Imagine theres a person who assumes that his knowledge of purvapaksha of one

specific school of Vedanta is enough to critique all of Vedanta. The superficiality of

his study might impress someone who is ignorant of Indian thought. But to any
Vedantin, such a purvapaksha would be considered shallow and inadequate to
address the numerous schools and commentators of our vast traditions.
Likewise, to do purvapaksha of a towering Western Indologist like Sheldon Pollock
one must develop an appreciation of what is new, unique and challenging about
his works. Just as Indian knowledge advances and evolves with new schools and
commentaries, so also Western thought systems are very diverse, complex and
evolving with time. In fact, aspects of Pollocks ideas that align with other
Westerners are less important to critique, because they are repetitious.
Our purvapaksha tradition requires that we critically study each of our main
opponents to understand their assumptions, lenses, doctrinal beliefs, and ensuing
arguments. We cannot simply apply some generic knowledge we have for a group
of persons with similar views (in this case, Orientalists in general).
One of the most revealing statements by Pollock is cited below, in which he
asserts that to defeat a tradition one must go through it and not around it. This is
the strategy he is fructifying, when he tells his students to first go through the
study of Indian sanskriti. He considers Vedic culture to be dominant over Shudras
and women, and he wants to help the masses overcome its inequality. Only by
mastering it (through study) could his team of liberators overmaster (i.e.
outsmart) it. He writes in this regard:
you

transcend inequality by mastering and

overmastering those discourses through study and
critique. You cannot simply go around a tradition to
overcome it, if that is what you wish to do; you
must go through it. You only transform a dominant
culture by outsmarting it. That, I believe, is
precisely what some of Indias most disruptive
thinkers, such as Dr Ambedkar, sought to do,
though they were not as successful as they might
have been had they had access to all the tools of a
critical philology necessary to the task. (Pollock,

Sheldon. Crisis in the Classics. Journal of Social

Research, 78 (1). Page 39. Italics mine)
Pollock considers Ambedkars success inadequate in disrupting
Indian sanskritibecause Ambedkar did not learn all the tools of a critical philology
necessary to the task. Pollock is referring here to the tools that he (Pollock) has
developed for the critical analysis of Indian traditions.
We must do the same thing in the reverse direction: Before we can respond to
Pollocks conclusions, we must first understand his critical analysis. But even
before being able to understand his critical analysis, we have to study the
assumptions and lenses he uses to view our traditions. This requires us to study
his writings critically. There are no shortcuts. As Pollock says in the above quote,
one simply cannot go around the opponents work, and one must go through
it.
Our purvapaksha tradition demands such a critical study to arrive at a deeper
understanding of an opponents arguments. Given that Pollock is unlike the
Orientalists who came before him, the lazy approach of relying on ones
preconceived opinions of previous Orientalists leads to wrong conclusions. My
book, The Battle For Sanskrit (TBFS) highlights his major tools, ideological beliefs
and biases, thus paving the path for a comprehensive purvapaksha of his works.
Interestingly, Pollocks former colleague at the University of Chicago, Richard
Schweder, is well-known for championing the approach now called thinking
through cultures. This was based on Schweders anthropological research
studying Hindu sacred sites and activities in India. The strategy being promoted
by him and Pollock is for Western scholars to first immerse themselves in a foreign
culture in order to develop a psychological map of how they think. Only after they
have mapped it in their own western framework can they succeed in outsmarting
it.
There is also an interesting parallel with Al Biruni whose writings on India, Indians,
and their manners and customs were in the form of a purvapaksha that he had
carried out for his masterMahmud of Ghazni. Yet, many Indian scholars love Al
Biruni because he, like Pollock, praised certain aspects of our culture.
Some novel and key ingredients of Pollocks lens

TBFS explains some of the signature theories of Pollock that must be understood
before any purvapaksha is attempted on him. These theories and interpretations
include the following:
1. His interpretation of paramarthika and vyavaharika: Pollock builds on
the foundation of Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), an Italian thinker who influenced
many great Westerners including Karl Marx. Pollock translates paramarthika
satas Vicos idea of verum. He translates vyavaharika sat as Vicos certum. I
was unable to find any publication (certainly not by any Indian traditional scholar)
that pointed out the consequence of these deliberate mappings of Indian thought
onto Western notions, leave alone identifying serious misinterpretations which
follow from such mappings. From this mapping follow many of Pollocks sweeping
conclusions about the nature of transcendence in Indian systems. (See TBFS,
pages 102-105, for my analysis.)
2. Literarisation: This is one of Pollocks novel ideas which he uses as a key
building block for his theories. The term has an extra ar in the middle, and is not
to be confused with literisation. Literisation (without the extra ar) is a wellknown term that refers to a language being written down, i.e. its users are
literate. But Pollocks signature contribution is his theory that after Sanskrit starts
to be written, it passes through a subsequent stage of development called
literarisation (with extra ar). This is when Sanskrit gets endowed with certain
structures that make it an elite language of power over the masses. Predictably,
he finds the Vedas as the source of such structures, and it is this literarisation
according to him that allows the social oppression of Dalits/women. Only by
understanding his view on what these toxic structures are can one begin to see
what he is up to. (TBFS, pages 213-14)
3. Theory of the aestheticisation of power: Pollock borrows an influential
theory developed by Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) and the Frankfurt School of
Marxism. Its original intended purpose was to interpret the role played by
aesthetics in the rise of the Nazis: How could Nazis dupe so many people to vote
for them and support them? This theory became an important extension of the
original doctrine of Marxism. Pollock makes academic history among his Western
Marxist peers by applying it to develop his original theory on the oppressiveness
of our sanskriti. He uses this theory to explain how and why Sanskrit helped the
social elites to achieve their power over the masses. (TBFS, pages 210-17. See
diagram on page 216.)

4. Political philology: While philology has been a formal discipline for a long
time and has many kinds of approaches that different scholars use, once again
Pollock has developed his own original variety. The prefix political is what
differentiates his method from prior philology. To give an indication of the
importance of this building block, Pollocks book The language of the gods
uses the term power about 600 times and the word politics about 900 times.
A central argument he advocates with evangelical zeal is that Indian texts must
be studied not for legitimate spiritual/sacred content, but for the purpose of
finding the social exploitation and political domination contained in them. Before
he can show the texts to be political, he has to devalue (and debunk) the
legitimacy of the sacred dimension; then he can substitute the political motive as
the reason for the successful spread of Sanskrit. In item (1) above he has
identified the tools to remove the sacred. Then, in this item (4) here, we find his
tool which he uses to develop his heavily politicized lens.
5. Liberation philology: If one side of the coin of Pollocks interpretation is
political philology, the other side is liberation philology. This is the tool that his
followers (such as Ananya Vajpeyi) use to intervene in Indian society and claim to
remove the social oppressiveness diagnosed in (4). Such intervention is consistent
with his strategy of going through and not bypassing the tradition. Ultimately, it is
such disguised intervention that makes Pollock dangerous to the tradition and its
followers. While political philology is used to diagnose, liberation philology is used
to liberate the Indian masses from the diseases being carried in their sanskriti for
thousands of years.
6. Ecosystem of Marxism and post-modernism: Pollocks (1) through (5)
analytical tool-kit is embedded within a broad spectrum of post-modern thinkers.
His analysis includes ideas incorporated from Gramsci, Habermas, various
feminists, and subaltern theorists, among others. These theories are simply
assumed by him, with no need felt to elaborate or prove them. Pollocks work is
couched in a veneer of broader Western idiom and theories.
Hardly any Indian traditionalist I came across has an in-depth knowledge of his
lens. His target audience of readers is clearly the Western Indologist, a term that
must also include ethnic Indians who have been trained to think in the same
manner as Western Indologists.
Added complexity in decoding Pollock

What is even more challenging than the idioms and theories that Pollock employs
is his writing style; it is very opaque, arcane and loaded with jargon that even
most English readers with experience will be unable to properly understand. He
sometimes contradicts himself, not only between one publication of his and
another, but also within the same publication. At times he plays both sides of an
issue to seem balanced. But eventually, he quietly assumes one of the postures
without explaining why it is superior to the other.
To decode him, one has to read him multiple times. After you understand one
theory of his, you need to go back and re-read the prior works you already went
through. In places, only after connecting the dots with his other scattered writings
can you realise what he wants to say. If his individual points are at times murky,
murkier still are the links among the dots to make sense of the big picture. One
gets the impression that only a few fellow-travelers subscribing to his ideology are
meant to understand him.
In other words, one cannot do purvapaksha of Pollock surgically by random
citation; it must be done holistically. But to uncover the entire intellectual
quagmire that Pollock is a part of, one must go beyond his own writings and also
examine his cohorts. Even more broadly, one has to also study the contextual
backdrop of the three layers that make up American culture in order to get the
complete picture:
#1 At the top is the pop culture layer in which everything is nice, all a part of the
so-called global village.
#2. Beneath this surface is the middle layer where the institutions lie. The
institutions provide continuity, infrastructure assets, and a robust transparency
defined within the values of Western Universalism.
#3. The lowest of the three layers is what I term the deep culture. Here, the
notion of American Exceptionalism is well established and protected. This deep
layer comes out publicly and violently at times of duress such as the xenophobia
of white males that Donald Trump has tapped into. The veneer of civility is very
thin indeed, and crumbles under duress.
The deep layer is Judeo-Christian. The middle layer of institutions is based on
modernity. The top layer of pop culture projects post-modernity. One must

understand all this as a unified whole, in dynamic equilibrium. I am trying to

convey here that the methodology to do purvapaksha of Pollock has to be multidisciplinary. We cannot have narrowly limited experts only. We must build teams
across disciplines.
Traditional scholars have not done purvapaksha on Pollocks school
Traditional scholars in general have not performed any such purvapaksha on
Pollock yet. While doing the research for TBFS, I tried hard to get help from some
well-established traditional scholars. But in the end, despite sincere efforts by
some traditional scholars, not a single one was able to deconstruct Pollock, much
less be able to develop a response.
Here is an excerpt from my book on the challenges our traditionalists face. This is
not a matter of my opinion but is based on my experience that includes extensive
interviews and conversations. Most senior Sanskrit leaders in India that I
discussed with have confirmed my views as expressed below:
Unfortunately, many traditionalists live in silos. They tend to dismiss the views of
the opposing ideological camp, seeing them as irrelevant to the real tradition.
They are unaware of, or indifferent to, the fact that they are the objects of study
from the outside. Some of them are so nave and insecure as to feel flattered
when representatives of the Western elite show an interest in them. In addition,
the scholars using the outsider lens are highly vocal and public in championing
their point of view whereas the insiders often prefer to remain private about their
allegiances and shy away from defending their tradition even in important forums.
[]
I sent drafts and overviews of this book to some persons who I felt would be
supportive, only to discover that several of them vehemently opposed the very
idea of investigating this new elitist [Pollock] school of Sanskrit studies. Their
general attitude is that we should instead be grateful to those Westerners who are
taking the time to study us.
A lot of traditional scholars are oblivious to the fact that their adhikara
(authority) as experts on Sanskrit is being systematically eroded. Many outsiders
have appointed themselves as new authorities for the interpretation of Sanskrit
traditions. Their tentacles penetrate deep, not only into the psyches of young

scholars but also into several traditional and modern institutions. This book is
meant, in part, to serve as a wakeup call for insiders, to force them out of their
slumber and isolation.
Chapters 10 and 11 of TBFS go further in discussing the blockages and handicaps
that the traditionalists contend with. I explain the nefarious forces at work and
what ought to be done to give back the traditionalists their adhikara. Each of my
previous four books is also focused on showing that our traditional/insider view is
being suppressed in the academy, media and elsewhere. I do what I do because of
my immense respect for our knowledge systems, traditions, and civilisational
contributions.
I elevate the issue of hitherto lack of purvapaksha by traditional scholars in order
to raise their awareness on two matters of utmost importance: (a) the need for
their immediate attention; and (b) the need for a team effort.
The real goal of TBFS is not only to alert and awaken traditional scholars to the
nature of systematic attacks from outsiders, but also to encourage them to join a
collective effort to develop an ecosystem for insiders. Western Indologists do not
shy away from getting help from Indian traditionalists. Indian insiders, too, should
not shy away from getting help from one another and even from Westerners
where applicable. Once such an ecosystem reaches a level of self-sustenance and
growth, I would consider TBFS a success. Traditionalists should not shy away from
any source of knowledge or help for their shared cause. Tradition weakens when it
is not united - as we witnessed in the form of a near-debacle with the Adi
Shankara Chair at Columbia University. The existence of an ecosystem would have
prevented such a dangerous situation from arising.
My book is a serious initiative, but it is a humble beginning only. It ought to be
superseded by writings that will go even deeper. I feel I am providing a guide to
undertake purvapaksha of the Pollock school, and my book invites others to join
me in developing uttara (responses) to Pollock.
Shatavadhani Ganesh is one of Indias most famous traditional scholars,
commanding great mastery over a massive corpus of texts. In this part of the
article, I will point out that even such a great mind has serious blind spots when it
comes to understanding Sheldon Pollock.

But more troubling than a mere lack of knowledge is the fact that Shri Ganeshs
over-confidence makes him unaware of his limitations. He seems to trivialise
thepurva-paksha methods I have described in the prior section, and he adopts an
accusatory posture towards my work.
The recent review of The Battle For Sanskrit (TBFS) by Shri Ganesh has numerous
errors in basic understanding, both of my book and Sheldon Pollocks works. I will
examine his specific errors in subsequent articles. However, in the following
pages, I will focus on showing that Shri Ganesh has not adequately understood
the fundamental building blocks used by Pollock.
It appears that Ganesh uses my book for providing him secondary access to the
writings of Pollock (even though, ironically, he criticises me for relying upon
secondary works on Sanskrit texts.) He wrongly assumes that Pollock says the
same things as any other Western Indologist; therefore, Ganesh tends to apply a
generic and simplistic understanding of Orientalism to see Pollocks works.
Ganesh does lip-service to the focus I place on Pollock, and writes: Sheldon
Pollock is arguably the most influential and well-connected Indologist in the world
today. This statement is taken directly from TBFS. But if he takes Pollock
seriously, he cannot simply ignore what is new and distinct about Pollock
compared to prior Indologists.
Now I will examine a few major statements made by Ganesh in his review of TBFS.
Ganeshs complaint that I did not mention past masters
Ganesh writes:
He [i.e. Malhotra] fails to mention (or seems to be ignorant of) the luminaries who
have categorically rubbished such attempts AC Bose, AC Das, Arun Shourie,
Baldev Upadhyaya, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Chidananda Murthy, DV
Gundappa, David Frawley, Dayananda Saraswati, GN Chakravarti, Hazari Prasad
Dwivedi, KS Narayanacharya, Koenraad Elst, Krishna Chaitanya, Kuppuswami
Sastri, M Hiriyanna, Michel Danino, Nagendra, Navaratna S Rajaram, Padekallu
Narasimha Bhat, Padma Subrahmanyam, Pullela Sriramachandrudu, RC Dwivedi,
Ram Swarup, Ranganath Sharma, Rewa Prasad Dwivedi, SK Ramachandra Rao, SL
Bhyarappa, SN Balagangadhara, SR Ramaswamy, S Srikanta Sastri, Shrikant

Talageri, Sita Ram Goel, Sri Aurobindo, Sushil Kumar Dey, Swami Vivekananda, VS
Sukhthanker, Vasudev Sharan Agarwal, Yudhishthira Mimamsaka the list is
endless. And the few scholars he refers to like AK Coomaraswamy, Dharampal,
GC Pande, K Krishnamoorthy, Kapila Vatsyayan, PV Kane, and V Raghavan are
only in passing.
This is a very amateurish thing to say, for the following reasons:
The individuals named above belong to all sorts of categories of experts. It
is a list Ganesh has randomly picked out of hundreds of good Indian
scholars. Would Ganesh care to explain the criteria for his selection of past
masters, and how a lot of other Indian scholars got left out? This looks
more like the reading list that some junior student of his put together.
I hope Ganesh is aware that many of these individuals are living
contemporaries, and hence not past.
I happen to personally know and work with several of these individuals,
and that too for many years. So its not as if I dont know their areas of
work.
Ganesh should take a look at the extensive bibliographies cited in all my
books.
The difference is that I cite writers that are relevant to a given topic, and
not for the sake of name-dropping. None of these individuals he names has
(to the best of my knowledge) published any extensive purva-paksha of
Pollocks school of Indology, which is the focus of my work.
Imagine if someone is doing very original and extensive research on a
specific solar system that has not been studied in depth before. The
references used would be those relevant to argue the specific thesis, and
not a random assortment of quotes from astronomers just for the sake of
impressing people with ones general knowledge.
Most of the writers named above do not bother to mention each other in
their writings, precisely because of the specialised nature of their work. For
instance, I doubt Shourie, Frawley, Balagangadhara, Bhyrappa, Talageri, etc.
cite all the above named writers. It would be ridiculous and irrelevant for
them to do so. By Ganeshs own criteria, this should disqualify all of them
from the category of worthy masters because they are guilty of ignoring
Ganeshs list of past masters the same way I am being accused.
Many of the scholars on his list are not Sanskrit scholars another
disqualifier if one were to use Ganeshs criteria.

In summary, he is making an irrelevant and pedantic point here.

Let us face the fact that since the early 1970s, numerous powerful and elitist
educational institutions in India, especially in the areas of social sciences, history,
literature and arts, have been captured by the Marxists.
They ensure who gets scholarships within India, research grants to go abroad and
worse still, who gets published by the prestigious publishing houses like Oxford
University Press, and whose works get translated into several languages. Scholars
like Sheldon Pollock, Romila Thapar, RS Sharma and DN Jha have sucked up so
much oxygen out of the ecosystem of knowledge production.
Can Ganesh tell us: From the living scholars in his list of masters, which ones
command the clout to head a prestigious institution recognised globally? Which
one of them, despite their impeccable scholarship, can get their research
published by an academic press on a continuous basis?
How much of the reading materials prescribed academically today is written by
them, as compared to Western writers and Indian leftists I am referring to
university curricula outside India as well as in many elite Indian universities?
I am trying to highlight the problem and injustice we face. Traditional scholars
have been sidelined and are being impoverished progressively. For instance,
Pandit Yudhishthir Mimansak was one of the greatest scholars of Sanskrit
grammar in the 20th century.
His writings were largely printed by small-scale regional publishing houses, and he
lived in poverty and suffered greatly from illness during his last years. If he were
alive today, his writings would be accused as being those of a Hindu Nationalist,
just as many of the living scholars in Ganeshs list are unfairly branded.
I knew the late Dharampal personally during the final years of his life, and he
shared details of his meagre existence of neglect by the establishment, and even
by most traditionalists. Both he and Kapila Vatsyayan received Infinity
Foundations Lifetime Achievement Awards, and they mentored me personally in
important ways. Kapilaji also explained to me the price she paid for her refusal to
sell out to the academic establishment.

When I visited her to congratulate her for the Padma Vibhushan Award some years
back, she told me: there are no institutional mechanisms by which the knowledge
of the scholar being recognised in the Padma awards gets disseminated, and
developed further by the next generation. She felt I was one of the few at that
time working so diligently to argue for swadeshi scholarship. Yet, Ganesh
concludes that he cannot absolve Malhotra of his blatant disregard to the past
masters.
Ganesh then quotes a few specific examples of works by Indians who criticised
Western Indology. He feels these criticisms are somehow the same work I am
doing. If that had been the case, I would not even be wasting so much time
writingTBFS, for I am not interested in regurgitating what others already did. I
wish toopen new doors through my work, rather than rehash old knowledge that
others (better qualified than me) are already pursuing. What Ganesh is doing is
analogous to someone citing astronomy writings by past masters that have little
to do with the specific newly discovered solar system someone is studying in very
great detail.
My focus in TBFS is on Pollocks school per se. My book explains how he is a
completely new and different kind of thinker than the old guard Ganesh mentions
(like Max Mueller, etc.) In fact, Pollock himself criticises and rejects all those he
thinks of as old school Orientalists. Pollock is not vulnerable to the old criticisms
against the old guard of Western Indologists.
This is why I wish Ganesh had read Pollock first, and realised that we must
properly understand him, and not try to be reductionist and think of all Westerner
Indologists as the same. The major part of TBFS is intended to educate and
explain to our traditionalists that which is new and different in Pollock compared
to prior Western Indologists.
Convinced that he has dealt a devastating blow to my credibility, Ganesh then
alleges that Malhotra directly accuses Indian scholars of either being unwillingly
complicit with the enemies (p. 68), or being irresponsible (p. 15), or being
uninterested (p. 44), or being unaware of Western scholarship (p. 1). He lacks
empathy for the numerous scholars who are deeply involved in their own
research.

This statement by Ganesh is a gross misrepresentation of my commitment and

ofTBFS. It is a typical example of manipulating something by taking it out of
context. Is he trying to create bheda between me and the traditionalists? Wouldnt
that attempt be against the interests of the traditionalists?
Of course, I do want to expose those specific Indians who have switched sides to
serve the colonial system, those who are complicit and sitting on the sidelines,
and those who vacillate opportunistically. Nobody who has read my work would
doubt the sincerity with which I have championed what I call Swadeshi Indology.
Yet he goes on repeating his allegation, writing that Malhotra looks down upon
traditionalist scholars. I certainly want their output raised to be on a par with
Western Indology and then supersede it. For instance, we must have more and
better quality assets controlled by the traditionalists, such as Indology journals,
libraries and conferences in India, and research publishing with high impact.
A good role model for our scholars is Shankar Rajaraman who, along with some
others, is busy highlighting the errors of Pollock; he shows that these Westerners
dont know how to use our idiom and methods for the interpretation of our texts.
Any system that is to be improved needs periodic assessment and shakeups. The
worst thing for traditionalists to do is to promote vyakti-puja (idolatry) of any
scholar by making him too big to be criticised. Ganesh is great, but his limitations
concerning Western Indology must be discussed in a constructive manner.
Ganesh raises another irrelevant issue and writes: And it is strange he [i.e.
Malhotra] has not quoted any regional language scholar. However, can Ganesh
please cite the specific regional language scholars who have critiqued Pollock and
his school? Pollock is the focus of TBFS, and not a generic high level critique of
Western Indology.
Ganeshs complaint is as ridiculous as saying that the astronomer who has
discovered previously unknown data about a solar system ought to be rejected
because he has failed to cite regional language astronomers. Ganesh appears to
lack a sense of what is relevant in a given context.
Misrepresenting my movement for a competitive home team

Ganesh writes: Malhotra writes in several places that he is the first person to
undertake such a task (see pp. 27, 44, or 379, for example), which as we know is
false.But no such claim is being made by me in the pages listed by him, or
elsewhere. What I say is entirely different than his characterisation. I shall
elaborate.
First of all, TBFSs purpose is not to do yet another generic critique of western
Indology, but a specific one about the new school led by Pollock. If Ganesh is
aware of any similar analysis of Pollocks school, he ought to give us the
references. In fact, I asked Pollock in a personal meeting about the lack of critical
examination of his works by Indians operating within a Hindu framework; he was
completely unaware of anyone having done this.
Furthermore, a home team is a lot different than isolated writings by some
individuals. Such a team would have to match the opposing (Pollocks) team in
output, team cooperation, intensity and focus. It would have to match the
opponents in influencing media and mainstream intellectual discourse both in
India and overseas.
I have spent the past two decades trying many ways to create such a home team,
but it is not easy. To the best of my knowledge, Ganesh has not undertaken such a
project to launch a movement, and is expressing opinions not based on
experience.
Ganesh also writes: This is not a new battle. It has been fought before, and won
before. Such a statement suggests lack of awareness of major
new developments in Western thought or their level of complexity. Earlier in this
article I listed some such developments by Pollock that are powerful and new, and
that demand fresh critiques by us.
Ganesh says that The battle for Sanskrit and Sanskriti is not a new one.
Sanatana dharma has survived years of onslaught from many quarters in many
guises.However, he does not seem to appreciate that the past battles were
against the past attacks. Each encounter has required its own fresh purva-paksha.
Adi Shankara did not find earlier purva-paksha that was against earlier opponents
to be sufficient for his own time and context. Because he faced new opponents,
he therefore had to do new purva-paksha. Shankara also developed new

paradigms and methodologies for this purpose and did not merely regurgitate old
ones.
This is why I introduced the term Charvaka 2.0 and explained how the Pollock
school is more evolved than the prior materialists. It is easy for someone who did
not read Pollock to naively assume it is more of the same thing.
Ganesh simplifies his characterisation of Western Orientalists and Indian Leftists
by referring to all of them with the same brush as crass materialists, without
delving into details on how such materialists today differ in substantial ways from
the earlier Charvakas.
Shri Ganesh is silent on TBFSs purpose which is stated in its Introduction chapter.
He completely ignores the urgent matter of Sringeri mattha becoming almost
hijacked by Pollock, even though I clearly explained that incident as my reason for
writing the book.
The recent case of Rohan Murty handing over to Pollock the responsibility of
translating 500 Indian texts has also failed to alarm him. He ignores the list of 18
debates given in the final chapter of TBFS, which the book says it wishes to spark.
Shri Ganesh ignores all the intentions, context and strategy of the book he tries to
review.
In the Hindu tradition, a significant commentary ought to go beyond the words
and sentences and get at the essential thought, teaching and philosophy of the
root text. Only such a commentator is referred to as a pada-vakya-pramanajna
(to allude to the opening verses in Shankaracharyas Bhashya on the Taittiriya
Upanishad). Alas, this eminent mans review of TBFS has not gone beyond
thepada-vakya.
Shri Ganesh gives his sweeping uttara to my work, but without having first done a
proper purva-paksha of either my book or Pollocks work. I find this error common
among people who do not listen well before starting to articulate a lot. He betrays
a lack of understanding of TBFS by branding it as Malhotras pseudo-logic. His
review of TBFS is more a personal criticism of me than an analysis of the books
thesis.

Sri Krishna advises us that one must do his own svadharma (even poorly) rather
than imitate someone elses svadharma. If Ganesh does this introspection, he
would understand that we are both on the same side.
Need to advance beyond data accumulation towards knowledge and
wisdom
There is a broader issue that many of our scholars face. The Indian education
systems obsession with exams based on memorised information has led to a
focus on accumulating large quantities of factual information. But this does not
constitute knowledge, because knowledge also requires critical thinking. And even
knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom, because wisdom requires
appreciation for the contexts and the big picture in which a discourse is situated.
Data by itself can be cluttered and requires the clarity of wisdom to be useful.
Even those with a mental search engine that allows them to quickly retrieve some
quote from a text are often unable to apply it to solve the problem at hand. We
must upgrade our traditional scholars to be capable of analysis, problem-solving,
critical thinking and debate with opponents.
To some extent, computer tools can help alleviate the mundane tasks of
memorising, and thus help free up human resources to undertake higher level
intellectual challenges. The Abrahamic religions have invested heavily in
computer searchable databases of all their literature, including primary texts,
commentaries, historical works, etc.
I have seen very impressive analytical tools for Christianity that apply artificial
intelligence methods. For this reason, it is not considered important for Christian
scholars to have memorised a lot, because such factual knowledge is readily
accessible from any smart phone.
I hope the 10-year plan of the Indian government to revive Sanskrit and its studies
will include the development of such computer tools for scholars. This would allow
the emphasis of Sanskrit education to shift beyond heavy memorisation and
towards higher levels of analytical thinking and the wisdom of global contexts.
I conclude by reaching out to Shri Ganesh to discuss our disagreements with
mutual respect, and with the commitment to defeat the common enemy we both

recognize. The battles are many and cannot be won in an elitist way by excluding
insider voices that have done their share of tapasya to the cause.
I respect Shri Ganeshs work and expertise. I hope he is also able to see that my
goal is to make traditional scholars aware of these latest threats that we face. We
each bring different dimensions of expertise, and the movement for dharma will
be stronger by working together.
The problem of tunnel vision is brought out in Satyajit Rays movie, Shatranj ke
khilaadi, based on the story by Premchand. It shows two elite Indian men playing
chess and constantly engaged in petty and pedantic arguments. They are
unconcerned that all around them are political and military activities by the East
India Company, heading towards the annexation of the Indian state of Awadh.
Living in a cocoon and disengaged from the real world, these men abrogated their
responsibility as community leaders. They made light of the gradual surrender to
the British, full of arrogance and self-importance. I wrote this book because I do
not treat the survival of my tradition as a leisurely game of chess.