Sunday, May 1, 2016


Makarand R Paranjape |  Apr 29, 2016 09:47 PM IST

“From its colonial origins in Justice Sir William to its consummation in SS Obersturmführer Wüst [a Nazi official], Sanskrit and Indian studies have contributed directly to consolidating and sustaining programs of domination.”
—Deep Orientalism

The author, or should I say authority, behind these words is Sheldon Pollock, Arvind Raghunathan Professor of South Asian Studies at Columbia University, and Mentor-Chief Editor of the Murty Library. The Murty Library, with its generous endowment of $5.6 million has, however, been mired in controversy. A petition, signed by several concerned academics, asked for the removal of Mr Pollock from the project,  as well as a re-think of its methods and goals.

If Mr Pollock’s condemnation of the Vedic-Shastric tradition as rigid and oppressive was injurious in The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History (1983), Deep Orientalism (1993), is even more insulting. Here Mr Pollock claims that German Orientalists and Sanskrit not only aided the “colonization and domination of Europe itself,” but in “the ultimate ‘orientalist’ project, the legitimation of genocide.” Sanskrit implicated in the extermination of six million Jews?!

Why should Mr Pollock give such extraordinarily evil agency to India’s “sacred” language, which he is elsewhere at pains to prove “dead”? In his oft-cited paper, The Death of Sanskrit (2001), he doesn’t so much prove that Sanskrit is/was dead. When he fails to “kill” it, he resorts to a strange sleight of scholarly hand: “Sanskrit had never been exactly alive in the first place.” Traditional Sanskrit scholarship in India being already destroyed, this attack on German Orientalism leaves only one powerful competing scholarly tradition standing: American Indology.

Reinhold Grunendahl critiques Pollock convincingly. Deep Orientalism has one unambiguous, if ambitious path: “‘Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz’ leads to the ‘New Raj’ across the deep blue sea.” But the “New Raj” of American Indology has one thing in common with the old Raj of British imperialism. Its Rajas and Nabobs, such as Mr Pollock, are increasingly funded by the “sweat, toil, and blood” of Indians, in this case, Indian “cyber-coolies,” who have made companies like Infosys rich. American Indology backed by Indian philanthropy is a lethal combination. It leads us to laud, fete, fund, and award Padma Shris to Mr Pollock and his ilk.

One thing is absolutely clear after the smoke settles in the recent crossfire over the Murty Library: American Indology today occupies an almost unquestionable authority over Indian traditions. Any move to critique its hegemony is met with multiple attacks against individuals questioning its methods and results, both of which are exalted to levels of near infallibility.

In this context, a passing but telling observation in Rajiv Malhotra’s The Battle For Sanskrit is worth recalling. Indian soldiers were recruited by the British colonialists to fight in over 100 battles against fellow Indians, not to mention other “enemies” of the British including the Afghans, Burmese, Chinese, Turks, Germans, and Italians. But they couldn’t raise a single battalion of the Chinese to fight for them, let alone against their fellow-Chinese. This should tell us something of the Indian mentality. Most of Mr Pollock’s “sepoys” are Indians themselves, either trained in elite American universities or sold on images of their past produced by American neo-Orientalism.

Let me offer one more example. In Ramayana and Political Imagination in India (1993), Mr Pollock argues that India’s multiple medieval Ramayanas actually served to create a “political theology” to demonise and attack those who stood outside its “sanctioned polity”. Bringing this theme up to date, Mr Pollock damns the Ramayana tradition as the “mytheme par excellence that reactionary politics in India today” uses “in the interests of a theocratization of the state and the creation of an internal enemy”.

Again, frustrated with the persistence of Ramayana, Mr Pollock concludes, “because of even the Sanskrit text’s instability…there may no longer exist any such thing as the Ramayana, if ever there did.” No surprise that Mr Pollock and his followers want to abolish the very existence of “India” as an academic entity substituting it by the meaningless epithet “South Asia” — south of what and for whom?

How deep an Orientalist Mr Pollock is clear only towards the close of Deep Orientalism. Given that both “history" and “object” of the “field of knowledge” called Orientalism was “permeated with power,” he declares that Orientalists are now at a loss because they “no longer know why they are doing what they do.”

But, apparently, Mr Pollock knows exactly what he is up to. He has re-invented Orientalism so that wealthy Indians endow his professorship, pay him for desacralising Sanskrit and secularising Sanskriti, signing anti-Narendra Modi political petitions, and hectoring the world’s largest democracy how it should conduct itself.

The writer is professor of English at Jawaharlal Nehru University

Saturday, April 30, 2016


Agusta middlemen Michel, Haschke & Gandhi family ties

The Long relationship between the Michel family and the Gandhi family & how Haschke & RaGa are connected revealed

Michel family and the Gandhi family go a long way back
Michel family and the Gandhi family go a long way back
The two main middlemen in the Agusta Westland VVIP Chopper deal are Christian Michel and Guido Haschke. Both are closely associated with the Gandhi family. While Christian Michel and his father, late Wolfgang Michel are directly associated with the Gandhi family from Indira Gandhi’s time, Haschke has close ties with Rahul Gandhi’s private secretary Kanishka Singh’s relatives, who run the real estate company Emmaar MGF.
… will try to obfuscate, obstruct & adopt an ostrich-like attitude…
Wolfgang Michel was involved in defence deals in the 70s and was a frequenter to Delhi. He had a close association with Indira, Rajiv and Sonia. He was also dealing in Airbus, Dassault and British origin companies’ business in India. When he became a persona non grata in the Defence Ministry, the old player, who passed away in August 2012, cleverly passed all his deals to his son Christian Michel in the mid-90s. In February 2013 and July 2013, ‘The Pioneer’ newspaper reported in detail about this matter.

In the mid-90s, Wolfgang Michel was playing in between Sonia Gandhi and the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. Senior Michel used to provide information on Sonia’s trips to London to Rao.

Haschke was a Director of Emmar MGF in 2009. How a Swiss national became a Director is a question for another time, and perhaps another post. Emmar MGF is founded by Rahul Gandhi’s private Secretary Kanishka Singh’s maternal grandfather Ved Prakash Gupta in the early 60s in Delhi. Currently, Kanishka’s uncle Rajiv Gupta heads the company. When the news broke out, Emmar MGF issued a press release that Haschke served as Director for a few months and that they have no business relations with Kanishka.

This company bagged the biggest chunk of work in the Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Emmar MGF was the builder of the Commonwealth Games (CWG) village. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) once registered a probe in connection with CWG scams and soon closed the case during UPA tenure. Why? The answer is simple – they are related to Kanishka Singh.

In light of these revelations, one can expect the proceedings in the Parliament to be rocky, where the Congress (and perhaps some of its UPA partners) will create a ruckus, trying to obfuscate, obstruct & adopt an ostrich-like attitude. And the public will get a ring seat by watching it in the comfort of their homes, on TV. It is encouraging to note that Prime Minister Modi has enlisted the help of the intrepid Subramanian Swamy to try and cleanse the establishment.

1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.

Haschke's appointment to Emaar MGF board shrouded in mystery

The company has clarified it wasn’t associated with any of Haschke’s businesses, past or present
Offering a board position in a real estate company to a Swiss-American brokering a controversial defence deal may sound a bit stretched. But that’s how it was for Guido Ralph Haschke, believed to have played a role in selling Italian group Finmeccanica’s helicopters to India.

On September 25 2009, Haschke was appointed to the board of Emaar MGF, a joint venture between MGF and Dubai-based Emaar Properties, as an independent, non-executive director. He held the post till December 7, 2009. In Emaar MGF’s draft red herring prospectus for a proposed initial public offering (IPO) dated September 29 2009, Haschke’s designation is stated to be “business consultant”. On his term as board member, the prospectus said he was “liable to retire by rotation”.

On why the real estate company had appointed Haschke as board member and that, too, for such a short period, an Emaar MGF spokesperson told Business Standard, “Due to the statutory requirement of having an independent director on the board in order to file for an IPO, his name was recommended to us due to his experience with the international financial sector.”

“As the IPO eventually fell through, he did not continue on the board,” he added.

In September 2009, apart from Haschke, there were five other independent and non-executive directors on the Emaar MGF board. Also, there were four non-independent, non-executive board members and two non-independent, executive members, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Haschke did not attend any board meeting during his stint at Emaar MGF, the Emaar MGF spokesperson said. The company has clarified it wasn’t associated with any of Haschke’s businesses, past or present.

In the past few years, Emaar MGF had filed the red herring prospectus thrice. However, it failed to launch an IPO for various reasons, primarily the global economic slowdown.

Even as the company stated its version of the story on why Haschke left the board so soon, the circumstances under which he was appointed for such a short period are shrouded in mystery. According to a source, Haschke might have been appointed to the real estate company’s board for his acumen in cutting deals.

Emaar MGF was incorporated on February 18, 2005. As of August 31, 2010, it had completed only one project, according to a draft red herring prospectus filed in September 2010.

MD Nalapat's blog

Friday, 29 April 2016

Italy exposes an ugly Indian scandal (Pakistan Observer)

SINCE the 1950s, corruption has grown in India, but not as fast as has been the growth of “anti-corruption agencies”. The Indian state, in line with its colonial traditions, believes that it is only the state that should police the state, and as a consequence, there has been a proliferation of agencies tasked with eliminating corruption. Large state-run companies, for instance, have each their own “vigilance” wing, which is expected to investigate charges of graft against officers of the concerned public sector company. Such departments are under the control of the Managing Director (MD) of the company, and if – as is often the case – the MD’s office is where corruption is at its highest, it is clear that the Vigilance Department will spend its time chasing lower rank officers on petty matters rather than go after the big shots, especially those who are accomplices of the top company managers.

Incidentally, in India instances have been many where those at the top have manufactured false charges against officers who have refused to ratify the corruption of their seniors. The consequence has been that such (honest) officials get penalised over some small transgressions ( such as getting reimbursed Rs 150 more than a ticket was worth, owing to carelessness in filing of accounts), even going to prison while those guilty of raking in millions of dollars escape with their pensions intact.

In India, hawala operators ensure that cash in rupees gets swiftly transformed into euros and dollars and sent to safe locations, where they cab be deployed as per the wishes of those who have made this “black” (ie unaccounted) income. And these days, there are several countries which welcome those with bulging bank accounts to become residents and even citizens. Small wonder that the number of those from influential political and official families who are acquiring foreign passports is growing. Since 2010,when a raft of corruption stories filled the media in India, there has been phenomenal growth in the moneys flowing abroad, a flow that has accelerated after the “Drive on Black Money” initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi soon after he took office on May 26,2014.

Modi took a decision to retain in key posts almost all the top bureaucrats who were prominent during the sixteen years when Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh were Prime Ministers ( 1998-2014). Several of them were facilitators of the processes through which senior ministers made hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves. As they are still in key slots, these officials have managed to ensure that Prime Minister Modi’s efforts to enforce accountability for past acts of corruption have been put on a very slow track.

Prime Minister Modi has followed his practice (while Chief Minister of Gujarat) of retaining key officials from past regimes, but after two years, it has become clear that unless those officials known to have facilitated scamster ministers in the past get replaced in sensitive slots by honest officials, the accountability sought by the Prime Minister will be elusive. After all, such scamster ministers in the two previous regimes groomed and promoted only those officers who were crooked enough or opportunistic enough to do the bidding, not the honest majority in the system. Such bent officers will be desperate to prevent genuine enquiries from taking place, for fear that these will lead them to their doors.

The deliberate incompetence of investigating agencies in India can be seen from the fact that almost every mega scam that has been exposed owes disclosure to a foreign source. The army of anti-corruption agencies in India have not located any bank account abroad of top officials or politicians. What few revelations there have been are because of exposes in the foreign media, exactly as took place in the matter of the payoffs for the Bofors guns in 1986. Incidentally, because of a cover-up by the agencies involved, practically all those who took bribes during that transaction were subsequently exonerated of any wrongdoing by courts in India, who were forced to rely on the evidence presented by the agencies and go by such documentation, which in many cases was misleading and obfuscatory.

Now a court in Italy has convicted individuals in a company based there of having paid bribes to influential people in India to ensure purchases of helicopters. Reports about bribes being paid surfaced three years ago, and then Defence Minister A K Antony promptly got a First Information Report filed on the matter, subsequently ordering a halt to fresh purchases from the company reported as having bribed officials and politicians. This was for the record, for afterwards, there was zero follow up action. The result is that the bribe takers have been enjoying a comfortable life in India (when not traveling abroad), while in Italy, the bribe givers have been sent to jail. Why is it that so little progress is made in India in the matter of investigating even the crimes of previous governments?

A senior minister told this columnist in 2007 that the policy was to “set aside 40% of the bribe amount for personal uses of the decision makers involved, 40% for political purposes of the ruling parties and 20% to be distributed to Opposition politicians to ensure their silence”. The policy of ensuring that even those in the opposition make money during the tenure in office of a rival party has meant that skeletons remain buried rather than uncovered. In India, the lifestyles of those in opposition are as high flying as those in government, for in the Lutyens system, top politicians look after each other, thereby insuring themselves in case there is a change in regime.

After nearly two years studying the Lutyens system, Prime Minister Modi would have understood the way in which this has perpetuated corruption. There are signs that the PM is now readying himself to ensure that genuine accountability take place, even if in such a process some within his own party get indicted. After all, not everybody in the Congress Party is a sinner and not everyone in the BJP is a saint. A housecleaning of those involved in cosy financial links with past regimes is overdue and is expected to take place, so that in India, corruption finally registers a decline that is inversely proportional to the number of top politicians and officials sent to jail for defrauding the public during their years in office. Much is expected from Modi in coming months and years in this regard.

—The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.

Monday, March 28, 2016


Dr. Pramod V. Pathak
Satyam, Pundalik Nagar, Parvari, Goa, 403521
Phn 9975559155, <>

It was nearly two centuries ago that western scholars started studying the ancient Hindu texts. They had a different outlook towards these texts and fresh approach to interpret these texts. It was Prof. Max Muller, who undertook stupendous task of editing and bringing out the critical edition of the Hindu Holy text, "the Rigveda." That work was adored by the Indians. In fact he was admitted into their fraternity by the Vedic Brahmins from Varanasi bestowing him with the Brahminhood. Later on Max Muller undertook a translation task and brought out translations of many of the sacred texts in a series, "The Sacred Books of the East" in collaboration with many other Indian and Western scholars. At this juncture there appeared the difference of opinion among the Indian readers. They found that many of the Western scholars were not true to the spirit of scholarly approach.


There took root the distinct schools of thought. The understanding of the Indian i.e. Hindu ethos by the western scholars was questioned. The western scholars showed either the religio-cultural or Imperial biases . Their aim appeared to smear the Indian writing with socio-cultural denigration and to show these were second rate as valued against the Greco-Roman legacy they inherited.

The Aryan Invasion theory was propagated by many of the British scholars starting from Mecauley, J. S. Mill. Prominent among them in 20 th century was R.E.M. Wheeler who attributed the destruction of the Indus cities to the Aryan invasion. The conflict got aggravated when The Indus Culture cities were excavated. There appeared two major divisions among the scholars. Some endorsed the Aryan Invasion Theory while some opposed it.

While studying the ancient texts and evaluating these by many Western scholars, they clearly showed the lack of understanding of the cultural ethos in India and their ulterior motive of exacerbating the socio-cultural division amongst the Hindu society. While the Indian scholars advanced their arguments and proofs against the Aryan Invasion theory and considered the Vedic culture as rooted in India, they also had differing views on socio-cultural realities of the Hindu society. At times the Western scholars sort of denigrated the Hindu deities and heroes. Lord Ganesha was looked down upon as a sexual symbol. Another reputed American scholar undertook a sort of smear campaign for the most revered Hindu God Lord Rama. An American scholar showed Shivaji in poor light. There have been refutations of these attempts by many Indian-Hindu scholars.

 In the recent times, the two diverging views are on the clashing path with announcement of constitution of the scholarly body for undertaking the translation of many of these ancient texts. A well-known scholar western Sheldon Pollack is to head the scholarly body. Indian scholars are aggrieved over SP's scholarship because he has in his earlier writings taken a dismissing view of many of the socio -cultural trends that he critically evaluated. A person with such biased views should not head the committee undertaking the work with long standing legacy.

It is to be appreciated that the Western scholars devoted their lives to study the Indian literature. Their exactness in the scholarly approach is admirable. Their access to the literature sources too is very wide compared to the Indian scholars. However, they appeared to commit very simple mistakes. Reputed scholar like Wendy Doniger in her comment on the Ramayana episode writes that father of Rama, King Dasharatha died five years after Rama's exile. This is a very gross mistake because in Ramayana Dasharatha was alive for only five days till Rama's charioteer Sumant, returned. These five days the grieving King felt like five years. Wendy has clearly goofed up in her statement and has become laughing stock among the Indian scholars. At certain point the main promulgator of the Aryan Invasion Theory, Wheeler conceded that his casually made statement of Indra and his Aryan hoard destroying the Indus was over blown. Many such examples can be put forward where the Western scholarship has been lacking in authenticity and has at times shown ulterior motives.


It is felt that an independent school of thought should emerge to take a fresh look at the ancient Indian texts which will encompass the social, cultural and scientific fields and interpret the ancient texts using the critical methods that have emerged over the period. These methods of evaluation are surely of THE WESTERN ORIGIN, however are widely accepted as methods of research. The great scholar like Vasudeo Sharan Agrawal, P. V. Kane, G. S. Ghurye , D. D. Kosambi and many others were followers of these methods and left behind the epoch making literature in the field of research on Indian Culture.

At this juncture apart from the socio-cultural studies many of the scientific texts and scientific concepts from the ancient literatures have been studied by the scholars from different disciplines. While following the scientific methods of researches, they differ from their western counterparts.  To quote here an example by the present author, the narration in the Nasadiya Sukta in the Rigveda runs parallel with t X.129 the modern cosmological theory of Big Bang. The approach of Indian scholars, their assumptions, and their understanding differs from the westerners' approach. With due consideration, their approach is like a Hindu World View. The time has come to bring the scholars from different disciplines to consolidate the THE HINDU WORLD VIEW on social, cultural and scientific matters.

This work of consolidating the world view is a stupendous task and it can be given real shape by scholars from different disciplines working together. They will have to be drawn from many disciplines and will have to undertake multi-disciplinary research in diverse fields.

As a first step, some of them will have to evaluate the work of some of the Western scholar with whom they differ while using the widely accepted research methodology. The present author has undertaken such critical review work. He has evaluated James Laine's work on Shivaji and Wendy Doniger's work on "An Alternative History" for the Hindus. Vishal Agarwal in USA, has brought out a full volume on the Western scholar pointing out their lacunae and biases. There is need to move a few steps forward to bring these scattered reviewers and point out in no uncertain terms to the western scholar where they differ and why.

The next step will be to project a view which will consolidate as The Hindu World View. It will surely be different from the Western World View. This will involve work of an encyclopedic dimension. It can be developed taking definite topics of individual scholars' interest and they are to express their views on the topics they have chosen. Or an alternative could be to select certain texts and interpret these. Prof. M. M. Sharma has carried out outstanding work on ancient time and land measuring devices. At some point the views on scientific outlook in the society from the western point of view have to be re-evaluated . From all these efforts the Hindu World View, a distinct school of thought will emerge and scholars all over the world will have to take note and acknowledge it. 

Monday, February 22, 2016


The Battle For Sanskrit: Is Sanskrit political or sacred? Oppressive or Liberating? Dead or Alive? by Rajiv Malhotra (2016 HarperCollins India)

Reviewed by Shrinivas Tilak*

I Introduction

Why The Battle For Sanskrit matters

In chapter one of The Battle for Sanskrit the author Rajiv Malhotra succinctly explains his purpose (prayojana) in writing this book: Sanskrit has been the heartbeat of Indian civilization (sanskriti) for several thousand years. It could even be said that bharateeya sanskriti has Sanskrit embedded in its DNA. Put differently, Sanskrit provides the vocabulary with which Indian civilization is encoded. Even those who do not explicitly use Sanskrit often draw upon knowledge stored in Sanskrit texts—Shruti, Smriti, and epics (mahakavyas) such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. One would think, continues Rajiv Malhotra (hereafter RM) that a major takeover of Sanskrit studies by Western scholars would not go unnoticed in India particularly when their works discount or undermine the core values of Sanskrit and sanskriti.

In the United States it is Sheldon Pollock (Arvind Raghunathan, Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University, New York) who leads and shapes the anti-Sanskrit/sanskriti brigade. After acquiring his Ph.D. in Sanskrit Studies from Harvard under the famous Indologist, Daniel Ingalls, Pollock spent the next four decades working diligently on a variety of Sanskrit texts. His publications cover a vast canvas of topics in Sanskrit studies. Chapter two of The Battle for Sanskrit (hereafter TBFS) provides a detailed account of Pollock’s activism. A leading Sanskrit scholar, Pollock is regarded as a hero by many fellow academics and leftists in the USA and in India. He has trained and inspired an army of young American and Indian scholars, popular writers, and other opinion-shapers to use his interpretations of Sanskrit for a completely new analysis of Indian society. The new breed of intellectual leaders groomed under his aegis includes a number of young scholars across the world who portend to claim newly earned authority on Sanskrit history, social structures, and their political implications.

Patrick McCartney, a PhD candidate in the School of Culture, History and Language at the Australian National University, is one such aspiring (‘good cop’) scholar inspired by Pollock writing his dissertation on a benign, innocuous sounding topic: ‘Shanti Mandir: Authenticity, Emotion and Economy in a Yoga Ashram’ located in Melbourne, Australia. The title of his proposed post-doc research, however, is more ominous: ‘Imagining Sanskrit Land: A Sociolinguistic Study of Sanskrit Language Nests and the Hindu Rāṣṭra.’ McCartney (the ‘bad cop’) intends to explain ‘how the symbolic capital of Sanskrit is utilized by the Hindu nationalists groups, i.e. the Sangh Parivar, as a way to usher in their ultimate goal of overthrowing the world’s largest secular democracy and replace it with a Hindu theocratic state. Due to its religious symbolism, McCartney speculates, ‘Sanskrit is the preferred linguistic vehicle that is apparently able to purify and sanitize space, right the historical wrongs of the Mughal and Colonial periods, and assist with the creation of a new social and moral order’ (see McCartney Post-doc Research Proposal n.d.).

Elsewhere McCartney challenges the mandate of Samskrita Bharati (an organization of dedicated volunteers who strive for the popularization of Sanskrit, Sanskriti and the Knowledge Traditions of India): to undertake the ‘Revival of Samskrit as a mass communication language (janabhasha) and facilitation of common man’s access to its vast knowledge treasure.’ Samskrita Bharati, McCartney warns us, is a part of the Sangh Parivar, the collection of nationalist, political, social, paramilitary, religious and cultural organizations devoted to the furthering of its particular version of ‘patriotic’ Hinduism. The Sangh would like to see an ideal utopian Hindu nation and world with Sanskrit as its lingua franca. Samskrita Bharati’s role in this movement is linguistic and cultural; however, it is enmeshed in the political, religious, and para-military preoccupations of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), respectively. Sanskrit is a symbolic vehicle for the ideology and practices of the Sangh Parivar (McCartney 2014).
(Editor’s Note: One cannot miss the paranoid discoloration resulting from McCartney’s jaundiced eyes exaggerating the ultimate xenophobic view of brown colored Hindus one day aspiring to rule the world and impose Sanskrit as the replacement for English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, French and Japanese as the world language for trade and commerce. Also, underlying this accusatory statement is a presumption that Hindu nation and culture is antithetical to cultural pluralism, secularism, and religious freedom limited to practising ones religious and spiritual path, though it might resist aggressive proselytization with deceit, allurement and coercion, a version of religious neo-colonization with decimation of older cultures as is historically evidenced by the mass conversions of world populations undertaken by the Christians and Muslims over the last two millennia).

Approvingly citing Sheldon Pollock, McCartney claims (Editor’s note: further evidence of extreme paranoia) that speaking in Sanskrit was restricted or prohibited regardless of an individual’s linguistic inheritance. Punishments to prevent further transgressions included pouring molten tin and lac into the ears of women or non-twice-born males who dared listen to Sanskrit mantras, according to the ancient legal text Manava Dharma Shastra. The punishment for a non-dvija learning or teaching Sanskrit was for their bodies to be hacked to pieces (McCartney 2014). The use of Sanskrit is deeply connected to the nationalistic patriotism of Hindutva ideology. In a sense, the Hindu right has appropriated Sanskrit for their own moral and political agenda, and is implementing it as part of their cultural hegemonic aims. For national unity and world peace, a Brahminical ideology and practice should be established under a Hindu kingdom with a hyper-masculinized Rama as its semiticized, monotheistic figurehead (see McCartney 2014).

Following his mentor Pollock, McCartney concludes that Samskrita Bharati represents a monolingual and mono-cultural hegemony bereft of sympathy for or interest in South-Asian cultural, linguistic and religious diversity. The imposition of their ‘tolerant’ and ‘harmonious’ goals result from adopting the Sangh’s moral and linguistic initiatives whose symbolic power comes through the sanitizing effects of Sanskrit. Therefore, the type of person found speaking Sanskrit generally seems to hold conservative and intolerant views towards multiculturalism and modernity, and is rooted in the ideology of Hindutva. This is problematic for the 99.99875 percent of India’s population who don’t [sic] speak Sanskrit and also, perhaps, don’t want to be sanitized in the way the Sangh would like them to be. The ‘intangible heritage’ found within the Sanskrit literary canon is a valuable body of knowledge that UNESCO believes should not be lost to humanity. It belongs to all of us, not just fascist ideologues with an agenda (see McCartney 2014).

No doubt, at some future date McCartney’s publications will be prescribed as required reading in Western universities where Sanskrit and Indian culture are taught. Like McCartney, several bright young Indians are being trained in Sanskrit studies who are then encouraged to occupy key posts in India and elsewhere. They control many journals, conferences, dissertation committees, and other forums (fora) that shape the approach to Sanskrit and sanskriti. The prestigious Murty Classics Library, which plans to translate five hundred volumes of Indian language works into English, is an example of the enormous power controlled directly by this group of US and India based Sanskritists and Indologists. The translations it is producing bear the ideological stamp of the very overbearing and bullying acamp whose fundamental positions RM targets in this book.

RM laments that Indians in general (and Hindus in particular) are blissfully unaware of the fact that studies in Sanskrit and sanskriti have been and being hijacked by Western (particularly American) Sanskritists and Indologists with a specific political agenda (as discernible in McCartney’s Post-doc proposal). Prominent leaders of the USA-based Sanskrit studies movement like Pollock occupy powerful academic positions in a number of fields in Indology from where they (1) control the editing and authoring of many influential works in and on Sanskrit and (2) initiate or support petitions that attack Hindu institutions and leaders. They also lobby in Indian political circles, exerting influence through the media. Alarmed by the increasing hostility among Western Indologista and Sanskritists toward Sanskrit and sanskriti RM has initiated an ongoing debate with them. The raison d’ȇtre of TBFS is to discuss in depth some of these politically active scholars led by Sheldon Pollock.

The long tradition of debates/verbal battles

In India, controversial philosophical and religious doctrines have been debated and verbally battled in public discussions from the earliest times. Debates (Sanskrit samvāda = dialogue) featured different schools of thought covering such areas as philosophy, jurisprudence, literature, and medicine. One reads about arguments in which important teachers advocated their opinions fearlessly and defeated (or lost to) opponents in verbal debates. One early Indian thinker, Kautsa, so far as went on to assert the meaninglessness of the Vedas, and was taken to task by the famous etymologist Yaska for it. Yaska nevertheless retained this dissenting opinion as well as many others in his dictionary of Vedic terms the Nirukta.

In the Upanishads there are dramatic scenes of men and women ascetics, kings and brahmins regularly debating and disputing over the ultimate nature of brahman, the transcendent reality. This they did publicly before an equally erudite audience in rounds of challenge and counter-challenge. The famous debate where Gargi challenges her sage husband Yajnavalkya on the nature of the self (atman) is one such instance.

Over time, a distinct discipline of Vadashastra (science of debate and dialogues) emerged with set conventions about how such debates were to be held, which rules were to be followed to conduct the debates and when a debater could be declared the winner in a verbal contest. Unfortunately, manuals on debating per se from ancient India have not survived. Nevertheless, two sources--the Carakasamhita (Vimanasthana 3:8) and the Nyayasutra (chapters one and five) with Pakshilatirtha’s commentary Nyayabhashya, provide an adequate account of the rules that were to be observed in actual arguments and an indication of what handbooks or manuals of debate may have contained.

Samvada (sambhasha in Carakasamhita) can mean dialoguing in a variety of modes including ‘face to face,’ and ‘confrontation between two adversaries presided over by a referee.’ Many suktas in the Rigveda featuring such debates are called ‘samvada suktas.’ The Bhagavad Gita too styles itself as samvada—(sambhashana) between Shrikrishna and Arjuna about the nature of ultimate reality and how to attain it. The Mahabharata uses the term samvada to describe harmonious exchange, say, between Draupadi and Krishna's wife, Satyabhama, or the more contentious one between Draupadi and Yudhishthira before they set for the forest.

Generally, a debate proceeded in three stages—Purva paksha, Uttara paksha, and Siddhanta. Purva paksha refers to the faithful depiction and critical examination of the views (mata) held prima facie by one’s opponent concerning a key idea about a major precept or practice in philosophy, jurisprudence, or medicine (pariksha). Uttara paksha involved critical assessment and subsequent refutation of the point of view of the opponent on the subject under scrutiny (nirnaya = decision).  Siddhanta meant putting forth of a ‘provisional’ conclusion (i.e. a conclusion subject to revision after subsequent round/s of debate).

Debates regularly took place among the leading scholars of the six philosophical systems (darshanas meaning philosophical visions or views about different aspects of reality) over the merits and demerits of each system. Typically, the losing scholar would renounce his lineage to join the winner’s school. The losing scholar’s disciples were expected to follow him. This is how Mandana Mishra, the leader of the Mimamsa School, had to join the Vedanta School led by Shankaracharya after losing in one such debate.

II Opposing camps on the battlefield

The outsider and the insider

RM refers to the two antagonists in the debate/verbal battle over Sanskrit as Outsiders and Insiders. It was Kenneth L. Pike who coined the new terminology of  etic’ and ‘emic’ to refer to the ‘outsider’ and ‘insider’ respectively. While etic refers to a detached, trained observer’s perception of the un-interpreted ‘raw’ data; emic refers to how those data are interpreted by an ‘insider’ to the system. An emic unit is a physical or mental item or system treated by insiders as relevant to their system of behavior in terms of the context (Pike 1967). Thus, in the etic perspective, the color ‘white’ is perceived as equal presence of light of all wave-lengths by an average human eye. In the emic perspective, white is the color of festivity and joy in Western cultures. In India it denotes the notion of purity and auspiciousness; while in China it is the color of mourning. On the whole, therefore, the distinction between the etic and emic views parallels the distinction between the outsider and insider and the absolute and the relative respectively.

The outsider allegedly brings with him/her a detached observer’s view, which is one window on the world. The view of the local scene through the eyes of a native participant is a different window. Either view by itself is restricted in scope and may lead to distortion. The ‘Outsider’ looks at Sanskrit from an Orientalist and Social/anthropological studies point of view; while the ‘Insider’ camp holds a traditional Indic view of Sanskrit and tries to understand a culture the way the insiders see it.

Two important caveats may be entered here: (1) RM is categorical in stating that the ‘Outsider’ vs ‘Insider’ division is not based on race, ethnicity, or nationality. Thus, while in general the Western view looks at Sanskrit and sanskriti with an Orientalist lens, any Westerner holding the traditional viewpoint on Sanskrit would be called an ‘Insider.’ By the same token Indians holding an exclusively Social/anthropological science point of view while denying the traditional view would come under the ‘Outsider’ camp; (2) RM’s battle for Sanskrit is not physical but verbal and metaphysical. The structure of his overall argument developed in TBFS--attack, defense, and counter-attack is verbal and intellectual; not physical.

The camp opposing Pollock’s is led by RM. It wants to see Sanskrit regain and retain its power as a living language driving sanskriti and dharma. Rather than dismiss Sanskrit as a dead language, Hindus celebrate Sanskrit as a living language for its enduring sacredness, aesthetic powers, metaphysical acuity, and ability to generate and support knowledge in many domains (Malhotra 2016: 30). Unfortunately, advocates of the inside view are dispersed and not well-resourced. They are for the most part practitioners of one or the other form (pantha) of Hinduism and tend to cluster in small groups where they feel safe as they relate to one another. Many of them are ignorant of the battle at hand and hence unwittingly become complicit in the agenda pushed by Pollock and his troops.

III Purva paksha

RM’s TBFS, which ‘provides a careful survey of the ongoing contentious debate over Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma, provides a worthy continuity to that illustrious line of debating tradition of India by challenging Professor Pollock and his school. Initially, skirmishes took place at various seminars, public lectures, and on line followed by a meeting between RM and Pollock in latter’s office at Princeton University. After cordial exchange of views the two decided to meet again after TBFS was published. TBFS narrates the history of how RM built his Purva paksha around four key propositions put forth by Pollock:

I : Decoupling Sanskrit from the Vedas by removing the mystic aura surrounding it. Scholars then must direct their gaze through the window of Sanskrit into the history of India to expose the toxic role Sanskrit has had in social oppression as claimed by select historians.

II: Secularizing the Sanskrit kavya tradition (particularly the Ramayana) by peeling away its paramarthika (transcendental) dimension

III: Interpreting the Ramayana as a social and political weapon of oppression against women, shudras, and Muslims as claimed by some select historians

IV: Declaring the death of Sanskrit and the rise of vernaculars (Pollock’s term for languages derived from Prakrit). Per Pollock, Sanskrit was dead as a living language by about the twelfth century. The cause of its death was the structures of abuse that were built into it and Hindu kings accelerated that process. Pollock absolves Muslim invaders and British colonizers from any hand in the death of Sanskrit.

Pollock’s posse

RM charges that over the past few decades a group of ideologically and politically motivated American Sanskrit scholars with commitment to Marxism have successfully fused expertize of Sanskrit into the leftist lens on India. This fusion, led by Pollock, is at the heart of what RM calls ‘American Orientalism phenomenon.’ It is important to note that the deep and systematic study of Sanskrit carried out by Pollock and his posse is not being driven by any kind of respect or attachment for Sanskrit as a language of an ancient civilization. Rather, it is motivated by a political agenda as several chapters of TBFS explain in detail (Malhotra 2016: 61ff). RM charges that Pollock and his posse (many of them being Hindu scholar recruits) (editor’s note : these are called “sepoys” or corrupted scholars) have set up for themselves the task to exhume, isolate, analyze, and theorize about the modalities of domination rooted in Sanskrit as the medium of brahminical ideology of power and domination. RM’s Purva paksha  (i.e. scrutiny = pariksha) occupies the first half of TBFS under the following six fields: (1) Sanskrit pariksha; (2) Shruti pariksha; (3) Kavya pariksha (4) Shastra pariksha; (5) Sanskriti pariksha; and (6) Orientalism pariksha.

IV Uttara paksha

RM submits that TBFS attempts to formulate the terms of the Purva paksha and Uttara paksha concerning the bone of contention among Indologists and Sanskritists-- Is Sanskrit dead or alive, oppressive or liberating, political or sacred? Well, RM has eminently succeeded in this endeavor! There is ample evidence that he has carefully and diligently studied the principal writings of Pollock and his henchmen/women displaying for all to see their assumptions, detailed arguments, and conclusions. In sum, through his masterly presentation of the Purva paksha, RM has exposed Pollock’s etically derived agenda--to divide Hindus and fracture their composite sociocultural identity by artificially decoupling Sanskrit from the Vedas on the one hand, and from the ‘vernaculars’ on the other. (Editor’s note: It is like saying (1) there is enmity between Spanish and Latin, or between Italian and Latin even though knowing Latin does help one to learn one’s mother language—Spanish or Italian and (2) that Latin (also  Greek or Hebrew) continued to oppress vernacular speakers until the clergy began to offer and perform some of the rituals in vernacular languages).

Malhotra, the musketeer: lone defender of Sanskrit and sanskriti

RM modestly claims that the Purva paksha component of this book is more important than the Uttara paksha. I beg to differ. His Uttara paksha is as important as the Purva paksha because it is destined to awaken Hindu intellectuals and instill in them the urge to provide their own versions of spirited and creative Uttara paksha in response to the gauntlet thrown by Pollock as revealed by RM in his own Purva paksha. RM’s energetic Uttara paksha (albeit not as elaborate as his Purva paksha) is carried out in terms of the following six nirnayas—verdicts or decisions delivered on points of order raised in the Purva paksha of Pollock’s thesis that Sanskrit is dead, oppressive, and politically motivated: (i) Nirnaya on Sanskrit and Prakrit, (ii) Nirnaya on Shruti, (iii) Nirnaya on Kavya and Shastra, (iv), Nirnaya on Sanskrit, (v) Nirnaya on Sanskriti, and (vi) Nirnaya on Orientalism.

V Siddhanta

Every tradition faces existential challenges from time to time, and its adherents must consider and develop ways to maintain its viability as they enter new epochs and eras. On the whole, this is a healthy process of maintaining dynamic equilibrium. A tipping point, however, comes when opponents begin to dominate the discourse from the outside so overwhelmingly that the defenders of the tradition from within simply capitulate. Sanskrit and sanskriti are facing this challenge and plight right now. In order to ensure the revival and survival of Sanskrit and sanskriti Indians need to assemble what RM calls a ‘home team’ to represent their views collectively in debates with Pollock and others over Sanskrit and sanskriti. RM reached this crucial conclusion (siddhanta) after waging a lonely battle against Pollock and his posse for over two decades.

Building the ‘Home Team’ of musketeers

The ‘home team’ of RM’s dream would consist of those who would work toward seeing Sanskrit flourish as a living language, and as a pathway into the transcendent realms of experience  and the knowledge systems based on them. He suggests setting up training academies that are on par with those built upon vast research and educational apparatus controlled by the opposite side. They will sponsor academic conferences and journals, not for regurgitating old materials but for generating new ones. The context and institutions within which Sanskrit is taught today will have to be entirely revamped and re-envisioned. There, the traditional web of sanskriti could be approached critically, using a wide range of tools--from philology and social science to metaphysics and cosmology. All this would be approached from within the traditional cosmology and be lived as the ‘lifestyle’ issuing out of it.

From the mouse clicker to the musketeer = Intellectual kshatriya

Another major conclusion (siddhanta) of TBFS that I found most inspiring is RM’s endorsement of the traditional adage—a true scholar is he who acts on his convictions (yah kriyāvān sa paņḑitaḩ).  Indeed, RM’s latest book is concerned to transform mouse clicking armchair Hindu of today into an intellectual Kshatriya (musketeer activist) in the cause of Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma. It would be instructive to learn how RM himself came to acquire the adhikara to lead the mission he took upon himself two decades ago. At the age of forty-four, RM heard a call from within to serve his homeland and his people. Before long, he had summoned enough courage to come out of his cushy, comfort zone and take voluntary retirement from the lucrative business he had been operating quite successfully in the United States taking enormous personal and financial risks in the process--continuing to support and bear the responsibility of his homemaker wife with two young children aged thirteen and ten.
He next put himself totally in the hands of the guru he had chosen. This is how his true tapasya (ascetic practice) started and continues. His tapasya involved internal meditation + ascetic practices (tapas), self-initiated and guided studying (svadhyaya) and devotion to God (ishavara-pranidhana). Initially, his guru did not allow RM to go public with his experiments or experiences or saying anything about what he was doing explaining it would only inflate his ego. When his guru realized that RM had cultivated the necessary adhikara, he was allowed to go on the mission that he had chosen for himself—battling for Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma.

Ethos, pathos, and logos in TBFS

RM’s experience in community service, his tireless commitment to the wellbeing of his people, and his willingness to reach across the aisle and cooperate with the opposition have made him an ideal pandit to lead (1) the battle for Sanskrit and (2) to mobilize the masses through his writings. It is instructive to study how he deploys a three-fold strategy based on the traditional concepts of adhikara, sahrdayata, and samjna (roughly equivalent to Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos respectively) in order to mobilize his readers to accept and act on his abiding message.

Ethos (adhikara)

Adhikara (ethos; Greek for 'character') refers to how trustworthy, credible, and qualified (i.e. has adhikara) the writer/speaker is and how knowledgeable s/he is concerning a subject. Since the reader is familiar with RM as the writer, his reputation is relevant and important to the message he is sending through TBFS. Ethos is often conveyed through tone and style of the message and through the way the writer refers to differing views and voices. Persuasion from ethos involves the appeal from the author’s acknowledged life contributions within a community. Ethos is conveyed through tone and style of the message. It can also be affected by the writer's reputation as it exists independently from the message—his/her expertise in the field, previous record or integrity, and so forth.

Readers are naturally more likely to be persuaded by a writer who, they think, has personal warmth, consideration of others, a good mind, and solid learning. RM’s potential readers already know something of his adhikara ahead of time thanks to the availability of dozens of videos and audio tapes in which he has developed the basic argument in defense of Sanskrit. His experience and previous performances eminently qualify RM to speak on the various issues pertaining to Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma.

RM’s authoritative voice marshals other qualified voices in a conversation with his readers by the device of direct and indirect quotation.  In TBFS, the quotation marks signal that someone else's words are erupting into the text, replacing temporarily his lead voice. Carefully creating a proper perspective and context for the material he is quoting, RM makes sure how the reader will interpret the quoted passage while retaining control over the message being delivered. Since through indirect quotations the writer can exert even more control over the other voice than in direct quotation, RM extensively uses a large amount of indirect quotations as well as paraphrasing a large number paragraphs where warranted.

In representing his argument or story in particular ways RM, the activist promoting Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma energetically (i.e. in the spirit of an intellectual Kshatriya), portrays the voices expressing the need to preserve Sanskrit exposing the voice of Pollock and his supporters as short-sighted and socially irresponsible.

Pathos (sahridayata)

Sahridayata is an abstract noun made by fixing the Sanskrit prefix ‘sa’ meaning ‘similar or together’ to hridaya = heart. Sahridayata is the state of common orientation, commonality or oneness, (Editor’s note: Concordance) and sahridaya is one that has attained this state wherein the heart of the ‘communicator’ and the heart of the ‘receiver’ of communication have become ‘one.’ Vedic teaching “Be humane and humanize others” (Rigveda 10:53.6) is significant for understanding sahridayata: all should be mutually bound with each other; each one affectionately attracting the other, the way a cow showers her love and affection for her new-born calf” (Atharvaveda 3:30.1). Everyone should look upon each other with a friend’s eye (Yajurveda 36:18). The Samanjasya Sukta (Atharvaveda 6.64) conveys a similar message: Live in harmony, in accord with each other, understanding each other, suffused with each other, with your hearts co-mingling.

Kalidasa in his Abhijnana Shakuntalam describes a sahridaya person as paryutsuk, that is, someone who was ensconced in his/her genial environment (or comfort zone as RM would have it) but has now become edgy and restless and filled with angst as a result of the call and the pull of the message received (Misra 2008: 94). Thus, it is sanskriti that provides the basis for sahridayata; however it is not an elitist notion because one does not have to be an intellectual to imbibe that quality.
Like pathos, sahridayata is an appeal that draws upon the reader’s emotions, sympathies, interests, and/or imagination. With an appeal to pathos, the reader is encouraged to identify with the author – to feel and experience what the author feels. As the meaning of pathos implies, the reader ‘suffers,’ (in the realm of the imagination that is--) what the author suffers. An appeal to sahrdayata (bandhuta) causes the reader not only just to respond emotionally but to identify with the author’s worldview and voice--to feel what the author feels.

Logos (sapramanata)

Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message or argument--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence (sapramanata). RM’s logic is impeccable and TBFS (as well as his other publications) is a testimony to it.  Consider, for instance, the following exchange from TBFS--During RM’s meeting with Pollock in his office in Princeton, the latter cited an impressive list of his publications and awards received and asked RM: ‘How could you think I hate Hinduism when I have spent my entire life studying the Sanskrit tradition?’(Malhotra 2016: 13). This logic, observes RM, would certainly have worked with the vast majority of Indians. The mere fact that a famous Westerner is working so hard to study Hinduism would be enough to bring awe into the minds of most Indians. In reply RM said “…there are scholars in many disciplines who study some phenomenon for the purpose of undermining ‘(emphasis added) it, not because they love it. People study crime in order to fight it. There are experts on corruption who want to expose it, not because they love corruption. There are public health specialists who study a disease with the intention of being able to defeat it.” It was fallacious, concluded RM, to assume that merely studying Sanskrit made Pollock a lover of Sanskrit and sanskriti (Malhotra 2016: 14).

VI Concluding comments

RM concludes TBFS with the hope that the world has much to learn from the long Hindu tradition of critical learning from debate and dialogue. Many of the ancient debates were about deeply felt, controversial matters particularly in philosophy and literature. Since the two camps hold widely different views on Sanskrit and sanskriti, and dharma each can profit from a dialogue with the other and appreciate both the uniqueness and commonalities of each side.

Dialogues (whether performed in public or written down) have been an indelible feature of Hinduism because its voice is multi-vocal and multi-lingual. Its doctrines, practices, and institutions have not had only one voice of authority. In almost every region of India, dialogue has been embedded in Hinduism through texts, doctrines, histories, rituals, ceremonies and in architecture and art. For thousands of years, Hindus have been debating over gods and deities, how best to represent them, and what their true nature is. Thus dialogue and debate, and critical thinking too has been a defining feature of Hindu traditional texts, rituals, and practices.

Kenneth Pike saw the outsider (etic) and insider (emic) approaches as complementary, rather than conflicting ways of achieving an understanding. In order to apply comparative concepts appropriately, therefore, it is necessary to follow the research carried out from an etic perspective by an emic one. Pike draws our attention to the two perspectives that are present in a stereographic picture. Superficially they look alike, on closer inspection they are notably different, but taken together the added perspective is startlingly novel because the same data have been presented through a bi-focal vision (see Pike 1967: 41). 

RM believes that a dialogue carried out in a ‘stereographic’ manner would not only uncover commonalities as may exist but also creatively develop them bringing the two camps closer in a spirit of mutual respect. An inclusive framework might then emerge that will draw upon the synergy existing between emic and etic approaches generating a balanced perspective on Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma.
A harmonious sharing of a common cultural space and labor between Sanskrit and Prakrit based languages existed in the past. Available epigraphic evidence suggests that while the genealogical account in many inscriptions is in Sanskrit, the 'business' portion (i.e. details of the land grant etc) are in the regional language. Today, while Sanskrit would be used to interpret, supplement, and re-describe the constitutional and legal reality; in the pragmatic day-to-day affairs regional vernacular languages would prevail. Sanskrit phobia will evaporate in thin air as soon as Indic scholars find a place of honor in Sanskrit and Indic studies.

Bharunda: Bird with two heads

RM might consider adding to his debating points the urgent need to persuade those Hindu scholars that have joined the Pollock camp to return home (ghar wapasi). The purport of the following story from the Panchatantra may be used to impress upon them that in unity lives the wellbeing of the duality of Sanskrit and Prakrit, Kavya and Shastra, Sanskrit and Sanskriti: 

Once upon a time, there lived a strange bird named Bharunda, on the banks of a lake. It was strange because he had two heads fused on to the same body. One day, as the bird was wandering, it found a delicious looking golden fruit. One of the heads started eating the fruit with pleasure. The other head requested, "Oh dear, please let me taste too the fruit that you are so praising." The first head just laughed and said, "We share the same stomach. Whichever mouth between us may eat the fruit, it goes to the same stomach. Moreover, since I am the one who found this fruit in the first place, I have the right to eat it myself.” This selfishness of the first head hurt the second head very much.

Few days later, as they were wandering the second head spotted a poisonous tree laden with fruit. It declared to the first head, "The other day you did not share with me the delicious fruit. Now I am going to eat this fruit without sharing it with you. The first head pleaded in desperation, "Please don't eat this fruit; it is poisonous. We share the same stomach. If you eat it, we will both die." The second head replied in a mocking tone, "Since I am the one who found this fruit in the first place, I have the right to eat it." Knowing what would happen, the first head began to cry. The second head ate the poisonous fruit regardless. As a consequence of this action the bird died with both the heads coming out losers. The wise indeed say: Union is strength


Acharya, Poromesh. 1996. Indigenous education and Brahminical hegemony in Bengal. In The Transmission of Knowledge in South Asia: Essays on Education, Religion, History, and Politics edited by Nigel Crook, 98-118, Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Bagchi, Shrabonti. 2014. Indian tradition of debate, dialogue has much to teach us, America's Indologist says: Interview with Laurie L. Patton. Times of India, April 14, 2014. 

Henning, Martha L. Friendly Persuasion: Classical Rhetoric--Now! Draft Manuscript. August, 1998.; accessed on October 27, 2015.

McCartney Patrick. 2014. The sanitising power of spoken Sanskrit. 27 February 2014 Himal: Southasian (; accessed on Feb 15, 2016).

McCartney Patrick. n. d. Post-doc Research Proposal.; accessed on February 21, 2016.

Misra, V. N. 2008. Foundations of Indian aesthetics. Gurgaon, Haryana: Shubhi Publications.
Patton, Laurie L. 2014. The Biggest Loser in the Doniger Controversy? Indian Traditions of Debate. Posted on Huffington Post Blog. 02/26/2014; accessed Oct 25, 2015.

Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior [1954]. The Hague: Mouton.

Pollock, Sheldon. 1993. Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj. In Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia edited by Carol A. Beckenridge and Peter van der Veer, Sheldon, 76-133, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

___________.1996. ‘The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-1300: Transculturation,Vernacularization, and the Question of Ideology.’ Ideology and Status of Sanskrit. Contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language edited by Jan E.M. Houben, Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. 197-247.

——, 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

* Shrinivas Tilak (Ph.D. History of Religions, McGill University, Montreal, Canada) is based in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. His publications include The Myth of Sarvodaya: A study in Vinoba's concept (New Delhi: Breakthrough Communications 1984); Religion and Aging in the Indian Tradition (Albany, N. Y.: State University of New York Press, 1989), Understanding karma in light of Paul Ricoeur's philosophical anthropology and hermeneutics (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, revised, paperback edition, 2007). Contact <>