Last updateMon, 13 Nov 2017 4am

Richard the Troll

Richard the Troll

Richard Fox Young has written an article titled “Time for a “Diagnostic Test” on Rajiv Malhotra’s Books” essentially repeating the same old points in all the previous articles. The arrogance is revealed in the very title of his article positioning himself as a doctor meant to diagnose a disease. This attitude will become more evident as we shall see.

Young begins his article with an analogy of how cars are tested for road worthiness in Princeton with stickers slapped on them “certifying” them and how cars without the sticker get pulled over. He wishes to perform a similar diagnostic test on Malhotra. This shows the crude arrogance of Young as mentioned above. One must note the implications of such a view. It lays emphasis on power structures of who has adhikara to question and set the discourse. Ones without the stickers slapped on them by so called “diagnostic experts” will be ridiculed and brushed away. This kind of sticker slapping attitude is what excludes the practising Hindu acharyas and yogis out of debate and unworthy of acknowledgement. Prof. Rambachan who says he had read intensely under Swami Dayananda Saraswati, has polished English and presentation skills and thus gets the sticker, while Swami Dayananda Saraswati himself would not qualify for the sticker! This kind of huge asymmetry in power where all the norms and conditions for dialogue are set by outsiders of the tradition is what gradually leads to cultural genocide. This is an irrational situation to be in and those that are enforcing such a system call themselves academics! This has exactly been what Malhotra is fighting and wants insiders of the tradition to get a seat at the table of discussion.


Statement by Professor Alok Kumar, Department of Physics, State University of New York, Oswego

Statement by Professor Alok Kumar Department of Physics

To Whom It May Concern

I received an e-mail in middle of July, 2015 from a fellow historian of science, asking me to take an urgent action to assist Rajiv Malhotra. I had little interaction with Rajiv for several years and was clueless about the issues he was facing. I had no idea that an organized and concerted effort to stop his upcoming book from publication was going on. And, Rajiv is also accused by an author of plagiarism although this person’s work was cited 30 times following proper academic norms in his book, Indra’s Net. I was dismayed since the Rajiv Malhotra I know would not commit such errors.

I have known Rajiv for about two decades as a fellow researcher in Indic studies and I have exchanged a variety of ideas with him over the years. These were the early years of the Infinity Foundation, an organization founded by Rajiv to mobilize scholarship in Indic Studies. He funded various projects in prestigious universities, including Harvard University, Rutgers University, etc. I am also a recipient of a small grant from the Infinity Foundation that I received in 1999, amounting less than 0.5 percent of what I have received over my career. I always found Rajiv to be professional, to the point, straight forward, creative, and scholarly.

Rajiv Malhotra studied in prestigious St. Stephen’s College in Delhi and Syracuse University. With his hard work and talent, he succeeded in his business ventures and achieved what most of us can only dream of. He earned enough money


Rajiv's Kurukshetra

Rajiv Kurukshetra

In our day-to-day activities, going to work, watching TV, spending time with family etc. we tend to forget that someone out there, at our nation's border, lives a life on a thin edge to protect us from invading nations. Similarly there are quite a few men, with nerves of steel, who are out there to protect our Hinduism, possibly most of them are unknown to us.

Protect from whom? You may ask. Like most human beings who wear a mask outside in the society to conceal their inner image, many organized religions wear the mask of world peace and service to humanity etc. to encroach upon people from other religions to build their respective numbers - for reasons best known to them. 

Hinduism and economically backward Hindus are fertile territory for them. Although poor, most Hindus still prefer to stick to their religion, in spite of being lured with money and other amenities. This has forced the others to change their tactic by disguising themselves as Hindu priests, scholars and even building religious structures similar to Hindu temples. While common people are gratified seeing foreigners professing Hindu philosophy and speaking Sanskrit, one man found figured that there was indeed something black in the lentils.

That man is Rajiv Malhotra ( An Indian American Scholar who took an early retirement to dedicate himself to the cause of fighting for Hinduism.


Andrew Nicholson On Hinduism: Rhetoric Of ‘Good Cop/Bad Cop’

Andrew Nicholson on Hinduism

Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History (2010), American Indologist Andrew Nicholson collects evidence in order to argue that there was no single understanding of what it meant to be a Hindu in medieval India. Hindu unity was not a structure created in the late medieval period that has existed unchanged from that point to the present day. Nicholson discusses two key Hinduism-related terms that figure frequently in any Western scholarly discussion of Hinduism in modern times: Neo-Hinduism and Hindutva.

Nicholson’s approach reminded me of the ‘Good Cop’ as well as ‘Bad Cop’ role that Rajiv Malhotra has discussed at length in various fora (see below). As a rhetorical technique, the expression ‘Good Cop Bad Cop’ refers, in the American context, to the joint effort to gain compliance from a community over an issue that may be unpalatable at first glance. The Bad Cop, who may be a politician or an academic, first may make statements regarding an issue that are deemed to be unpopular. The Good Cop then poses as a moderate offering a compromising solution that seems preferable in comparison. When engaging with a reader, an academic might similarly use the statements of another academic with an opposite view to inflame a reader prior to proposing a more modest verdict.

In the traditional context of India, the Arthaśāstra of Kauţilya (1992) discusses four ways of dealing with the other (1:13.22-25):

Sāma: the process of attracting and converting others to your side with sweet words and friendly demeanor,


Rebuttal To Mihir S Sharma

 Rebuttal to Mihir S Sharma

The original article of Mihir S Sharma is titled “The Rajiv Malhotra issue is a cautionary tale for publishers”. Mihir’s original is in bold followed by my rebuttal.

Rajiv Malhotra, who writes angrily from New Jersey about American attempts to monopolise the conversation about India and Hinduism, is in trouble. True to form – he is, after all, more loudly Indian than anybody else, especially anybody else not in New Jersey – the trouble he is in is that quintessentially desi problem, plagiarism.

Mihir does have a problem with anyone claiming the Indian identity and has problems with anything. All the positive attributes must be washed away from anything desi and all things negative must be attached to it. Here too he displays his inherent pride that plagiarism is a quintessential desi problem. So too he expects Indian Americans to proudly support Bobby Jindal who has washed away all his desi identity as he is ashamed of it. As can be seen below


About the revival of Sanskrit

About the revival of Sanskrit

Did you know that Western philosophy and culture trace its sources to ancient Greece… which in turn was greatly influenced by Hinduism? Famous Indianist Jean Herbert reminds us that “many many centuries before us, India had devised most of the philosophical systems which Europe experienced with later.

They contained, at least in its essence, the philosophy of the Greeks, the Alexandrine mystique, the religious speculation of the Middle Ages, the rationalism of the XIXth century and even the most recent incarnations of modern pantheism”. In 1782, already, French philosopher Pierre Sonnerat had written: “Ancient India gave to the world its religions and philosophies : Egypt and Greece owe India their wisdom and it is known that Pythagoras went to India to study under Brahmins, who were the most enlightened of human beings”.

But it is in the XIXth century Europe that an open admiration for ancient India’s Sanskrit culture flourished best, particularly in Germany, where philosophers, such a Frederich Shlegel, y said that “there is no language in the world, even Greek, which has the clarity and the philosophical precision of Sanskrit”, adding “that India is not only at the origin of everything, she is superior in everything, intellectually, religiously or politically – and even the Greek heritage seems pale in comparison”… The great Shopenhauer agrees with him and writes in the preface of his “The World as a Will and as a Representation”: “According to me, the influence of Sanskrit literature on our time will not be lesser than what was in the XVIth century Greece’s influence on Renaissance. One day, India’s wisdom will flow again on Europe and will totally transform our knowledge and thought”. And Nietzsche himself had read the Vedas, which he admired profoundly, could quote from the Law of Manu and thought that “Hinduism and Brahmanism are a hundred times deeper and more objective than Christianity”.


Why Devdutt Pattanaik’s Hermit Simile is Wrong

Why Devdutt Pattanaik hermit simile is wrong

In a recent column in, Devdutt Pattanaik has raised three important points - Celibacy, Non-violence and Purity in his article – How celibacy nonviolence and purity work to establish patriarchy in India. The column is rather shallow and Devdutt seems to have either exhibited sheer ignorance based opinions or one that is motivated by mischief. The response will be mainly from a Hindu POV, though he has bundled Buddhism and Jainism.

The author is one of the famous “Wendy's Child” and has desperately applied a Freudian and western prism of today and anachronistically applied to several millennia. This by itself is a huge fatal flaw in this opinionated article. The author is either trying to get cheap popularity points to his base or trying to please his masters as how good Sepoy he is.

Let us examine his wrong misinterpretations being peddled as great wisdom.

The author's theory of tracing the origins of institutionalized misogyny, queerphobia, hierarchy, discrimination and untouchability, which are the hallmarks of patriarchy in Indian society is definitely motivated.

One can statistically connect irrelevant matters too, without any meaning.