‘american orientalism’ as the new macaulayism, and what we need to do about it _ swarajya

8/18/2019 ‘American Orientalism’ as the New Macaulayism, And What We Need to Do About It _ Swarajya

1/6

1/31/2016 ‘American Orientalism’ As The New Macaulayism, And What We Need To Do About It | Swarajya

http://swarajyamag.com/culture/american-orientalism-as-the-new-macaulayism-and-what-we-need-to-do-about-it/ 1/6

American Orientalism is a product of American history, where European settlers

battled previous settlers – the American Indians – before finally decimating them,

both through violence and internal emasculation by pretending to be their friends.

Edward Said made the idea of “Orientalism” famous – and a pejorative word in western

academia. His critique about western scholars using only European lenses to view non-

European cultures is today widely accepted as valid. However, there is only one kind of

Orientalism that is still not being called that: the capture of Indian history and cultural

studies by powerful American academics with little respect for the sacred traditions of

India and Hinduism, even while pretending to be well-wishers of all things Hindu or

Indian. Rajiv Malhotra is finally calling it what it is – American Orientalism – in his new

book The Battle For Sanskrit. The book’s sub-title explains what the battle is about: Is

Sanskrit Political Or Sacred; Oppressive Or Liberating; Dead Or Alive?

Malhotra’s is the most important critique of the new form of Orientalism that has taken

root in American academia, now the European academia is no longer calling the shots

on Indic studies. The reason why American Orientalism is dangerous for Indic culture

is because of the sheer sophistication it brings to the idea of hollowing out Indic

culture and studying Sanskrit by decapitating the head from the body. It is about

studying a carcass, not a living tradition or idea.

American Orientalism is a product of American history, where European settlers battled

previous settlers – the American Indians – before finally decimating them, both

through violence and internal emasculation by pretending to be their friends. This is

exactly the attitude American Orientalists bring to the study of Sanskrit, by pretending

to be lovers of the language, and then trying to delink it from its sacred roots in Hindu

tradition and thought.

‘American Orientalism’ AsThe New Macaulayism,

And What We Need To DoAbout It


2/6



Malhotra views American Orientalism as more dangerous than European Orientalismprecisely because it is a frenemy – helpful to Indian scholars who have lost control of

their own traditions and narratives, and yet fundamentally opposed to putting Sanskrit

on the pedestal that learned pandits would normally do. We have now developed such

awe for the sheer effort and resources American Universities have poured into Sanskrit

studies that we are willing to treat them as sympathetic to our cause, and even give

them millions of dollars to tell us about our own heritage. We end up giving them

Padma Shris, while our own pandits languish without resources or recognition. We are

too naïve to be able to wrest back control of our heritage from its real enemies.

The technique used by American Orientalists – of whom Malhotra names Sheldon

Pollock as chief frenemy – is the good-cop-bad-cop routine. The existence of some

American scholars with a genuine interest and concern for preserving our Sanskrit

heritage tends to make us believe that they are fighting on our side; on the other hand,

there are the Sheldon Pollocks who seek to separate the soul of Sanskrit from its body,

by separating the sacred aspects of the language from its secular usage – the paramarthika from the vyavaharika. The idea is to embed a degree of self-hate in

Hindus, so that they begin to view Sanskrit as the language of oppression, and only


3/6



some aspects of the language – the kavya and secular literature – as worthy of

respect. Pollock would like sacred Sanskrit as essentially oppressive – and many

western-educated Indians have internalised this critique.

Let’s be clear, Malhotra is no Hindutva extremist trying to pretend that everything about

Hinduism or Sanskrit is holy or beyond critique. Far from it. What he objects to is the

western effort to become the final arbiter in Sanskrit studies by ignoring the insider’s

(ie, the Hindu practitioner’s) views on this language, which embodies the soul of India

and its many daughter languages. He would like Indians inside the Sanskrit tradition to

understand where the Pollocks are coming from and how they can both accept the

outsider’s views even while developing a robust defence of tradition minus its negative

aspects. Malhotra is not at all opposed to internal reforms.

Unfortunately, given the fundamental fault-lines in Indian society (caste and religion),and also given the Leftist control of most academic and cultural institutions in

independent India, there are many takers for American Orientalism among the Indian

elite, even those who do not mind being called Hindus, whether at home on in America.

There are many reasons why Hindus themselves seem unaware of the machinations of

American Orientalists: as a people, we have developed an inferiority complex where we

place a higher value on what the west thinks of us than what we know to be true

ourselves; we have also lost track of our own traditions, where we feel embarrassed

that we need to read our own itihasa in English books written by foreigners to

understand our past.

Then there is the need for support from western academics in order to find places in

American academies for ourselves and our progeny; the debasement of Indian

education systems through political intervention gives Indian academics the push

effect to study abroad rather than in India; the collapse of the Soviet Union left the

Indian Left stranded – and American Indologists have built alliances with them toenable them to continue belittling Hinduism, as has been done from the days of DD

Kosambi, a Marxist historiographer; and, last, of course, there is the sheer amount of

resources western universities have been able to put into Sanskrit research. This alone

makes Indic studies vulnerable to huge American influence and political efforts to

undermine our traditions.


4/6



The most depressing thought is this: over the last few years, India has produced its

own billionaires who can fund social and cultural science research in India by

developing genuine Indic scholars with a clear grounding in our own sacred traditions.

But, as Malhotra points out, when a Narayana Murthy wants to create a Classical

Library, he turns to the same Sheldon Pollock to get the job done. He wants a short-cut,

a readymade solution. So, instead of taking the longer route of developing domestic

scholarship, he takes the easy way out and asks Pollock to do the job. He strengthens

American academy even further, and emasculates Indian scholars by giving them a

vote of no-confidence.

This pattern has been seen elsewhere too. Whether it is Ratan Tata or Anand Mahindra

or the Birla group, they choose to invest millions in funding academic chairs in their

preferred Ivy League or European institutions. Indian money is being used to buildacademia in the places that seek to undermine us.

http://vnz09vting1y7vq63zfizb29.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/369px-Kosambi-dd.jpg


5/6



Of course, Malhotra may be overdoing his effort to paint Sheldon Pollock as villain, but

when you have to make a strong point, you have to choose the right enemy to target.

Pollock, being the grandmaster of Sanskrit studies, and who uses Christian liberation

theology (the effort to subsume Marxist ideas within Christian doctrine) to deracinate

Sanskrit of its sacred moorings, believes in what he calls “liberation philology”. He

wants to achieve with Sanskrit the exact opposite of what Christianity tried to do with

Marxism. He wants to make Sanskrit unholy, while liberation theology sought to

sprinkle Marxist liberation theory with holy water.

This book will make Malhotra the biggest enemy of Christian evangelists, the same

way Arun Shourie’s inquiry into the unholy methods of evangelical organisations did in

his book, Harvesting Our Souls.

This is why the attacks on Malhotra have now intensified. A few months ago, RichardFox Young, an associate professor of the history of religions at the Princeton

Theological Seminary, accused Malhotra of plagiarism, alleging that Malhotra had used

many ideas from the work of Andrew J Nicholson from his book Unifying Hinduism.

The truth is Malhotra did attribute many quotes to Nicholson, but failed to do some in

some parts. Hardly a capital crime, and more about oversight. But Young’s critique was

picked up by all Left-wing publications in India, including Scroll.in. Malhotra’s defence

was picked up by sites that supported the Indic view.

In fact, if evangelists want to criticise plagiarism, there is no better place for them to

look than inwards, and they will find plenty of it. Every Indian cultural tradition –

whether it is lighting diyas or painting Jesus sitting cross-legged like an Indian rishi or

Christian priests and nuns wearing saffron, or evangelists creating a Jesus mudra in

Bharata Natyam, or the Christianisation of yoga – they have indulged in every form of

cultural plagiarism, if not cultural genocide.

It is important to understand why evangelical organisations would like to target

Malhotra, even if the accusations are flimsy. As an Indian living in the west, he knows

both how western academia works, and how gullible Indians tend to be when dealing

with foreigners who indulge them with insincere flattery. Malhotra is using his

knowledge of west and east to awaken Indians from stupidly believing in the innocence

of American Orientalist Sanskrit scholars. In fact, Malhotra’s book, The Battle For

Sanskrit, was prompted by his discovery that even the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, one

of the original maths created by Adi Shankara, was planning to mortgage its heritage to

http://www.firstpost.com/india/rajiv-malhotras-net-plagiarism-charge-shows-no-longer-man-ignore-2349652.html


6/6



American Orientalists by creating an Adi Shankara Chair in Columbia University, with all

its implications. It was about to hand over control of its traditions and their

interpretations to Sheldon Pollock.

The Battle For Sanskrit is an important book, even a disturbing one, for Indians who

love this country and take pride in its Hindu and Sanskrit traditions even while

cherishing diversity and acknowledging our many faults and negative practices.It is our

bounden duty to join Malhotra in his Battle For Sanskrit. It is our battle. And it is a

battle we cannot afford to lose.

Today On Swarajya

Related posts

‘american orientalism’ as the new macaulayism, and what we need to do about it _ swarajya

Documents