StatesV V GaneshananthanUnited StatesSahil SasidharanIndiaPrashant KumarIndiaJessica WilliamsUnited StatesSohini DuttaIndiaajay shingalUnited StatesVivian PriceUnited StatesSheena SoodUnited StatesRizwan Ullah KokabPakistanSydni MeyerUnited States

Sheena SinghUnited StatesARUPJYOTI SAIKIAIndiaRebecca J ManringUnited StatesRani ElhajjarItalyJohar SokhiNew ZealandPriyankar DeyIndiaSimon Wolfgang FuchsUnited KingdomMedha GhoshUnited StatesJodi MelamedUnited StatesColleen LyeUnited StatesCarol Christine FairUnited StatesSana HaroonUnited StatesAbhijit RoyIndiaLaboni SinghIndiaFeroze MithiborwalaIndiaRobert ZydenbosGermanyAaron MulvanyPakistanRosinka ChaudhuriIndiaManas RayIndiaRitajyotiIndiaAnita WatersUnited StatesVikas Kumar MoolaIndiaSuresh KolichalaUnited StatesJyoti KapadiaIndiaNarendra SubramanianIndia

Natasha CorneaSwitzerlandNida KirmaniPakistanVictoria FarmerUnited StatesMatthewSmithUnited KingdomSambuddha ChaudhuriUnited StatesDeborah SuttonUnited KingdomHumeira IqtidarUnited KingdomAndrew McNamaraAustraliaJustin SteinCanadaNandini ChandrasekaranIndiaChristopher C HeseltonUnited StatesAndrea MilneUnited StatesA L HamiltonUnited StatesKalyan ChatterjeeUnited StatesAmin ZamaUnited StatesOlivia HumphreyUnited StatesJoshua CloverUnited StatesClare GordonUnited StatesBrian A HatcherUnited StatesAndrew FortUnited StatesRamona BlaquiereAustraliaWilliam C Van NormanUnited StatesAmie WilkinsonUnited StatesMitra SharafiUnited StatesKristin BloomerUnited States

Carla BellamyUnited StatesVelcheru Narayana RaoUnited StatesShreena GandhiUnited StatesAnna BigelowUnited StatesFrancois Cusset University of ParisFranceDavida RabbinoUnited StatesMargherita LongUnited StatesDouglas ArmatoUnited StatesKalyan NadimintiUnited StatesJesse KnutsonUnited StatesSascha AuerbachUnited KingdomRameez ShaikIndiaKatharine RankinCanadaGeorge Francis BickersUnited KingdomShailen NandyUnited KingdomSayoni BoseUnited StatesOnni GustUnited KingdomAparna ParikhUnited StatesIshan AshutoshUnited StatesJames TanetiUnited StatesMajed AkhterUnited StatesCarmel ChristyUnited StatesArthur RubinoffCanadaKatyayani DalmiaUnited StatesSukhmeet SinghUnited Kingdom

Laavanya KathiraveluUnited StatesLena FolwacznyUnited StatesDavid BrothertonUnited StatesJared LessardUnited StatesTarik AougabUnited Statesmark enslinUnited StatesRichard HarkinsonUnited KingdomProbir GhoshIndiaJigeeshaIndiaJuergen SchaflechnerBosnia and HerzegovinaSachin Narayan ShahUnited StatesStephen LeggUnited KingdomHari MenonIndiaangela PaineIndiaEzra RashkowUnited StatesDiana HendersonUnited StatesFrederick TuckerUnited StatesBrinda BoseIndiaoeendrila lahiriIndiaEmily ThumaUnited StatesJayadev AthreyaIndiaJahnabi BarooahUnited StatesUsha IyerUnited StatesCorey CreekmurUnited StatesKatherine CosbyUnited States

Gilles VerniersIndiaS M aliIndiaCarla BellamyUnited Statesandres juradoColombiaGopal BalakrishnanUnited StatesNick MitchellUnited StatesAftabUnited StatesJJUnited Statessubho basuCanadaHayden BellenoitUnited StatesLauren WildUnited StatesSerk-Bae SuhUnited StatesFaridah ZamanUnited StatesPeter BeattieUnited StatesRini Bhattacharya MehtaUnited StatesJennifer MiltonUnited StatesAriela Marcus-SellsUnited StatesNiharika DinkarUnited StatesRachael De La CruzUnited StatesJeb PuruckerUnited StatesInderpal grewalUnited StatesArnab ChakladarHong KongNancy BrntleyUnited StatesRanjan BhattacharyaUnited StatesParvathy BinoyUnited States

Constance PenleyUnited StatesNicoleUnited StatesJonathan DresnerUnited StatesLeroy SearleUnited StatesNirjhar MukherjeeIndiaReiko Ishihara-BritoUnited StatesBratisankar GhoshUnited Arab EmiratesJetsun DeleplanqueUnited StatesSona DattaUnited StatesKavita Panjabi Professor Jadavpur UniversityIndiaSandeep BanerjeeCanadaDanielle DeLanoUnited StatesVijaya prasadUnited StatesAmita Sen GuptaUnited KingdomAnna StirrUnited StatesAndrew KatzensteinUnited StatesSubir SinhaUnited KingdomJammi RaoUnited KingdomJames FujiiUnited StatesChris TaylorUnited StatesLisa WattUnited StatesEmily MartinUnited StatesSid singhUnited StatesHeidi TinsmanUnited StatesEyal AmiranUnited States

Rei TeradaUnited StatesErika DysonUnited StatesSumangala BhattacharyaUnited StatesSanjukta SunderasonNetherlandsTsolin NalbantianNetherlandsLisa WattUnited StatesEmily MartinUnited StatesSid singhUnited StatesHeidi TinsmanUnited StatesEyal AmiranUnited StatesRei TeradaUnited StatesErika DysonUnited StatesSumangala BhattacharyaUnited StatesSanjukta SunderasonNetherlandsTsolin NalbantianNetherlandsGerald MaaUnited StatesParisa VaziriUnited StatesAjai NarendranIndiaSarah KesslerUnited StatesRashmi SawhneyIndiaDan MosesonUnited StatesAdair RounthwaiteUnited StatesJyoti PuriUnited StatesGajendra SinghUnited KingdomSamir DubeyUnited States

Sara E Martinez MLISUnited StatesJamie RogersUnited StatesGhada MouradUnited StatesMadhusree DuttaIndiaaditi roy ghatakIndiaNandini GondhalekarUnited StatesPamela GilbertUnited StatesVixxySingaporeShishiraUnited StatesMillie WilsonUnited StatesGene AndersonUnited StatesKate HartmannUnited StatesWilliam ElisonUnited StatesMelanie BoehiSouth AfricaAyesha MullaPakistanSamir BhalaUnited StatesKatherine KasdorfUnited Statesyogender daymaIndiaSamina MishraIndiaLeelaIndiaAranye FradenburgUnited StatesRonit HazarikaIndiaIndra SenguptaGerman Historical Institute LondonUnited KingdomShankari PatelUnited StatesNalini IyerUnited States

Karin ZitzewitzUnited StatesSatadru SenUnited StatesAmina SteinfelsUnited StatesRohit De Yale UniversityUnited StatesSubir SinhaUnited Kingdomuttara ChakrabortyIndiaKavita DatlaUnited StatesShabnum TejaniUnited KingdomVix eganUnited KingdomjaoulBrazilJohnny LiebermanUnited StatesSumita PahwaUnited StatesPadma VIndiaRitika PrasadUnited StatesTeena PurohitUnited StatesMara MattaItalyV J VargheseIndianicole wolfUnited KingdomAlaska GhosalAustraliaFranson ManjalIndiaMuthu KumaranIndiaSharleen MondalUnited StatesNathaniel RobertsMalaysiaAparajita DeUnited StatesAshwini TambeUnited States

Aswin PunathambekarUnited StatesJobin KanjirakkatCanadaJames CaronUnited KingdomMarian MayerUnited KingdomJayant KripalaniIndiaDavid MosseUnited KingdomPrabhakar JayaprakashIndiaAshishSenegalZoe LawlorIrelandBarakath aliBrunei DarussalamHarsha PrabhuAustraliaRubaica JaliwalaGermanyAmudha GanesanGermanyJohn BrissendenUnited KingdomChaitanya GoreSingaporeKim GerrardUnited StatesSAMRAT CHAKRABORTYIndiaMOHNA ROBERTUkraineSadan jhaIndiaC Jerome SamrajIndiaDibyesh AnandUnited KingdomMadhusree MukerjeeGermanyRoshni SenguptaNetherlandsOyndrila SarkarGermanyNeena MahadevIndia

oyndrila sarkarGermanyAnuradha RamanujanSingaporeEl BiswajitIndiasuchitra narayanIndiaShyam PatelUnited StatesGautam PremnathUnited StatesBradley SmithAustraliaAlakananda BhattacharyaIndiaChandak SengooptaUnited KingdomZeynep OguzCroatiaSian Hawthorne SOAS University of LondonItalyMoinak BiswasIndiaEng-Beng limSingaporeRaihan SharifUnited StatesJudith RodriguezUnited StatesChristina reeUnited StatesRadha DalalQatarEleanor NewbiginUnited KingdomMichael SchiedGermanySuddhasattwa BandyopadhyayUnited StatesJaseela CVIndiaNadim AsrarIndiavenugopal maddipatiIndiaIndra SenguptaUnited KingdomKarthikeyan Damodaran University of EdinburghUnited Kingdom

Aaron GuerreroUnited StatesJay DeeUnited StatesSuranjanaIndiaAnanya ChakravartiUnited StatesAditi ChandraUnited StatesJoanna GonzalezUnited StatesJoseph K AntonyIndiaMeera CuramIndiaJoel QuirkSouth AfricaBonnie McCayUnited StatesGokul VannanIndiaMichael SimmonsUnited StatesKaram DanaUnited StatesCeleste LanganUnited StatesRoshan SahiIndiaJennifer TerryUnited StatesAaron MacLachlanUnited StatesPriyaleIndiaLucas HilderbrandUnited StatesshubaIndiaSanchia deSouzaCanadaKathryn CoxUnited StatesAndrew LeongUnited StatesGeetha NarayananIndiaYogita GoyalUnited States

Malgorzata Herc-BalaszekUnited StatesKhadeejah Avvirin GrayUnited StatesProf David Palumbo-LiuUnited StatesNayantara PothenAustraliaJohn GilmoreUnited StatesSanchia deSouzaCanadaKathryn CoxUnited StatesAndrew LeongUnited StatesGeetha NarayananIndiaYogita GoyalUnited StatesMalgorzata Herc-BalaszekUnited StatesKhadeejah Avvirin GrayUnited StatesProf David Palumbo-LiuUnited StatesNayantara PothenAustraliaJohn GilmoreUnited StatesKate FlintUnited StatesYogesh ChandraniUnited StatesJonathan DettmanUnited StatesRobert WoodUnited StatesDarshana MiniUnited StatesJudith RodenbeckUnited StatesAnne ZimmermanUnited StatesAndrew YaleUnited StatesAmit BaishyaUnited StatesSimona SawhneyIndia

Christine GaileyUnited StatesTravis WorkmanUnited StatesIan BalfourItalyRei TeradaUnited StatesDr Bhabani Shankar NayakUnited KingdomChris NewfieldUnited StatesKP JayasankarIndiaAnustup BasuUnited StatesBindu MenonIndiaAnjali MonteiroIndiaAbhay DoshiUnited StatesJesudas AthyalUnited StatesAnjali ArondekarUnited States

A Para on Sheldon Pollock (in Hindi) - Pls spread this messageProf. Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Department of Computer Science

What Rohan Murtys TOI Comment Really Says

I’ve seen a lot of excitement on social media about the “biased” media, “paid” media and so forth, but I’ve never actually seen it firsthand. So when Rajiv Malhotra launched his best-selling book “The Battle For Sanskrit: Is Sanskrit political or sacred? Oppressive or liberating? Dead or alive?” I thought it would be fun to check it out for myself. This led me to write my firstblog on the topic called “The Battle For Sanskrit: Media Follies”.

While I was framing the next blog on the topic, I realized that one article stood out from all the others. There was so much to talk about in that one that I made it into a separate blog. That article is Rohan Murty’s commentary in the TOI titled “The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights” and it’s the one I will be analyzing today.

So here goes:

First Impression

Rather pedestrian understanding of the situation couched in a tone of utmost authority. One wonders about the origin of this authority.

Detailed Analysis

Article Heading: The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights

Analysis

Later in the article Rohan refers to Greek and Latin as classical languages andalso, rather slyly, slips in Chinese. We all know that Greek and Latin are probably actually not in use, but if someone claims to lump them with Chinese, he’s either misinformed or being dishonest. The Chinese don’t let anyone outside their tradition depict them any way they like. Sanskrit is classical in a way similar to Chinese, i.e., the tradition lives, and this means there are stakeholders who have rights, you cant proclaim that their works belong to the world with any degree of honesty.

Other than that, it’s fair to say that no one has exclusive rights, but it does make one wonder why Rohan is claiming the exclusive rights. After all, if there are a billion Hindus all over the world today, his stake is one-billionth. How does this authorize him to take a decision for us all?

Rohan: At the same time, we are actively working to encourage young peopleto familiarize themselves with classical texts, to learn the original scripts, to seek help from our annotations, and actually begin to read not only the English translations but also the original Indic works on their own

Analysis

I’m not sure if Rohan has said this inadvertently, or if he’s simply being sly again. The correct way to get young people to read the original works is by introducing Sanskrit at the primary school level again (we all know how the colonizers ruined our education system by driving out Sanskrit among other things). Another way would be organizations like Samskrita Bharati who are working to bring back spoken Sanskrit. Of course, Pollock has been known to say “This whole spoken Sanskrit movement fills me with a kind of nausea”, somaybe Rohan Murty won’t like it either. But this would help people judge for themselves what was written. Going the other way, you are taught that certain Sanskrit words mean certain things in English because somebody saidso. This is not learning. It is ridiculous.

Moreover, per Rohan’s prescription, it means that in order to know Sanskrit you need to know English, which puts outsiders to the tradition in a position of being able to dictate to the insiders what their texts mean. This is unacceptable because they are already following their traditions.

Also, many Sanskrit words are non-translatable into English.

Also, it’s not clear who the “young people” he refers to are. If the young people are Indians, he would have tried to translate Sanskrit to the vernaculars, but the project seems to be to translate Sanskrit to the foreign language English.

Rohan: Sheldon Pollock, our general editor, is an extraordinary scholar who, along with the rest of our staff, works tirelessly to create the most exacting scholarship possible…. His dedication and passion for producing high-quality and faithful translations that will outlive us all is evident to anyone who actually reads an MCLI book.

Analysis

I honestly haven’t read any MCLI book yet, so I referred to what a reader Siddhartha, had to say about the MCLI translated version of Manucharitra (Telugu) by Allasani Peddana, translated by Velchuru Narayana Rao and DavidDean Shulman (one of the esteemed names Rohan dropped in his commentary) that appears as a review on Goodreads:

“A background first. Unlike classical languages in Europe, Classical Languagesin India are very much alive in both conversational and literary sense. The language Telugu, from which this work was translated here, is the native tongue of more than 100 million people, including yours truly.

I learn't the language as my first language in school and a few Padya's (the numbered verse like thing in the book, for there is no native English equivalent for a Telugu Padya. Verse does not even come close.) in school andremember them by heart even now. The lyrical beauty of them is untranslatable sometimes so i would not mention it.

I am unhappy with how so many phrases were left out of translation. But even that is not my biggest disappointment with this book, it is the number ofmistranslated phrases, which, considering one of the translators being a native speaker of Telugu is inexcusable.

A good translation does not merely use a bilingual dictionary and put together the meaning in the native language. We do not need human translators to do that today. A good translation puts the reader in the shoes ofthe original reader and imparts him the social, cultural and historical background to relate to what they are reading. This translation sadly fails to do that. It simply makes things easy for its target readers, and in the effort, makes it clear that it is intended for non-Indian native English readers.

A few jarring examples, i recall immediately are:

God Brahma is translated as 'the Supreme Lord' or 'the God creator', which atbest is an approximation and simply does not convey what the author had in mind. In another phrase, 'Konda Chiluva' is translated as 'Boa Constrictor'. Forthe uninitiated, There were never any Boa's in India, so please read it as Python.

A verse 'Ghora Vana Pradesa' is translated as 'God Forsaken Place'. Sorry, thisis junk. There is no such concept as 'God Forsaken' in Indian culture. The phrase literally translates to 'A dark and deep forest'.

This translation might serve as a good introduction if you are new to Telugu, but if you have some background, it will be a letdown somewhat.”

Of course, here again, Pollock may not agree, because according to him, “There can be no such thing as an incorrect interpretation”. So I guess Rohan will say the same thing and maintain that the MCLI books are great.

Rohan: Recently, there have been suggestions that political alignment should inform participation in MCLI. On the contrary, politics has absolutely no place in the work we do at MCLI and thus is not a factor in determining who collaborates with us. This is an enterprise of pure scholarship and genuine love, period.

Analysis

To illustrate Pollock’s “lack of political alignment”, “pure scholarship and genuine love” I reproduce a few lines here:

Pollock says, “you cannot simply go around a tradition to overcome it, you must go through it. You only transform a dominant culture by outsmarting it.”Then, he very foolishly goes on to say, “That, I believe, is precisely what India’s most foremost thinkers, such as Dr. Ambedkar, sought to do, though they were not as successful as they might have been had they had access to all the tools of critical philology necessary to the task.” Ambedkar of course didn’t convert to Christianity or Islam, nor did he become a Marxist. He chose another dharmic faith called Buddhism that is not really considered separate from Hinduism (the Shrmiad Bhagwatam enlists the Buddha as a Vishnu avatar). So he was obviously not trying to “transform” or “outsmart” the tradition and culture.

Another gem from Pollock: “One task of post-orientalist Indology has to be to exhume, isolate, analyze, theorize, and at the very least talk about the different modalities of domination in traditional India.

The first statement of Pollock’s shows his political bend of mind and his determination to change the tradition and culture of India while the second one says that he intends to use the field of Indology to do it. And this is supposed to be the man to whom we must turn over the keys to our puja

room, the room where Lord Rama resides.

Rohan: On this note, I am inspired by what the Mahatma said: "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."

Analysis

I think all the petitioners would be in agreement with this statement of the Mahatma’s. Ever since the earliest days, India has welcomed followers of every religion and embraced people of every kind. And we did this without sacrificing who we are. But Pollock’s intention of “transforming our dominant culture by outsmarting it” sounds ominous to say the least.

Therefore, his stated intention of politically engineering our sacred texts is something every Hindu, every nationalist and every lover of India would strongly protest.

I also have a little Gandhi quotation for Rohan-

"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 theirown researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet."

Funny how Rohan just picked up a part of Gandhi’s sayings to suit his purposes while stripping it from the entire concept that was Gandhi. I think perhaps it is this tendency to selectively represent passages and misinterprettrue intention (either deliberately or because of misinformation) that the petitioners are most afraid of.

Rohan: Notwithstanding its early momentum, however, MCLI alone cannot be the panacea for the challenges ahead. At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500 volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting translation

Analysis

Rohan seems unaware that Max Mueller’s attempt to translate a single Indianwork led to the Aryan Invasion Theory. While this theory has since been proved false archeologically, these self-proclaimed “experts” (Pollock and company) continue to build theories around it. This is what some traditional thinkers have to say on the subject:

David Frawley in The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, Voice of India, New

Delhi, 2002, p. 43.: "Dravidian history does not contradict Vedic history either.It credits the invention of the Tamil language, the oldest Dravidian tongue, to the rishi Agastya, one of the most prominent sages in the Rig Veda. Dravidiankings historically have called themselves Aryans and trace their descent through Manu (who in the Matsya Purana is regarded as originally a south Indian king). Apart from language, moreover, both north and south India share a common religion and culture."

Stephen Knapp from a chapter in "Advancements of Ancient India's Vedic Culture”: “Let us remember that the idea that the Vedic Aryans came from outside of ancient India and entered the region to start what became the Vedic civilization is a foreign idea. There was never any record, either historical, textual or archeological, that supports this premise for an Aryan invasion. There also is no record of who would have been the invaders. The fact is that it is a theory that came from mere linguistic speculation which happened during the nineteenth century when very little archeological excavation had yet been done around India.”

No one is disputing that academics have to work with what information is available at the time. But the refusal to incorporate fresh information as it becomes available through empirical evidence is a highly regressive attitude towards academics.

Second, The Aryan Invasion and resultant Dravidian separatism has given riseto the Dalit freedom movement, which is one of the factors tearing India apart today. Although, as we have seen, there is no historical basis for this Dalit freedom movement!

The project to translate 2,500 works by the same self-proclaimed group of “experts” seems astronomical in comparison to Max Mueller’s works, so one can only imagine the resultant catastrophic impact on Indian society (maybe exactly what Pollock has in mind).

Rohan: Given all that's to be done, I hope we can spend less time pitting Indian against Indian and instead think earnestly about how to best preserve our cultural heritage for generations to come.

Analysis

I quote here a representation of our sacred Ramayana and avatar Lord Rama that innocent American children are taught to sing in school:

The rulers who control all knowledge,Claim the Ramayana to be India’s historyAnd call us many names – demons, low castes, untouchables.But we are the aborigines of this land,Listen to our story.Today we are called dalits – the oppressed.

Once the Aryans on their horses invaded this land.Then we who are the natives got displaced.Oh Rama, Oh Rama, You became the God and we the demons.You portrayed our Hanuman as a monkey.Then again,Muslims were targeted and ‘taught a lesson’ To destroy Lanka, Oh Rama, youFormed us into a monkey army.And today you want us,The working majority,To form a new monkey armyAnd attack Muslims.Oh Rama, you representative of the Aryans,Be warned, you purveyors of a self-serving religion.We will be monkeys no more.We will sing songs of humanityAnd we will make you human as well.

When I first read this grotesque representation of Lord Rama I couldn’t believe that someone could say such a thing. How can any human being uttersuch profanities? And then it occurred to me, is this the kind of “preservation”Rohan Murty is looking for and forcing us as stakeholders to sign on to?

These innocent children are being taught hate at such a young age, totally unsuspecting about how their lives are being played with. This is the kind of madness that leads to insensible wars and social genocide. But who will be held responsible for such destruction? Rohan will be dead and gone but what of our heritage? Will it have to shoulder the blame for one irresponsible Rohan Murty?

Also, when there is such a glaring difference between our living tradition and that being taught in American schools, it warrants a large-scale examination of the Indology and other “academic” groups that are driving it. There simply can’t be any excuse to set examination aide. It should take priority over any number of translations, however well-intentioned they may be.

Another thing that one simply can’t fathom is Rohan’s problem with replacingPollock with Rajiv Malhotra. After all, if we have a cashier in our employ and discover that he was involved in past embezzlements, we surely wouldn’t wait for him to do more damage before we get rid of him. If this can’t be done, at least ask Malhotra to take final authority. Malhotra after all is a traditional scholar of the highest caliber. One just needsto actually read his books (Invading the Sacred, Breaking India, Being Different, Indra’s Net and of course The Battle For Sanskrit) to be able to recognize his expertise. Moreover, he is a prime example of the Life of Sanskrit.

Final Impression

If Rohan Murty had said that he was considering a change, or that he was open to discussion while putting all translations on hold, we would have thought his intentions weren’t bad. But there seems to be no room for dissentat all.

Also, here he’s assumed a position of authority, telling us, “Listen, I have the power (this Western Indology cabal) and I’m the one with the ammunition (money). So anyone who stands in my way will be shot down.”

Welcome to the world of the “intellectual” mafia.

What Rohan Murtys TOI Comment Really SaysBlog by Sejuti Banerjea2609 VIEWS5 COMMENTS

I’ve seen a lot of excitement on social media about the “biased” media, “paid” media and so forth, but I’ve never actually seen it firsthand. So when Rajiv Malhotra launched his best-selling book “The Battle For Sanskrit: Is Sanskrit political or sacred? Oppressive or liberating? Dead or alive?” I thought it would be fun to check it out for myself. This led me to write my firstblog on the topic called “The Battle For Sanskrit: Media Follies”.

While I was framing the next blog on the topic, I realized that one article stood out from all the others. There was so much to talk about in that one that I made it into a separate blog. That article is Rohan Murty’s commentary in the TOI titled “The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights” and it’s the one I will be analyzing today.

So here goes:

First Impression

Rather pedestrian understanding of the situation couched in a tone of utmost authority. One wonders about the origin of this authority.

Detailed Analysis

Article Heading: The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights

Analysis

Later in the article Rohan refers to Greek and Latin as classical languages andalso, rather slyly, slips in Chinese. We all know that Greek and Latin are probably actually not in use, but if someone claims to lump them with Chinese, he’s either misinformed or being dishonest. The Chinese don’t let

anyone outside their tradition depict them any way they like. Sanskrit is classical in a way similar to Chinese, i.e., the tradition lives, and this means there are stakeholders who have rights, you cant proclaim that their works belong to the world with any degree of honesty.

Other than that, it’s fair to say that no one has exclusive rights, but it does make one wonder why Rohan is claiming the exclusive rights. After all, if there are a billion Hindus all over the world today, his stake is one-billionth. How does this authorize him to take a decision for us all?

Rohan: At the same time, we are actively working to encourage young peopleto familiarize themselves with classical texts, to learn the original scripts, to seek help from our annotations, and actually begin to read not only the English translations but also the original Indic works on their own

Analysis

I’m not sure if Rohan has said this inadvertently, or if he’s simply being sly again. The correct way to get young people to read the original works is by introducing Sanskrit at the primary school level again (we all know how the colonizers ruined our education system by driving out Sanskrit among other things). Another way would be organizations like Samskrita Bharati who are working to bring back spoken Sanskrit. Of course, Pollock has been known to say “This whole spoken Sanskrit movement fills me with a kind of nausea”, somaybe Rohan Murty won’t like it either. But this would help people judge for themselves what was written. Going the other way, you are taught that certain Sanskrit words mean certain things in English because somebody saidso. This is not learning. It is ridiculous.

Moreover, per Rohan’s prescription, it means that in order to know Sanskrit you need to know English, which puts outsiders to the tradition in a position of being able to dictate to the insiders what their texts mean. This is unacceptable because they are already following their traditions.

Also, many Sanskrit words are non-translatable into English.

Also, it’s not clear who the “young people” he refers to are. If the young people are Indians, he would have tried to translate Sanskrit to the vernaculars, but the project seems to be to translate Sanskrit to the foreign language English.

Rohan: Sheldon Pollock, our general editor, is an extraordinary scholar who, along with the rest of our staff, works tirelessly to create the most exacting scholarship possible…. His dedication and passion for producing high-quality and faithful translations that will outlive us all is evident to anyone who actually reads an MCLI book.

Analysis

I honestly haven’t read any MCLI book yet, so I referred to what a reader Siddhartha, had to say about the MCLI translated version of Manucharitra (Telugu) by Allasani Peddana, translated by Velchuru Narayana Rao and DavidDean Shulman (one of the esteemed names Rohan dropped in his commentary) that appears as a review on Goodreads:

“A background first. Unlike classical languages in Europe, Classical Languagesin India are very much alive in both conversational and literary sense. The language Telugu, from which this work was translated here, is the native tongue of more than 100 million people, including yours truly.

I learn't the language as my first language in school and a few Padya's (the numbered verse like thing in the book, for there is no native English equivalent for a Telugu Padya. Verse does not even come close.) in school andremember them by heart even now. The lyrical beauty of them is untranslatable sometimes so i would not mention it.

I am unhappy with how so many phrases were left out of translation. But even that is not my biggest disappointment with this book, it is the number ofmistranslated phrases, which, considering one of the translators being a native speaker of Telugu is inexcusable.

A good translation does not merely use a bilingual dictionary and put together the meaning in the native language. We do not need human translators to do that today. A good translation puts the reader in the shoes ofthe original reader and imparts him the social, cultural and historical background to relate to what they are reading. This translation sadly fails to do that. It simply makes things easy for its target readers, and in the effort, makes it clear that it is intended for non-Indian native English readers.

A few jarring examples, i recall immediately are:

God Brahma is translated as 'the Supreme Lord' or 'the God creator', which atbest is an approximation and simply does not convey what the author had in mind. In another phrase, 'Konda Chiluva' is translated as 'Boa Constrictor'. Forthe uninitiated, There were never any Boa's in India, so please read it as Python.

A verse 'Ghora Vana Pradesa' is translated as 'God Forsaken Place'. Sorry, thisis junk. There is no such concept as 'God Forsaken' in Indian culture. The phrase literally translates to 'A dark and deep forest'.

This translation might serve as a good introduction if you are new to Telugu, but if you have some background, it will be a letdown somewhat.”

Of course, here again, Pollock may not agree, because according to him, “There can be no such thing as an incorrect interpretation”. So I guess Rohan

will say the same thing and maintain that the MCLI books are great.

Rohan: Recently, there have been suggestions that political alignment should inform participation in MCLI. On the contrary, politics has absolutely no place in the work we do at MCLI and thus is not a factor in determining who collaborates with us. This is an enterprise of pure scholarship and genuine love, period.

Analysis

To illustrate Pollock’s “lack of political alignment”, “pure scholarship and genuine love” I reproduce a few lines here:

Pollock says, “you cannot simply go around a tradition to overcome it, you must go through it. You only transform a dominant culture by outsmarting it.”Then, he very foolishly goes on to say, “That, I believe, is precisely what India’s most foremost thinkers, such as Dr. Ambedkar, sought to do, though they were not as successful as they might have been had they had access to all the tools of critical philology necessary to the task.” Ambedkar of course didn’t convert to Christianity or Islam, nor did he become a Marxist. He chose another dharmic faith called Buddhism that is not really considered separate from Hinduism (the Shrmiad Bhagwatam enlists the Buddha as a Vishnu avatar). So he was obviously not trying to “transform” or “outsmart” the tradition and culture.

Another gem from Pollock: “One task of post-orientalist Indology has to be to exhume, isolate, analyze, theorize, and at the very least talk about the different modalities of domination in traditional India.

The first statement of Pollock’s shows his political bend of mind and his determination to change the tradition and culture of India while the second one says that he intends to use the field of Indology to do it. And this is supposed to be the man to whom we must turn over the keys to our puja room, the room where Lord Rama resides.

Rohan: On this note, I am inspired by what the Mahatma said: "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."

Analysis

I think all the petitioners would be in agreement with this statement of the Mahatma’s. Ever since the earliest days, India has welcomed followers of every religion and embraced people of every kind. And we did this without sacrificing who we are. But Pollock’s intention of “transforming our dominant culture by outsmarting it” sounds ominous to say the least.

Therefore, his stated intention of politically engineering our sacred texts is something every Hindu, every nationalist and every lover of India would strongly protest.

I also have a little Gandhi quotation for Rohan-

"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 theirown researches in most laudatory terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We, in our ignorance, then fall at their feet."

Funny how Rohan just picked up a part of Gandhi’s sayings to suit his purposes while stripping it from the entire concept that was Gandhi. I think perhaps it is this tendency to selectively represent passages and misinterprettrue intention (either deliberately or because of misinformation) that the petitioners are most afraid of.

Rohan: Notwithstanding its early momentum, however, MCLI alone cannot be the panacea for the challenges ahead. At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500 volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting translation

Analysis

Rohan seems unaware that Max Mueller’s attempt to translate a single Indianwork led to the Aryan Invasion Theory. While this theory has since been proved false archeologically, these self-proclaimed “experts” (Pollock and company) continue to build theories around it. This is what some traditional thinkers have to say on the subject:

David Frawley in The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, p. 43.: "Dravidian history does not contradict Vedic history either.It credits the invention of the Tamil language, the oldest Dravidian tongue, to the rishi Agastya, one of the most prominent sages in the Rig Veda. Dravidiankings historically have called themselves Aryans and trace their descent through Manu (who in the Matsya Purana is regarded as originally a south Indian king). Apart from language, moreover, both north and south India share a common religion and culture."

Stephen Knapp from a chapter in "Advancements of Ancient India's Vedic Culture”: “Let us remember that the idea that the Vedic Aryans came from outside of ancient India and entered the region to start what became the Vedic civilization is a foreign idea. There was never any record, either historical, textual or archeological, that supports this premise for an Aryan invasion. There also is no record of who would have been the invaders. The fact is that it is a theory that came from mere linguistic speculation which

happened during the nineteenth century when very little archeological excavation had yet been done around India.”

No one is disputing that academics have to work with what information is available at the time. But the refusal to incorporate fresh information as it becomes available through empirical evidence is a highly regressive attitude towards academics.

Second, The Aryan Invasion and resultant Dravidian separatism has given riseto the Dalit freedom movement, which is one of the factors tearing India apart today. Although, as we have seen, there is no historical basis for this Dalit freedom movement!

The project to translate 2,500 works by the same self-proclaimed group of “experts” seems astronomical in comparison to Max Mueller’s works, so one can only imagine the resultant catastrophic impact on Indian society (maybe exactly what Pollock has in mind).

Rohan: Given all that's to be done, I hope we can spend less time pitting Indian against Indian and instead think earnestly about how to best preserve our cultural heritage for generations to come.

Analysis

I quote here a representation of our sacred Ramayana and avatar Lord Rama that innocent American children are taught to sing in school:

The rulers who control all knowledge,Claim the Ramayana to be India’s historyAnd call us many names – demons, low castes, untouchables.But we are the aborigines of this land,Listen to our story.Today we are called dalits – the oppressed.Once the Aryans on their horses invaded this land.Then we who are the natives got displaced.Oh Rama, Oh Rama, You became the God and we the demons.You portrayed our Hanuman as a monkey.Then again,Muslims were targeted and ‘taught a lesson’ To destroy Lanka, Oh Rama, youFormed us into a monkey army.And today you want us,The working majority,To form a new monkey armyAnd attack Muslims.Oh Rama, you representative of the Aryans,Be warned, you purveyors of a self-serving religion.We will be monkeys no more.

We will sing songs of humanityAnd we will make you human as well.

When I first read this grotesque representation of Lord Rama I couldn’t believe that someone could say such a thing. How can any human being uttersuch profanities? And then it occurred to me, is this the kind of “preservation”Rohan Murty is looking for and forcing us as stakeholders to sign on to?

These innocent children are being taught hate at such a young age, totally unsuspecting about how their lives are being played with. This is the kind of madness that leads to insensible wars and social genocide. But who will be held responsible for such destruction? Rohan will be dead and gone but what of our heritage? Will it have to shoulder the blame for one irresponsible Rohan Murty?

Also, when there is such a glaring difference between our living tradition and that being taught in American schools, it warrants a large-scale examination of the Indology and other “academic” groups that are driving it. There simply can’t be any excuse to set examination aide. It should take priority over any number of translations, however well-intentioned they may be.

Another thing that one simply can’t fathom is Rohan’s problem with replacingPollock with Rajiv Malhotra. After all, if we have a cashier in our employ and discover that he was involved in past embezzlements, we surely wouldn’t wait for him to do more damage before we get rid of him. If this can’t be done, at least ask Malhotra to take final authority. Malhotra after all is a traditional scholar of the highest caliber. One just needsto actually read his books (Invading the Sacred, Breaking India, Being Different, Indra’s Net and of course The Battle For Sanskrit) to be able to recognize his expertise. Moreover, he is a prime example of the Life of Sanskrit.

Final Impression

If Rohan Murty had said that he was considering a change, or that he was open to discussion while putting all translations on hold, we would have thought his intentions weren’t bad. But there seems to be no room for dissentat all.

Also, here he’s assumed a position of authority, telling us, “Listen, I have the power (this Western Indology cabal) and I’m the one with the ammunition (money). So anyone who stands in my way will be shot down.”

Welcome to the world of the “intellectual” mafia.

5COMMENTSRead Write

popular Form a bond of everlasting love with Evara Form a bond of everlasting lov... Platinum Guild Of India Ways to feel confident in under 5 minutes The way to gain is to give selflessly Tastefully crafted 4BHK Villaments in Bengaluru Tastefully crafted 4BHK Villam... Keya Homes There are 14 worlds in the universe: Where are you? SKODA Rapid @ 0% interest rate SKODA Rapid @ 0% interest rate SKODA I am not black: Prince EA A term plan that covers up to 75 years A term plan that covers up to ... Aegon Life What we can do to get happiermore ALLSPEAKING TREEMY PROFILETodayLast 7 DaysLast 30 DaysAvirup NagSILVER1Rank1360PointsPravashiniPLATINUM2Rank53943PointsAvneet BhogalSILVER3Rank512PointsKhushboo YadavSILVER4Rank500PointsZareen AnsarSILVER5Rank500PointsAnil AnilPLATINUM6

Rank40632PointsYagamiPLATINUM7Rank60299PointsAnil KapoorSILVER8Rank391PointsVishal SharmaGOLD9Rank22301PointsJitendar Singh SILVER10Rank280PointsTimes Point Know more STORIES YOU MAY WANT TO READ Manage all your mutual fund investments at one placeManage all your mutual fund investments at one place Manage all your mutual fund investments at one place Sponsored: FundsIndiaThe Battle For Sanskrit: Media FolliesCFA—A difference that matters. CFA—A difference that matters. Sponsored: CFA InstituteWhy We Need Swadeshi IndologyBose end-of-year sale. Now on! Bose end-of-year sale. Now on! Sponsored: BoseReal Facts about Kashibai, the first wife of BajiraoNew Samsung Galaxy A Series 2016 Edition. New Samsung Galaxy A Series 2016 Edition. Sponsored: SamsungThe real truth of Tipu Sultan Comments Comments Via Facebook

5 Comments Via ST

View Wellwisher Eternal's Profile Wellwisher EternalHow much distortion can one do? This is atrocious. I hope somehow Supreme Truth dawns on those ignoramuses soon.15 hrs agoView Wellwisher Eternal's Profile Wellwisher EternalExcellent one. Great work.15 hrs ago

View Prabhat Gupta's Profile Prabhat GuptaOne should not forget the nexus that has been formed ....a marxist and a capitalist along with a son who is the heir apparent. Rohan should realise thathe is being played and as a matter of fact being laughed at, for he too unwittingly has become a sepoy.

This is not at all about skin colour, one should bear in mind, but about rights or rather earned rights which many sepoys assume with their association with western indologist. The reverse is also true, many westerners who understand our Samskriti (and it's intertwining with Samskrit) far better than the sepoys.

So effectively it is about earned rights and not some privilege based on money and associations which is definitely the case when it comes to Naive Murty.

So please consider your options for soon you will be the laughing stock if you go down this path.9 days agoView Bhagwan Reddy's Profile Bhagwan ReddyWell said and Mr. Rohan Murty should put checks and balances if he really sincere about preserving our heritage as Sheldon Pollock has been proven that he is another Fox entering India how East India Company entered with the name of trade and eventually ruled India. Many of our freedom fighters had to sacrifice their lives to secure the freedom. Mr. Murty wants to commit the same mistake again, how foolish we as Indians with huge and great heritage. Mr. Murty, please wake up from your dream of ignorance and read Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's works so you understand our culture of Purva Paksha and Uttara Paksha. All our great leaders did, you should! Thanks, Bhagwan!9 days agoView Supriya's Profile SupriyaA very detailed analysis. Stress on some key points are worthy of its kind for anyone to reflect upon, when intended.9 days ago

Nicely written analysis. Hope Rohan and party takes note. However ,

>>> The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights>>>

Rohan is right here , if he is refering to the Vedas. Vedas belong to the humankind. Anyone can benefit from them. Here the question is not " who owns what " , but " who distorts what " . the latter is very omnious and it appears Rohan did not know what he is doing OR the import of what he is doing.

Long back , just because the English had the power and authority , they destroyed our culture. Now , just because an individual has money , is trying to do the same , may be unwittingly. [ Or is it so ? Is their business interest in the US not playing its part ? God only knows]

This is to be made understood by him in clear terms.