Can Sanskrit be used to undermine Sanskriti?

If we believe Rajiv Malhotra, it may

already be underway. In his recent book, The Battle For Sanskrit, Malhotra
raises questions that are critical for Sanskrit, the ancient Indian language
and Sanskriti, the core Indian civilizational values that found expression through
this language and over the last few millennia, has inspired every other field of
human thought and activity in the Indian subcontinent and beyond. The book
should interest not only those, who live within the Indian value space anywhere in
the world, but also those, who may be even remotely interested in India and the
history of this language, which is now being linked to the widespread social
disparity in India. Besides, the book also touches upon the highly
contested Western Universalism.
Malhotra explores the issue by focusing on a prominent American scholar Sheldon
Pollock, a Harvard graduate and currently a professor at the Columbia University,
celebrated globally for his authority on Sanskrit language. The author examines
Pollocks scholarly works produced over the years in the area of Sanskrit studies,
his views on India, his political activism and the larger implications of his
proliferating army of highly articulate fellow-scholars taking his views across the
world. For the past few decades, Pollock has been interpreting Indias
Sanskrit and Sanskriti and exporting it back to the Indians, by infusing
new meanings to the old Sanskrit texts. Malhotras central argument is that
this interpretation aims at systematically removing from Sanskrit, something that
has been at the core of this language and the culture, from the very beginning,
i.e. the aspects concerning Dharma and Paramarthika.
Besides highlighting some major gaps in the understanding of these scholars,
Malhotra also points fingers at something sinister in this post-colonial, post-cold
war wave of renewed interest in Indias Sanskrit andSanskriti. Unlike the
colonial Indologists, argues Malhotra, the US led global team of activistscholars are driven by their motivation to change India by secularising
Sanskrit. These scholars are now starting to proclaim the secularized version of
Sanskrit, purged of its core Dharma and Paramarthika aspects, as the only one
worthy of scholarly attention. However, the traditional Sanskrit scholars and
those, who subscribe to the Sanskrit-based Indian value space are either unaware
of this enterprise or lack competence and necessary resources to put up a
scholarly defense. Therefore, the author provides a red flag list of issues that
ought to wake up serious Hindu intellectuals. The book is essentially an alert.
The opening chapter, Introduction: The Story Behind the Book, not only lays
out authors motivations, but also deals with the key characters and institutions in
the story, such as Sheldon Pollock, US-based NRI interest groups, Columbia
University in the US and Sringreri Sharada Peetham (SSP) in India to bring

outwhat is at stake in an exceptionally concise, crisp and pointed manner that is

generally a mark of professional management and communication Gurus. After
introducing the larger cross currents through some of the recent developments
regarding setting up a chair in Sanskrit studies in Columbia university under the
name of SSP and some related critical points, Malhotra raises the central question:
Who will control our (Hindu) traditions? and calls for an open intellectual debate
between outsiders and insiders.
In the first chapter, The hijacking of Sanskrit and Sanskriti, Malhotra
elaborates on the definition of Insidersand Outsiders and lays out in detail the
disputes and disagreements between the two loosely marked camps, where the
distinction is not based on nationality, race or even religious identity. Essentially,
anyone who is living or interested in or just sympathetic to Sanskrit and the
Sanskrit-based Paramarthika or Dharmik value space and Indian culture belongs
to the insider camp, also referred as the Sacred Camp. On the other hand,
those, who may be interested in the language and the culture it inspired, but who
reject Indias Paramarthikaor Dharmik tradition as irrelevant and treat it as an
obstruction in the progressive development of India and hence needs to be
removed, belong to the outsider camp, also referred as the Secular Camp. They
are driven by the desire to change in India by secularizing Sanskrit and the
associated tradition.
According to Malhotra the outsider/secular camp is well placed, resource-rich and
globally networked to produce scholarly works. They systematically scrutinize
traditional Sanskrit texts, sometimes by incorporating traditional scholars, and
interpreting the same by using western analytical frameworks and political
theories, what he calls the western lens, of which traditional Sanskrit scholars
neither have any understanding nor competence to challenge. While the secular
camp has already moved far too ahead in its agenda of secularizing
Sanskrit, and in turn effect a socio-political change in India, the
Insider/Sacred camp is not even in a position to comprehend what is
going on. The author lays out the lopsided battle in detail and raises a pertinent
question: where is the home team?. The book seems to be an attempt to build
one.
The second chapter, From European Orientalism to American Orientalism,
places the issue in the historical context with reference to the pre-colonial
interaction of Europeans with India. Historically, in the 17th century, the first
motivation among the officers of the East India Company to learn Sanskrit was
primarily tounderstand Indian culture in order to gain a certain degree of
legitimacy to rule over what eventually became British India. In the post-colonial,
post-cold war era, not only there was a change in the theater of what Edward Said

called Orientalism from Europe to America, but also a change in its focus.
Malhotra argues that the American orientalists are not studying Sanskrit to
understand India, but in order to sanitize the language from what they
perceive as its inherent ills and abuses and, thereby, become agents of
socio-political change in the 21st century India. For them, the roots of
Indias socio-political and economic challenges lie in Indias Sanskrit
based Paramarthika or Dharmik tradition. Therefore, the goal is a secular India,
completely separated from its Paramarthika or Dharmik tradition, and fully
aligned with the ideals ofWestern Universalism. But, there is more to it.
According to the author, if Edward Saids Orientalism had put European
Indologists on the defensive for being racist and for having used their scholarship
to back colonial exploitation, Sheldon Pollock is providing the Indologists a new
lifeline by arguing that it was actually the Brahminical India that fed British
Imperialismand German Fascism. The argument being fostered is that
Sanskrit is where Europeans learnt it all, to be elitist, exploitative and
ruthless, so the blame lies squarely at the door of Sanskrit inspired
Hindu traditions and, therefore, the need to secularize the language to
trigger a socio-political change in India. Thats a serious allegation.
Malhotra responds by mapping Pollocks works, laying out his assumptions and
positions on critical issues, pointing out to the gaps to offer counter arguments.
The most interesting being how experiences from American Frontier, including
the systematic development and usage of atrocity literature, combined with the
European colonial view developed in India, may have led to what the author calls
American Orientalism that is determined to attack
Indias Parmarthika or Dharmik tradition.
In the third chapter, The Obsession with Secularizing Sanskrit, onwards
Malhotra focuses on Pollocks works to bring out the specifics. The first and
foremost charge Malhotra makes is that Pollock ignores theParmarthika aspect of
the Sanskrit tradition, unique to Indian civilization, as being irrelevant, because he
thinks it has no real usage. Secondly, Pollock creates an artificial divide
between Parmarthika, the transcendental and Vyavharika, the mundane aspects
of Sanskrit to arrive at conclusions that suit his socio-political objectives. Thirdly,
Pollock represents the Vyavharika aspect in a self-serving manner, especially
when, having decided to look at only written texts, that too only Kavya, the
literature, and not Vedas andShashtras, he argues that it is only after the Buddhist
intervention that Sanskrit gets its literature that reflects historicity and some
degree of progressive change. Pollocks key accusation is that
the Parmarthika aspect makes Sanskrit regressive and forecloses the
possibility of any creativity and innovation, and supports

theBrahminical elitist top-down power structures. Therefore, Pollock builds

an argument in favour of letting his liberation philology secularize Sanskrit by
sidelining Vedas and Sashtras, and exclusively focusing only on Sanskrit Kavya to
allow for creativity and, hopefully, some fundamental socio-political change in
India.
In the fourth chapter, Sanskrit Considered a Source of Oppression, Malhotra
provides further insight into Pollocks thoughts and his motives for this aggression
on Sanskrit, particularly its Vedic connection. The author analyses Pollocks works
to argue how, in spite of knowledge gaps or lack of evidence, Pollock has set
the tone of the post-cold war grand narrative that absolves Europeans of
their colonial guilt by arguing that oppression did not come to India with
the Europeans, but the traditional Indian society was already quite
capable of it because of its core Vedic civilizational values, carried
forward and expressed through Sanskrit. In fact, Pollock goes a step further
and actually accuses Sanskrit for corrupting the minds of Europeans by its
embedded discriminatory structures that presumably led astray the British and
the Germans, besides of course still continuing oppression of Muslims and
the Dalits at home. Malhotra argues that Pollocks attempt to interpret Vedic
knowledge exclusively through the socio-political angle, while ignoring
itsParamarthika aspect that forms the core of Indias spiritual traditions as
unworthy of academic attention, makes his scholarship open to accusations of
being aligned to the requirements of current global powers, while systematically
making Indians suspect their own heritage by highlighting the ills of the society.
The author highlights Pollocks attempt to seed suspicions in the fifth chapter
titled Ramayana Framed as Socially Irresponsible, where Pollock rejects the
epic as a project for propagating Vedic social oppression by fostering Vedic
ideas of divinisation and demonisation. Pollocks argument is that
the Brahmins used their exclusive Sanskrit skills to conduct Yajna to attribute
divinity to the Kashtriya kings to ensure unquestioned obedience of the rulers by
the masses (leading to oppression) and in turn kings protected the interests of
theBrahmins. However, as a result of this divinety enforced obedience, the
Indians lost their individuality to question, which explains the Indians fatalistic
approach to life and lack of creativity to improve their lives. Worse still, Pollock
thinks that this Vedic idea of divine king and the demonisation of the
enemy, was later propagated through Ramayana to vilify the Muslim
invaders since the 11th century, which continues until today by
organizations such as VHP, RSS and BJP, the Sangh Parivar. Malhotra points
to the holes in Pollocks grand narrative and offers counter arguments, citing
traditional Indian scholars, as well as European Indologists to form a more

balanced view. However, Pollock is determined to use his exclusive socio-political

Western lens to interpret not only Ramayana but all available Sanskrit based
knowledge resources to neutralize those (oppressive) forces.through analysis of
the construction and function of such a meaning system.
In the next two chapters, Politicizing Indian Literature and Politicizing the
History of Sanskrit and Vernaculars, Malhotra scans Pollocks journey into
other Sanskrit resources and brings out how Pollock forms his views on Sanskrit
literature and language to support his grand narrative. Malhotra argues that
Pollock not only treatsVedas and Sashtras as irrelevant and focuses on Kavya as
the primary field of cultural production but also tries to remove any sacred
connection between Vedas, Natya Sashtra and the subsequent Kavya. Pollock
uses the Marxist theory of aestheticization of power to arrive at a conclusion
that Kavya was essentially produced by the Brahmana-Kashtriya nexus with
embedded oppressive Vedic ideas to numb the masses into having a false sense
of involvement with their rulers and, thereby, offering complete obedience. Over
time, the embedded oppressive structures in Sanskrit grammar and
literature helped in carrying forward oppressive Vedic ideas and creating
what Pollock calls Sanskrit Cosmopolis in South and East Asia during
200BCE-1100CE. Eventually, even when Sanskrit started losing ground with the
rise of vernaculars, according to Pollock, the usual Brahmin-Kashtriya nexus
managed to permeate the oppressive ideas and structures into the vernaculars,
making progressive social change all the more impossible. Therefore, Pollocks
prescription is simple India needs social disruption by rejecting the
spiritual, the sacred or the transcendental and build an entirely secular
view of Sanskrit to unleash the creative potential of her masses,
particularly Dalits, minorities and women, to make them politically
challenge the tradition rooted in Vedik ideas of the sacred and break
free to create a new India.
In the eighth chapter, The Sanskriti Web as an Alternative Hypothesis,
Malhotra offers his own Sanskrit Webmodel as an alternative to Pollocks Sanskrit
Cosmopolis model. Other Sanskrit scholars and historians from the insider camp
too get a mention. Pollocks Sanskrit Cosmopolis model attributes the rise of
Sanskrit to the uni-directional elitist Brahmin-Kshatriya top-down flow of Vedic
ideas embedded in the language structures. According to Pollock, while Sanskrit
language gained by the disruptive secular interventions of Buddhists, particularly
in the form of Sanskrit Kavya, its elitist orientation made Sanskrit pass its
discriminatory qualities and structures of oppression to even regional languages,
the vernaculars, which eventually became the reason of Sanskrits decline as well,
of course, assisted by factors like internal socio-political decay. On the other

hand, Malhotras Sanskrit Web model, which takes a more organic

approach, explains the rise of Sanskrit due to its widespread appeal
across different strata in the society for
various Parmarthika andVyavaharika reasons and its capacity to have a
two way dialogue with regional languages. Besides several other reasons,
Malhotra holds Islamic invasions and the colonial rule that introduced Persian and
English, respectively, as the major causes for the decline of Sanskrit.
In the following chapter, Declaring Sanskrit Dead and Sanskriti Nonexistent, Malhotra brings back his focus on Pollocks larger social change agenda
in India, in which Sanskrit is consistently attacked for its perceived incapacity to
allow for creativity, innovation and socio-political change in India, particularly
its Paramarthikaor Dharmik aspect for blunting the creative energies of people for
centuries. Malhotra also cites authors from the traditional insider camp, who
disagree with Pollocks formulations. The tenth chapter, Is Sheldon Pollock Too
Big to Be Criticized?, is an all out attack on Pollock and his scholarship for using
Sanskrit language studies to pursue an agenda that not only denies Indians their
core civilizational values, but also holds the same values responsible for Indias
ills, in fact, the ills of British colonialism and German Fascism. The only way
forward for Pollock, argues Malhotra, is to rewrite Indias past from the
secular lens by rejecting Sanskrit-based spiritual aspects held
responsible for Indias ills and then hope that it would trigger start the
usual Marxist class conflict to bring about socio-political disruption in
India.
In the concluding chapter, Malhotra offers specific suggestions regarding how to
challenge Pollock led grand narrative that is being developed in the American Ivy
League universities to systematically target India under the label of South Asian
studies. The author makes an interesting point about the notable inability
of the traditional Sanskrit scholars to do purva-paksha, the traditional
approach to debate based on the systematic analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses of the viewpoints of ones opponents, especially those
from the faiths that historically emerged from outside of what Pollock
refers as Sanskrit Cosmopolis. Apparently, the explanation lies in what
Malhotra calls as the difference anxiety leading to escapist tendencies; in fact,
Malhotras list of hindrances in doing purva-paksha is worth every Indians
attention.
The Sanskrit Cosmopolis narrative of Pollock may have knowledge gaps and is
driven by his socio-political agenda, but his allegation of Indian society being
hierarchical and discriminatory deserves attention. But, as Malhotra argues, the
secular Marxist approach of Pollock is loaded with the risk of throwing the baby

along with the bathwater. Obsession with re-engineering Indians

understanding of their past in order to pre-fix Indias future trajectory
essentially could mean gradual loss of the only distinctive feature that
India can claim globally, i.e. Indias Parmarthika or Dharmik or what we
vaguely refer as spiritual traditions. However, Infosys Narayan Murty hasnt
hesitated to provide a massive funding to the Pollock led project of Murty Classical
Library of India in Harvard University that aims to translate and interpret 500
volumes of Indian texts in English. Basically, Murty has given the responsibility of
attributing certain meaning to ancient Indian texts in Sanskrit (and other regional
languages too) to the outsider camp, knowing that majority of Indians do not
know Sanskrit, which means, Indians would understand their heritage as Pollock
led outsider camp would want them to understand. And, as Malhotra says, the
traditional Sanskrit scholars have no clue about the international politics of
secularizing Sanskrit.
The overall strength of the book, The Battle For Sanskrit, lies in Malhotra boldly
and passionately following his subject, being candid, direct and very precise,
leaving nothing to doubt and with a definite call to action India needs a home
team to stand up for Sanskrit because something critical to Indian
Sanskriti, i.e. Parmarthika or Dharmik tradition, is at stake. Malhotra can
be accused of being less academic though, but he never really claims the book to
be a treatise on either Sanskrit or Sanskriti, while providing necessary information
on both for the sake of clarity of his arguments. Indeed, the book is very much a
red flag that clearly draws the intellectual battle lines in the area of Sanskrit
studies. Particularly, the section on Indians difference anxiety and the list of
hindrances is one that I would recommend every Indian to read, even if they
have no particular interest in Sanskrit and Sanskriti.