Book Review “Battle for Sanskrit”: How to prevent terrorism by other means

January 20, 2016

This column was published by on Jan 20, 2016 at 

Here’s an excerpt from the original content I sent to them, which was published essentially unchanged. The title has been rewritten (and has lost its punch, i think).

Book Review of “The Battle for Sanskrit”: Preventing terrorism by other means

Rajeev Srinivasan

“The destruction of culture has become an instrument of terror, in a global strategy to undermine societies, propagate intolerance and erase memories” – Irina Bokova, Director General, UNESCO

Irina Bokova wrote this in reference to the visible destruction of heritage sites in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya (“Terrorists are destroying our cultural heritage. It’s time to fight back”, World Economic Forum Global Agenda, Jan 18, 2016), where she also talked about the #unite4heritage campaign, launched last year. She had three suggestions: prevent trafficking in objects, reinforce preventive actions, and strengthen international cooperation.

The wholesale rape and pillage of Mesopotamian sites, and earlier of Bamiyan, are clearly catastrophes of the first order. The irony, though, is that a subtle but equally malign destruction of Indic heritage has been going on virtually unnoticed for a few centuries, although it has accelerated in scale, ruthlessness and effectiveness in the recent past. Rajiv Malhotra, well known for articulating the civilizational attack on India by malevolent western forces, concentrates on the topic of language in his latest book, “The Battle for Sanskrit”, for, he suggests, Sanskrit is the prize for the deracination project.

Rajiv Malhotra was a lone voice in the wilderness for some time, but I am delighted that he has gained a dedicated following. I am glad to have played a small part in bringing him to the attention of the Indian reader with my piece “Fear of Engineering”  in 2002. Since then, in a series of penetrating books, he has turned around and analyzed western scholars as anthropological specimens, exactly the way they analyze us. Needless to say, that has not endeared him to them. In 2002, the concerns expressed, about obscure American academics, may have seemed abstruse, but in the fullness of time they have become life-and-death issues for Indian civilization. It is not a coincidence that we are seeing withering attacks on Hindu culture via, say, Jallikettu and Sabarimala.

Malhotra has devoted himself for the last twenty years to analyzing the western academia in its continuous attempts to do two things: first, using an ‘etic’ or outsider perspective, and second, ‘digesting’ the tradition. The etic point of view sees Sanskrit as a ‘dead language’, of the same order as Latin or old Greek, which are museum pieces, as their cultures have been digested into the prevailing western culture, even though there is much incongruence. This, Malhotra notes, is not true of Mandarin, Persian or Arabic (and I would add Hebrew too), which are treated as living languages worthy of respect and accommodation.

In the etic perspective, the spiritual aspect of the ancient language and culture has been completely erased – and so the Greek and Roman religious traditions have been turned into pure ‘mythology’ (while, asymmetrically, western mythology is ‘scripture’). The more secular aspects have been mined and digested and expropriated by the west. Thus ‘pagan’ Greek and Roman thoughts have been discreetly assimilated into Semitic thought, although the pagan and Semitic world-views are like chalk and cheese.

Orientalism 2.0 proponents want the same fate for Sanskrit – it should be shorn of all religious and spiritual meaning, and it should be turned into a source of ideas that can be mined, digested, and appropriated by the dominant western hegemonic narrative. In other words, in short order, the Hindu tradition should be erased, and anything useful (eg. yoga, meditation, Ayurveda, mathematics, etc) should end up being ‘owned’ by the west.

In this enterprise, the academics are as one with the Christian fundamentalists, especially those such as the conversion-focused (and spectacularly Orwellian-named) USCIRF. They have already succeeded in several parts of India. The academics thus form a dangerous alliance with churches, either wittingly or not.

Those of us in the ‘emic’ or insider tradition, Rajiv Malhotra suggests, are unable to stand up to this withering assault spearheaded by professors from famous universities such as Harvard or Columbia. Interestingly, the locus of Orientalism has moved from Britain to the US. It was European Orientalists such as William Jones and Max Mueller who created the canonical English interpretations of Sanskrit texts that are accepted as infallible even today. Their successors include Michael Witzel of Harvard and Wendy Doniger of Chicago, as well as the entire RISA (Religions in South Asia) group of academics. Malhotra calls them ‘American Orientalists’ who use social sciences fads such as postmodernism that are completely alien to the Sanskrit world-view. They are qualitatively different from the Europeans, partly because they are more subtle: for instance, they have co-opted the Nehruvian Stalinists of India, who have pretensions to nationalism.

Even though the Orientalism that Edward Said and others spoke about has been discredited, and the rights of Muslims to provide their own narrative conceded, the same is not true of Hindus and Sanskrit. It is a great misfortune that, unlike nationalistic Arabs, the Nehruvian Stalinists of India have colluded with the grand project of demeaning and destroying Sanskrit. Today, the number of Sanskritists in India is low, and falling.

I was startled by an anecdote recounted by Michel Danino quoting the late manuscriptologist  K V Sarma (he curated the canonical Aryabhatiya). When a copy of the Arthashastra (it had been considered lost, and was only known through references by others) was unearthed by accident in 1904, there was a Ramasastry who could read it. Now there are a few who still can. But in fifty years, there will probably be nobody in India who can read a newly discovered old manuscript. Some American Orientalist will be called in, who will give it all the coloring of his or her western biases.

A few years ago, I remember the ICHR said the classical languages of India were, drum roll, Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic! Of course not Pali and Tamil. The Sri Sankara Sanskrit University had a leftist extremist as VC. Neither he, nor Romila Thapar, self-proclaimed ‘eminent historian’ of ancient India, knows Sanskrit! JNU, at least until recently, did not have a Sanskrit department. The neglect, and active hostility, have been startling. Nehru thought Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism were out-dated.

The fact that so few Hindus know Sanskrit, except the dwindling few who have chosen the traditional path of mathas and spirituality and learning sadhana under a Master, means that we are gullible. For instance, it is now widely alleged by missionaries that Prajapati, the Lord of Creation, is actually Jesus. They will quote verses from the Bhavishya Purana to substantiate this. Since most of us have no idea of the authenticity of that purana or the specific verses, and have no way of disputing the Sanskrit translation they produce, we are forced to accept this hilarious, and possibly even (if we had that concept, blasphemous) equivalence.

In general, thjs is the problem Malhotra is attempting to address in his book: who has adhikara (authority)? As of now, the American Orientalists are attempting to – with, alas, considerable success – take on that mantle. Hindus are unable to fend off their claims, partly, as Malhotra explains, they fall into several categories:

  1. traditionalists who do not understand the malafide intentions or the jargon of the American Orientalists and are therefore unable to do a purva-paksha (analyzing their arguments prior to debate),
  2. genuine scholars who are so enmeshed in the western system that they find it hard to take a stand,
  3. sepoys who are happy with the crumbs that they can get,
  4. committed Leftists who are delighted to collaborate in the “breaking-India” project, and finally
  5. well-meaning Indians, including tech billionaires, who, while wanting to support Sanskrit, end up being hoodwinked into supporting these very same malign American Orientalists.

It is just such an effort that prompted Malhotra to write this book: the Sringeri Math, a major center of Sanskrit learning set up by Adi Sankara, is (was?) to give its imprimatur to Columbia University for a project to be headed by one Professor Sheldon Pollock. By doing his due diligence, Malhotra shows that Pollock with his ‘liberation philology’ is a dangerous adversary. At least in my reading, he is the Dr Jekyll-Mr Hyde doppelganger of the corrosive and foul-mouthed Wendy Doniger. Pollock uses the turgid disciplines of post-modernism and other social sciences to deconstruct, and most importantly, rob Sanskrit of its spirituality and its universality.

… deleted


3 Responses to “Book Review “Battle for Sanskrit”: How to prevent terrorism by other means”

  1. Suchitra Says:

    Reblogged this on Suchetausa’s Blog.

  2. தனித்தமிழ் ஆர்வலர் என்பவர்கள் சமஸ்கிருதத்ந்ந்தால் தமிழ் அழிந்து விட்டது என்று குற்றம் சாட்டியுள்ளனர். தமிழும் சமஸ்கிருதமும் ஒன்றுடன் ஒன்றாகக் கலந்து இரண்டும் மேம்பட்டன என்பதே உண்மையாகும்.

  3. ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ by Rajiv Malhotra is a very enthralling book, once you start reading you are sure to leave it only after you complete it. The book is not a result some hollow arguments and theories, it is a testimony of how easily a westerner is able to high-jack the studies related to our own language and civilization and that too unopposed; just because of the mere fact that either we are less clever or too ignorant. 

    The book puts up some very fundamental and important questions before us in the most humble way possible.

    The book questions the domination of Western Scholars in the field of Sanskrit studies and Indian civilization. The issues that have been raised through this book are not merely academic in nature but also their effect on our country socially and politically is a factor to be concerned about. The people whose ideologies we are challenging are not merely academicians, but are people with such great influence in the social and political spheres of our country that they are affecting the law-makers, decision-makers, and the rich and powerful of India; thus affecting our life in one way or the other.
    Starting from the most basic claims he goes on further to defend some of the most demeaning claims of those western scholars that Sanskrit is oppressive and violent in nature. The ‘outsiders’ have went on to the extent of saying that the oppressive nature of the foreign rule in India has its roots in the Sanskrit language itself.

    It is an honest approach to defend this field from completely falling into the hands of people who have no regard for the language or our civilization. However it is noteworthy that he does all the opposition in a very respectful and unpretentious manner. He has even dedicated his book to the very people he is opposing and wants a constructive and positive argument between the two sides. He encourages the insiders (including all those western scholars in the group of ‘insiders’ too who are themselves the practitioners of the parampara and have deep regard for Sanskrit in their hearts) to take part in the discussions by summarising the entire matter in a very simple and easy language.
    It is a wonderful gift for people like me who despite of being interested in the subject are not able to read the views presented by the westerners because of being unfamiliar with the jargonised terminology used by them. It not only helps to understand the Indian view but also the view of westerners by putting their work in a simple and understandable language thus making it a very useful book for layman as well as experts. At the same time sufficient citations and sources have been provided to maintain the authenticity of the book. 

    He challenges the conventional writing style and has taken the first step towards the Sanskritisation of English. He decided not to capitalize certain Sanskrit words and as a reader it was an enjoyable experience to see the non translatable Sanskrit words merge so easily with the English language. This was one of the things which has impressed me the most. It shows that the writer does not merely talk about problems but goes one step ahead and takes some practical steps.
    He follows a fearless and honest approach towards the topic and has done great justice to the word “Battle” which he has used in the title of the book.

    Also it would be worth mentioning here that some tables and charts have been very meticulously prepared to make the book more reader friendly. Most of the topics can be very easily understood only by looking through the flowcharts. It is a wonderful step in the direction of making the knowledge of Indology more accessible to the common people and invoke their interest in this field.

    The book makes you feel that you are along with him in his journey of research. You can either agree or disagree with the writer, but you cannot remain neutral. You will be compelled to pick up a side, which I feel is the first step towards having a fruitful debate.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: