Table Of ContentTHE BATTLE FOR
SANSKRIT
Is Sanskrit political or sacred, oppressive or liberating,
dead or alive?
Rajiv Malhotra
HarperCollins Publishers India
Dedicated to our purva-paksha and uttara-paksha debating tradition.
With gratitude to the purva-pakshins (opponents) I have learned from.
May we engage in this intellectual yajna with mutual respect.
Contents
Introduction: The Story Behind the Book
Meeting with the US-based Sringeri leader and one of the major donors
Meeting with Sheldon Pollock
Trip to Sringeri Sharada Peetham
Who will control our traditions?
What is at stake?
Assault on Sanskrit goes mainstream
1. The Hijacking of Sanskrit and Sanskriti
Why this book matters?
Highlighting the disputes between the two intellectual camps
Where is the home team?
Offering my humble attempts
2. From European Orientalism to American Orientalism
Origins of Orientalism
The rise of European Orientalism
Sir William Jones, the European Orientalist
The American frontier
The rise of American Orientalism
Comparing European Orientalism and American Orientalism
Impact of American Orientalism on the study of Sanskrit
Introducing Sheldon Pollock: Pandit from America
Comparing two pioneering Orientalists: Sir William Jones and Sheldon
Pollock
3. The Obsession with Secularizing Sanskrit
Integral unity of Hindu metaphysics
Discarding the transcendent/sacred aspects of Sanskrit
Sidelining the oral tradition
Accusing yajnas of being linked to social hierarchy
Rejecting the shastras as Vedic dogma
Using Buddhism as a wedge for secularizing Sanskrit
Disconnecting kavya from Vedas and shastras
4. Sanskrit Considered a Source of Oppression
The crisis of Indology and a novel solution
Exposing Sanskrit’s ‘poisons’
Response: Debating varna
Blaming Sanskrit for European atrocities
Pollock’s call to action to politicize Sanskrit studies
5. Ramayana Framed as Socially Irresponsible
Pollock’s view of Ramayana as a project for propagating Vedic social
oppression
The divinization construct
The demonization construct
Sociological criticism of the Ramayana
Claiming Ramayana was popularized to demonize Muslims since the
eleventh century
Ramayana considered secular
Claiming Valmiki Ramayana came after Buddhist influence
Summary: Ramayana interpreted as atrocity literature
Ramayana-based political action plan of intervening in Indian politics
6. Politicizing Indian Literature
A dramatic break from earlier Orientalism
Sacredness removed from rasa and kavya
The theory of the aestheticization of power
Kavya characterized as primarily political
7. Politicizing the History of Sanskrit and the Vernaculars
Overview of Pollock’s account of history of how power shaped languages
Introducing the ‘Sanskrit Cosmopolis’ and sidelining sanskriti
Grammar as a form of political power
The role of itihasas in spreading the Sanskrit cosmopolis
Summary of issues with the grammar-itihasa- power theory
The rise of the vernaculars
What led so many kings to vernacularize?
Claiming parallels between European and Indian vernacularization
8. The Sanskriti Web as an Alternative Hypothesis
Diglossia versus hyperglossia models
Approaches suggested by T.S. Satyanath
Integral unity, open architecture and sanskriti web
9. Declaring Sanskrit Dead and Sanskriti Non-existent
Agenda in declaring the death of Sanskrit
Claiming Sanskrit has been dead for many centuries
Claiming Hindu kings killed Sanskrit, and Muslim rulers tried to save it
Accusing other Indian languages of killing Sanskrit
Sparing British colonialism and Nehruvianism
Silence on the extraction and digestion of Sanskrit shastras into the West
Chamu Krishna Shastry responds on behalf of the tradition
Western academic critiques of Pollock
The history of attempts to ‘kill’ Sanskrit
Rejecting Indian civilization and Indian nation
10. Is Sheldon Pollock Too Big to Be Criticized?
Two goals
The academic ecosystem
The hegemonic discourse goes mainstream
Third-party echoes: Pollock’s ideas go viral
The re-colonization of Indian minds
The Murty Classical Library of India
The rise of the American-English cosmopolis
Reversing the gaze: Interpreting Pollock using his own concepts
11. Conclusion: The Way Forward
The Sanskrit ecosystem must be revived in a holistic way
Non-translatable Sanskrit terms must enter the mainstream
Shastras must be seen as a platform for innovation
New itihasas and smritis must be written
‘Sacred philology’ must compete against political/liberation philology
The purva-paksha tradition must be revived
Well-qualified home team and institutions must be developed
Defining the hard work that is needed
Appendix A: Pollock’s Theory of Buddhist Undermining of the Vedas
Appendix B: Ramayana Evidence Prior to the Turkish Invasion
Appendix C: Pollock’s Political Activism
Appendix D: Acknowledgements
Appendix E: Editorial Policies Adopted
Notes
Bibliography
Index
About the Book
About the Author
Praise for The Battle for Sanskrit
Copyright
T
Introduction:
The Story Behind the Book
here is a new awakening in India that is challenging the ongoing
westernization of the discourse about India and the intellectual machinery
that produces it. Serious readers, regardless of their ideological affiliations,
would benefit from open and honest discussions between experts on opposite
sides. Rather than having two separate monologues, it is better to bring together
both sides of such encounters into dignified conversations with mutual respect.
However, any such conversation requires each side to be well informed about
the other. Unfortunately, this is often not the case today on several key topics.
Although the westernized side has systematically studied the traditional
Indian side’s texts and practices, the reverse has not been the case: traditional
Indian experts using their own categories and frameworks have not adequately
studied the scholarship being produced by Western and westernized Indian
scholars. My work is a humble attempt to fill this knowledge gap in the
traditional camp. In each book, I take up a specific important topic with the hope
of informing the traditional scholars so they can participate in the discourse as
equals.
This book seeks to wake up traditional scholars of Sanskrit and sanskriti
(Indian civilization) concerning an important school of thought that has its base
in the US and has started to dominate the discourse on the cultural, social and
political aspects of India. This academic field is called Indology or Sanskrit
studies (or more broadly, South Asian studies). From their analysis of the past,
the scholars of this field are intervening in modern Indian society with the
explicitly stated view of detoxifying it of ‘poisons’ allegedly built into Sanskrit
and its texts. Often, they interpret India in ways that the traditional Indian
experts would outright reject or at least question. I will start with the episode that
intensified my monitoring of this field and led to this book.
In August 2014, I suddenly became aware of an unprecedented threat to the
integrity of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham (started by Adi Shankara in the eighth
century CE), one of the most sacred institutions for Hindus. (Peetham in Sanskrit
signifies ‘seat’. In this case it is a high seat which the Shankaracharya occupies
to perform the duties, responsibilities and rights for protecting the tradition
represented by the peetham.) There was a serious risk of a profound and
systematic distortion of the teachings and mission of the peetham, as well as a
distortion of sanatana dharma more broadly. I immediately stopped all my other
work to investigate this and intervene. From that moment onwards, my energies
have been channelled into dealing with this urgent matter.
I will begin with a brief account of how this extraordinary peetham began,
and then summarize the dramatic events that unfolded starting about a year ago
to potentially undermine it. This book is an outgrowth of those events. The crisis
it addresses is much broader and deeper than the implications for one institution;
it is a crisis that threatens to undermine the foundations of authority more
broadly in Hindu dharma.
The Sringeri Sharada Peetham (often abbreviated as Sringeri Peetham) is
one of the oldest centres of learning in Vedanta and considered one of the most
important institutions in Hinduism. Adi Shankara, the renowned sage, walked
across India to revive sanatana dharma. He debated and defeated the competing
philosophies that dominated the discourse at the time.
According to traditional accounts, one of his most significant debates was
with Mandana Misra, a prominent scholar in Purva-mimamsa philosophy, a
philosophy that emphasizes a ritualistic and literal interpretation of the Vedas.
Mandana Misra graciously requested that Shankara pick the judge for the debate
as Shankara was much younger and Misra wanted to make the terms of the
exchange as equitable as possible. Shankara chose Mandana Misra’s wife,
Ubhaya Bharati, as the judge, because she was known to be intellectually very
sharp. She was equal to her husband in all aspects and Shankara knew she would
be impartial.
The debate was held over eight days. Finally, Mandana Misra conceded
defeat and Ubhaya Bharati showed her true form as Devi Saraswati, and her
mortal body disappeared.1 She granted Shankara’s request that she would re-
manifest at a place where he invoked her. Shankara then initiated Mandana
Misra, and they proceeded to Sringeri where the first of four peethams was set
up.2
At Sringeri, Shankara invoked Devi Saraswati to manifest as Sharadamba.
This is how Sri Sharada Devi, a manifestation of Saraswati, the Goddess of
Wisdom, became the presiding deity of that institution. Hence its name Sharada
Peetham. Shankara then appointed Mandana Misra – renamed Sri
Sureshwaracharya – as the first acharya of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham. This
lineage has remained unbroken to this day.
Over the years, due to the presence of Sharada Devi and the erudition of its
acharyas, Sringeri became famous as a centre of spiritual power and traditional
learning. Many century later, the famed and powerful Vijayanagara Empire was
founded under the guidance of the twelfth acharya of Sringeri, Jagadguru Sri
Vidyaranya.
Such is the illustrious lineage and prestige of the Sringeri Peetham. There is
no Vatican or Pope in Hinduism, owing to its decentralized nature. However,
Sringeri is one of a handful of institutions that has comparable importance, being
an unimpeachable body of learning and austerity. It is therefore critical that the
integrity and credibility of Sringeri remain uncompromised.
Unfortunately, as the events I am about to disclose will show, Sringeri now
runs the risk of potentially losing its integrity, all because of some short-sighted
choices under consideration by some of its administrators in the USA and India.
If their plans were to succeed, Sringeri would find itself in the ruinous position
of having relinquished the name and legacy of its founder, Adi Shankara, and of
perverting the values of erudition that are its hallmark. Most shamefully of all,
such a move would place Shankara’s legacy in the hands of the very same forces
that have published volumes of academic writings undermining the sanatana
dharma tradition.
In each of my previous books, I have taken on the leaders of specific schools
of thought that are in effect undermining Hinduism, in terms of its true history
and its principles. Even though such whistle-blowing creates tensions with the
individuals and institutions being exposed, I consider it necessary that the public
be well informed and that important debates take place openly and transparently.
The US-based academic genre of Sanskrit studies that I critique in the
present volume as being a threat to Sringeri Peetham in particular, and Hinduism
more broadly, has been on my radar for more than a decade. As early as 2005, at
the World Sanskrit Congress in Bangkok, I had raised red flags about the work
of its leader, Sheldon Pollock, a prominent American Sanskrit scholar. I
described how he placed part of the blame for European racism and Nazism at
Sanskrit’s door. More specifically, he had written extensively claiming that
‘brahmin elitism’ was a factor in shaping the ideologies of British colonialism
and German Nazism, and that social oppressiveness built into Sanskrit had
contributed to the legitimation of genocide. Chapter 4 explains this further.
The present saga erupted in August 2014. It was then that I learned that a
group of wealthy non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the New York area had teamed
up with the top administrative leaders of Sringeri Peetham in India and
representatives of Sringeri Peetham in the USA to set up a university chair in the
name of Adi Shankara. It was to be called the ‘SVBF Adi Shankara Chair in
Hindu Religion and Philosophy’. (SVBF stands for Sringeri Vidya Bharati
Foundation, which is the official institution representing the Sringeri Peetham in
the US.)3 They had already collected $4 million for the chair, which was to be
created at Columbia University.
The plan was to set up three other chairs in various other universities in the
US. Someone close to the group of donors told me that as soon as this precedent
with the Adi Shankara Chairs had been achieved, the door would be open to
approach other Hindu lineages for establishing similar chairs across the US.
These chairs would serve as official ambassadors of diverse Hindu movements.
For instance, there could also be chairs in the name of Sri Ramanujacharya,
another great exponent of Vedanta.
To appreciate why such chairs would undermine our tradition, the reader
needs to understand the proposed terms of the Adi Shankara Chair at Columbia.
Two committees were being formed to manage this chair. One was the
Academic Committee, consisting of scholars from Columbia, to be headed by
Sheldon Pollock. The second was the Donor and Advisor Committee, which
would represent the various financiers and administrators of Sringeri Peetham.
All the funding would come from the Donor and Advisor Committee. The
selection of the scholar to occupy the chair would be made by the Academic
Committee, which would have sole control over the selection, academic content
and activities of the chair. The donors would have no veto right or say in the
matter; they would merely be informed of the selection after it had been made.
This is a common way to make donors feel good about themselves, and to
allow them to enjoy some public limelight without having any meaningful
influence over the actual discourse. To put it bluntly, it is a way to co-opt rich
people by giving them importance, but keeping them out of all matters of
substance. The implications have to be understood carefully.
These chairs would be established in the name of Sringeri Peetham. The
professors associated with them would therefore be speaking to the world with
the voice and authority of Sringeri. The whole objective of establishing the
chairs would be to represent Shankara’s teachings to the modern world. If the
content and subject matter produced and taught under the aegis of such a chair
profoundly misrepresent these teachings and are directly targeted against the
core principles of sanatana dharma (as I will argue in this book), then such a
chair would certainly compromise the Hindu tradition in general, and Sringeri
Peetham in particular.
The name, power and sanctity of Sringeri have been carefully safeguarded
for more than a thousand years. The adhikara (authority) to represent the
peetham and speak on its behalf has always rested solely with the acharyas, who
are groomed from childhood to assume this responsibility. They are required to
lead lives of austerity and devotion and spend their time studying the traditional
texts. They have received the mantras and powers of the lineage unbroken since
Adi Shankara in the tradition of transmission from guru to disciple.
It would be the height of irresponsibility to give up control of the teachings
and brand name of Sringeri to outside interests. This would be especially
alarming if it were done without a thorough investigation into the backgrounds
and agendas of those being put in charge – equivalent to haphazardly giving
away the intellectual property, trademark and custodianship of the peetham to
some alien third party.
Upon learning this, I immediately approached the lead donor to offer my
perspective on the risks. I explained the importance of carrying out a process that
investors call ‘due diligence’ before any commitment is made. I explained my
background in corporate due diligence and my subsequent experience over the
past twenty years in analysing how some prominent Western scholars represent
(or misrepresent) Hinduism today. However, the concerns I expressed and the
suggestions I offered were not welcome. I was told that the Adi Shankara Chair
at Columbia was, for all practical purposes, a ‘done deal’ and that it would be
formally announced within six weeks, i.e., in October 2014. I was further told
that the Shankaracharya of the Sringeri Peetham had personally blessed it and
that, according to the rules, the deal could therefore not be retracted or
renegotiated by Sringeri. I expressed my doubts as to whether the
Shankaracharya had been made aware of all the relevant information and issues
before giving his blessing.
All I asked of the wealthy donors was that they carry out at least the same
degree of due diligence that they would conduct in any of their business deals.
Before signing any strategic investment, a businessman’s professional training
requires that he study the other party’s products, strategies and management
philosophy, as well as the industry and its market dynamics. I informed them
that I had done similar analyses of Hinduism studies and India studies in
academia. Using my professional expertise, I had examined them as a
specialized knowledge industry.
I asked the donors why they would not exercise at least as much caution
when acting on behalf of dharma and the Sringeri Peetham as they would when
making personal business investments. After all, their purported motive for such
donations was to help the legacy of Adi Shankara and enhance the fame and
prestige of the peetham. Given the contentious nature of the way Hinduism has
often been depicted within Western academics, this ought to be a matter of
concern to them.
It became immediately apparent that they had not done any research or due
diligence whatsoever. They were simply relying on the popular media perception
that the scholars who would be in control of the chair were reputed to be ‘nice
people’ and enjoyed prestige and clout amongst Western academics. I was
shocked that the top donor (a high-ranking NRI in the US financial industry)
used Sheldon Pollock’s public relations interview in India Today as his
background check on Pollock, as if this alone would suffice.4 I pointed out that
no competent investor would agree to a deal relying merely on the other party’s
PR machinery and the self-serving opinions of that party’s own circle of
associates. What is needed in such cases is a rigorous analysis carried out by
someone who is independent and outside this circle. No such analysis had been
done in this instance.
The lead donor defended Pollock and wrote to me: ‘With all due respect, we
found Professor Pollock highly enthusiastic and excited about the CHAIR at
Columbia …’ I was deeply troubled by the implications of this initiative, in part
because of the cavalier attitude taken towards this important decision, and in part
because of what I already knew of Sheldon Pollock’s work on Sanskrit. He is
undoubtedly a brilliant scholar. However, some of his key publications
undermine the traditional understanding of sanskriti (Indian culture and
civilization) in significant ways. In an e-mail, I gave the following advice to the
lead donor:
My advice is that before the deal gets formalized, you should bring in an
experienced
independent
industry
consultant
of
your
choice
(autonomous from the parties concerned), who can help address such
