The Battle for Sanskrit
The Battle for Sanskrit: Is Sanskrit Political or Sacred, Oppressive or Liberating, Dead or Alive? is a 2016 book written by Rajiv Malhotra which criticizes the work of the American indologist Sheldon Pollock. Malhotra pleads for traditional Indian scholars to write responses to Pollock's views. Synopsis. Introduction. Rajiv Malhotra explains why he wrote this book. He notes the hegemony of western approaches in studying India, and asks for a study of this western approach from a traditional point of view. His book is an attempt to provide such a reversal. According to Malhotra, western Indology  scholars are deliberately intervening in Indian societies by offering analyses of Sanskrit texts which would be rejected by "the traditional Indian experts." He also finds western scholars too "prescriptive", that is, being "political activists" that want to prescribe a specific way of life. The cover of the book is a picture of artwork featuring the British philologist William Jones (1746–1794) which Malhotra had seen displayed in Oxford, depicting Jones giving knowledge to Hindu pandits. The inducement for this book was the prospect of Sringeri Peetham, the monastery founded by Adi Shankara in south India, collaborating with Columbia University to set  up an "Adi Shankara Chair" for Hindu religion and philosophy, sponsored by an Indian donor. The instalment committee for the chair was to be headed by Sheldon Pollock, whom Malhotra regards as an erudite scholar but also as one who undermines the traditional understanding. Malhotra contacted the lead donor to voice his concerns, which were not shared by the donor. Nevertheless, Malhotra fears "the issue of potential conflict when the occupant of the chair takes positions that undermine the very tradition that has backed and funded the chair." According to Malhotra, Chapter 1: The Hijacking of Sanskrit and Sanskriti. According  to Malhotra, Sanskrit forms the essence of Indian civilisation. Malhotra discerns an "insider" and an "outsider" approach to the study of Sanskrit texts based on the academic concept of Emic and etic. However Malhotra emphasizes his distinction between insiders and outsiders is not based on ethnicity, but the lens through which one looks at Sanskrit texts. Insiders view Sanskrit as sacred, but outsiders view the sacredness of Sanskrit as merely a smokescreen for oppressive views. Chapter 2: From European Orientalism to American Orientalism. Contemporary American scholars differ from their British counterparts, having greater access to Indian society and Indian collaborators . American Orientalism has a great impact. Malhotra describes the circumstances in which American Orientalism grew and how it differs from European Orientalism. According to Malhotra it is influenced by Marxism, using a liberation philology, which under the guise of empowering social groups such as dalits, women and Muslims pits them against each other and against Hinduism. Malhotra gives special attention to Sheldon Pollock. According to Malhotra, Pollock is determined in "utterly purging Sanskrit studies of their sacred dimension." Malhotra singles out Pollock as being exemplary of this American Orientalism, since he is considered its foremost exponent, and Malhotra wants to  realise a maximum impact with his criticism of American Orientalism. Chapter 3: The Obsession with Secularizing Sanskrit. According to Malhotra, Pollock separates the spiritual transcendent aspect of Sanskrit, "paramarthika", from the mundane worldly aspect, "vyavaharika". Pollock then dismisses the "paramarthika" as being irrational. Malhotra further states that Pollock is incorrect in portraying "kāvya", a Sanskrit literary style used by Indian court poets, as fundamentally different from Vedic ideas. He states that Pollock "secularises" the "kāvya" literature by removing its transcendental dimensions. Reception. Bibek Debroy in his review states that, According to Bibek Debroy, "The Battle for Sanskrit" follows the traditional  Indian style mentioned in the Sanskrit "tarka shastra" tradition of reasoning. "You cite your opponent’s argument ("purva paksha") and counter it with your own argument ("uttara paksha")". Bibek Debroy writes, "Malhotra does the same with Pollock, setting out the Pollock arguments first and focusing particularly on Pollock’s views on the Valmiki Ramayana." According to Debroy, Malhotra agrees that there's no 'one true' approach in this, rather he wants the "home team" to be ""energized"". This book is best understood as an exhortation for that alternative paradigm. Bibek Debroy believes that even though the book has been labelled  a ‘Battle for Sanskrit’, it is about our legacy and believes that "for people to be persuaded that this would be a terrible idea, this is a wonderful book that needs to be read and disseminated." The book found support from writers who call to join this "battle," like Rajeev Srinivasan and Aditi Banerjee, who has co-authored a book with Malhotra. The 'network of trust' created by the book is said to have caused 132 academics from India to sign a petition asking for the removal of Sheldon Pollock from the editorship of the Murty Classical Library of India . "Battle for Sanskrit" was discussed extensively in an article in "Jankriti International Magazine" by Ayesha Tahera Rashid. Dr. Shatavadhani Ganesh, in his critical review, applauded Malhotra's efforts for Sanskrit and towards publicizing "problematic areas in Pollock’s discourse". But he found the author over-enthusiastic in his arguments and his "understanding of the nature of Sanatana dharma as a transcendental system" to be flawed. While crediting Malhotra for attempting a purvapaksa, he found the work to fall short "in places where he unwittingly tries his hand at siddhanta"