Following Breaking India, Being Different and Indra’s Net, Rajiv Malhotra has come out with a new book titled “Battle for Sanskrit”. This book is written primarily for practicing Hindus as well as those Hindus who though ignorant believe that there is some value in their traditions that is worth preserving. Through this book, Rajiv attempts to wake up practicing Hindus to the danger to perspectives on Hinduism coming out of “American Orientalists”; a new term coined to define people not of any particular race or ethnicity but those who look at Hinduism through a certain “social” perspective. Rajiv delves deeply into the writings of a key such scholar, Padma Shri Sheldon Pollock, who has written extensively on Sanskrit texts over the past few decades from this “social” perspective.

What triggered this book?

Around 2 years back, Rajiv came to know that Sringeri Sarada Mutt was very close to giving Adhikara (or franchise) to Pollock to establish a chair for Adi Shankara studies in Cambridge. Pollock was to be given rights to identify scholars who will translate the works on Shankaracharya into English and run the chair. Rajiv found it odd that while the Shankara Mutt is always occupied by a person who practices Advaita tradition his whole life, the same Mutt was awarding the rights to convey Shankara’s teachings to a person who does not follow the tradition himself. Just like on matters of science, a Scientist carries more credibility than a science journalist or on matter of dance, an experienced dancer carries more credibility than a dance journalist, the Indian tradition always gave more credibility to a practicing master who lives and breathes the tradition. Since Rajiv was aware of Pollock’s work, he immediately raised a red flag stating that once such an action materializes, the traditional view may get distorted forever especially if the Sringeri Mutt officially backs Pollock’s work without having the ability to review or amend the work. Rajiv’s direct intervention with the current Shankaracharya led to delaying of the contract to Pollock (though this has not been formally cancelled). However, around the same time, Narayan & Rohan Murthy have already handed over the work of translating 500 Sanskrit classic series into English to Sheldon Pollock. This brings us to the question – why should Hindus really worry? Why should we think that a non-practitioner of the tradition will not do justice to the topic at hand? More importantly, what really is Sheldon’s perspective that panicked Rajiv enough into writing this book?

What do we mean by Perspective?

There is a small story attributed to Mahabharata when Drona sends Duryodhana and Yudhistira for a trip and asks them to give their perspectives on the kind of people they came across during their trip. Both the kids go out into the world and return to Drona after a few days. Duryodhana conveys to his Guru that the world is full of people who cheat, lie and trouble others; the world is thus a dangerous place filled with dangerous people. Yudhistira, on the other hand sees the world full of charitable people who are simple, always willing to help their fellow colleagues and happy with themselves. While both the kids went into the same world, their own views about of the world end up being coloured by their own innate individual orientations. This story seems to indicate that what one “is”, one sees that only.

Does perspective matter?

A unique tribe of people has taken birth in the past few decades in the post independence India. This tribe is categorized as “Hindus” by the Indian government and for some strange reason, these people also believe that they are indeed “Hindus’. This belief is based on having certain images of Devatas they have grown familiar within their houses. Once in a blue moon, they visit temples and probably also follow rituals of chanting a few shlokas their parents may have taught them during festivals. Their knowledge of Hinduism is limited to some stories they may have read from comic books like Amar Chitra Katha (ACK) or other story books or maybe a few television serials. Bulk of their views on Hinduism (as well as other religions) is based on popular media like newspapers and television anchors as well as the subject of Social studies in their school text books. For some of them who like to read books, their views on religion are likely to be based on books written by American scholars as well as others who may not be practitioners of the Hindu traditions.

Such type of “enlightened” Hindus may feel – Does perspective matter? Why can there not be multiple perspectives? In a democratic and liberal tradition, growth and mutual respect for one another are possible only if multiple perspectives are allowed to thrive. Why should we impose only one perspective and contain people to limited perspectives? There is no “correct” perspective – all perspectives are right.

While one may be tempted to agree with the statements, there is a “small” problem when these so-called open views are applied to Hindu texts. Let me clarify – while people may be allowed to express their own views openly and one must definitely not stop them from doing it, the lens for expressing such views must be stated openly. Therefore, when people express views on Ramayana, they state openly that their “eyes” to convey the views are not Adhyatmic as Valmiki had meant to convey but political or social or that their eyes are searching for “social-abuse” within these texts. When such declaration is made openly, it is upto the readers to continue further or keep the book aside. The challenge emerges when such views are not expressed openly or hidden within verbiage. So the natural question which now emerges is – Do Hindu texts really carry any specific perspective or should their words be merely taken literally?

Do specific lens exist for Hindu texts?

This is where the ACK informed Hindus will draw a blank. One must acknowledge the complete failure of many Hindu parents to teach their kids any basics on Hinduism (owing to their own ignorance). One cannot but notice the complete abdication of post-independence Indian government to make even a minor attempt to retell the Hindu knowledge systems in the way as understood by a traditional scholar. There is a prism of the “other” rather than “our” when the ACK trained Hindus look at their own traditions. The fact that the word “caste” and “Sati” and “Untouchability” or “supersition” or “rituals” come first into the minds of Hindus when referring to Hinduism is not an accident. Driven by subjects like social studies in school written in the form understood by European scholars like Max Mueller, ideas on Hinduism enter into the minds of the kids at a young age as some an “other” and not “our”. Our ACK informed Hindu is therefore a peculiar breed who lives in complete ignorance of the way of the mind of the traditionalist. So what is the mind of a traditionalist?

Most Hindus should “hopefully” be aware that the source of their traditions are the Vedas. From Vedas emerged the intellectual tradition of the Upanishads, from the Vedas emerged Yoga, from the Vedas emerged ideas on dance, architecture, medicine, Dharma, the epics, the Puraaanas, etc. So what is the mind of the Vedas? Indian traditions have (at least) two realms at which they base their ideas in the scriptures. As Rajiv puts it (and taking inspiration from Adi Shankara and many other Indian thinkers), one aspect is called as “Paramathika” or the realm of transcendence. The other aspect is called as “Vyavaharika” referring to the mundane, worldly realm of daily life. The words “Spiritual” or “Secular” may be taken as loose equivalents for the purpose of this paper. The Hindu tradition sees these two realms as one whole, a single integral/ organic unity. We are not asked to pick one and reject the other. Both are not mutually exclusive whereas both are necessary ingredients for engaging with the world. In fact, many Vyavaharika activities – such as dance, music, Yoga, Law, actions in daily life, Bhakti, and so forth – are also paths to the divine as much as they are relevant for our day to day life. We start our journey towards the “Paramathika” (meaning the REAL) from the “Vyavaharika”. The Paramathika realm, the realm of the transcendent/ spiritual/ sacred is central to the entire Vedic tradition and rejecting it is tantamount to distortion of that tradition. There is no need for an Indian scientist to be anti-religion or an atheist; in fact, it is quite the opposite.

Even today, if one listens to Ramayana commentary by the tradition Gurus, one can see the action of Hanuman to search for Sita from the day to day Dharma lens on how Hanuman conducted himself as he surveyed Lanka, the frustrations he faced, etc and we can learn on how to conduct oneself when undertaking a task given by our supervisor. Equally, the traditionalists also emphasize how Hanuman may be taken as a representation of JIVATMA (an individual ATMA) or a Yogi yearning to meet his or her chosen goal of reaching Paramatma, the trials and tribulations one has to go through as a Yogi and what qualities one needs to exhibit as a Yogi to reach the Paramatma. The stories of Shiva and Uma are useful to understand how an ideal husband and wife in total love with each other conduct themselves as well as inseparability of the Paramatma and His energy/ power (just like Sun and Sunrays are inseparable from each other). Even when one reads the Puranas, one sees topics like Law, Medicine, Meditation, Architecture, Botany, etc being covered along with Adhyatmic topics – as stated, all these together make an organic whole. All knowledgeable Acharyas (I listen to many Telugu Gurus like Shanmukha Samaveda Sharma among others) convey their stories from all these multiple realms; in fact, there are multiple other lens too (Adhyatmika, Adhidaivika and Adhibhaumika) and in serious discussions, a single narrative is conveyed from these multiple lens in a form and manner that the person listening to the narrative benefits in all the realms he operates in; the mundane and the transcendental. Fundamental grain of Hindu texts is therefore not a single view but a multi-pronged view of the same single truth just like a basic discipline of the Raga structure in playing a Veena may enable the player to play thousands of tunes by following the same discipline in all tunes.

Battle for Sanskrit

Through a detailed study of Pollock’s writings written over a period of 30 years, Rajiv has found that Pollock’s writings work towards secularizing the Hindu text by rejecting or side-lining the Paramarthika realm. As per Rajiv, Pollock uses the Italian thinker Giambattista Vico to conclude that texts which focus on transcendence represent a primitive culture and uses Marxist ideas to conclude that transcendence camouflages the oppressive power relations of caste. He sees rituals are mechanistic hence impeding creativity and freedom. He finds the oral traditions as irrelevant and frozen in “hymnology”. Pollock insinuates there are structures for social hierarchy embedded in Sanskrit grammer, etc., with emphasis on political usages.

Indians are mostly aware that their current way of thinking about ancient India comes from early European orientalists – Max Mueller, William Jones, etc. Even today, the text books giving the chronology of ancient Indian kingdoms, Aryan invasion/ influence, Aryan – Dravidian divide, etc comes from the significant amount of scholarship that had come from European Orientalists. Rajiv highlights in his book that Edward Said’s thesis in his book “Orientalism” in the 1970s exposed the role played by Western scholars in supporting the colonial powers in India and elsewhere. This book triggered a great deal of introspection and feelings of guilt among Western academicians who entered a state of crisis about their field. Many of them were afraid to perform their earlier role of interpreting India, because that project has become tainted with racist implications. Anyone reading of the 19th century works on India will be shocked to see the interpretations of Indian society in some of their works. Said’s work is said to have achieved a devastating effect on Western studies concerning others and on Indology in particular and Pollock had said in 1993 that “Indologists no longer know why they are doing what they do”. By then, the new field of post-colonial studies came in the wake of Said’s writings which came out with critiques on Western approaches by the West itself. In this state, Pollock sought to transform the field of Indology such that it would not be seen as something which helped oppressors. He made a breakthrough by arguing that “Orientalism” as such had existed in Sanskrit itself long before the advent of the European orientalism. According to him, Sanskrit texts contain certain specific structures and ideas which lend themselves to oppression. As per Rajiv, Pollock wants to prove that Nazism and British Indology were merely building on socio-political oppression that always existed in Sanskrit texts and in Indian society. The Indian Brahmin elites were like the internal colonizers and the British did nothing new by stepping into their shoes. To a normal practicing Hindu, if someone says that Ramayana inspired Nazis to create havoc in the world, he may collapse from shock!!! Pollock thus makes a dramatic statement (quoted from Rajiv’s book):

Our task of post-orientalist Indology has to be to exhume, isolate, analyse, theorize and at the very least talk about the different modalities of domination in traditional India. … Can we forget that most of the traditions and cultures in question (that of ancient India) have been empires of oppression in their own right against women, above all, but also against other domestic communities. Pollock further adds – Sanskrit was the principal discursive instrument of domination in premodern India and in addition, it has been continuously re-appropriated in modern India by many of the most reactionary and communalist sectors of the population (namely the so-called Hindutva movement).

Rajiv names this unique lens of study of Sanskrit texts as “American Orientalism”; these orientalists have replaced the European orientalists. Rajiv gives them a special name – Charvaka 2.0. These include not just Americans or people who teach in Universities of USA but also includes Indians educated either in these very universities or their students who are associated with various universities including India across the world. In the book, Rajiv traces the entire history of American Orientalism, how their world view is shaped by their own unique experience, how this world view is then artificially imposed on ancient Indian texts and how the gullible elite Indian bring these views into main-stream discussions in the day to day lives of modern India. At the end, Rajiv also offers some solutions to address the problem at hand.

Does it really matter?

One may be tempted to ask – does it really matter and is the so-called problem articulated by Rajiv really a problem? Instead of jumping to conclusions from my small blog, I will urge Hindus to read this thoroughly researched book. Most educated Hindus appear to be unable to understand what is at stake. Silly bombastic statements that Hinduism has survived for 5000 years and will therefore also survive in the future are just that – SILLY. Rajiv rightfully questions that while it is normal for such Hindus to make corporate decisions to appoint a vendor only after sufficient due diligence of such a vendor (who may be into mundane activities like floor mopping), how is it that the same Hindus do not see the need to undertake even ordinary due diligence of someone like Pollock to represent Adi Shankara? Rajiv expresses surprise that a person selected to propagate the Vedantic world view is someone who himself negates the Paramarthika view openly. Just like a knife in the hands of a cook and in the hands of a thief can be put to different uses, is it not important for the owner of the knife to undertake sufficient check on the person before handing this over?

Rajiv directs some tough questions to the traditionalists too. Rajiv rightly asks them as to why they did not produce sufficient scholarship critiquing other religions using Dharma lens as well as other ideas like the modern economic theories like capitalism, social structures, medicine, law, cinema, etc. Rajiv points out that traditionalists in their pathashalas still discuss critiques on Samkhya or Charvaka, etc while these critiques are at least 1500 years past their expiry date. This colossal failure of traditional Hindus has allowed Western theories and solutions to problems of modernity go unchallenged and without alternatives being provided from the Dharma lens. While one may argue that primitive tribal customs may not have sufficient depth to offer alternatives, deep thinking Hindus however know that the Hindu civilization has been urbane and cosmopolitan even in the time of the Vedas and has solutions to questions of mankind. Despite this, the traditionalists have never prepared critiques using Dharma lens on topics of medicine, mode of governance, architecture, economic policies, approach to education, journalism, etc.

Lastly, Rajiv argues that once the right to write about Hinduism is handed over on a platter to people with a mind-set that goes against the fundamental grain of Hinduism, future generation of Hindus may get completely alienated from the Paramarthika aspect of their traditions and thus easily pave the way for recolonization of their minds. Already, India has become a society simply emulates the structures and thought patterns from outside India. Once this process gets co-opted in Hindu studies also (as is already been done significantly), future generation of Hindus may end up being practitioners of Hinduism as Egyptians practice the religion of ancient Egyptians or modern Greeks practicing the pagan Greek traditions (meaning that such connections could get lost forever).

This book is a serious book. The language may seem difficult. Rajiv however makes a fairly convincing case to enlighten modern Hindus to take urgent measures to protect their traditions. He brings out many unknown facts which makes the book very engaging by making the readers become aware of the perspective of the American orientalist when they write about Hindu texts. The book takes pains not to create an “us” vs “them” mind-set. Equally important to note here is that this book does not intend to make a silly assertion that all knowledge from the West is bad and all Indian is superior – this silly reductionist ways that Indians are used to watching on TV is not the purpose of this book – far from it. Rajiv states again and again that Sheldon is a very learned scholar and his work deserves healthy respect. Nevertheless, there is a need for Hindus who practice traditions at their homes to understand the dangers arising from the American Orientalist. Rajiv highlights how the work done at far-away Universities has already entered (and is entering) Indian homes daily through multiple media and thus influencing minds significantly. If the Indian elite as well as traditionalists get out of their self-imposed cocoon and work seriously to provide serious scholarship driven counter-response using Dharma lens, the book would have met its purpose. Such scholarship is required not just to provide a counter-response to the West, it needs to engage with society to create alternatives to the problems of the modern society. Some green shoots are visible for this future if one considers the good response received by Rajiv at the book launch engagements in January 2015. Overall, I will strongly recommend the book to people who follow the Hindu traditions at home and believe that there is value in bringing these traditions into providing solutions to the problems of their Vyavaharika while simultaneously pursuing the real goal of all our lives, namely the Paramarthika.

Om Tat Sat!!!

PS – a video on the book event should be useful for readers of this blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYcMlprdL4