Let me begin with a disclaimer. I have immense
respect for Rajiv Malhotra’s for his invaluable contribution to Indic studies.
Most of us who try to keep themselves updated on current
affairs would be aware of a storm which has broken out over Rajiv Malhotra’s
alleged plagiarism of work authored by others, most notably in his book ‘Indra’s
Net’.
For the uninitiated, Rajiv Malhotra is an entrepreneur, philanthropist,
and a champion of the need for Hindus to define and interpret Hinduism. He has
authored powerful articles and books, arguing that Indic studies are managed by
a cabal of western academicians who insist on studying Hinduism from western
cultural lenses and worse, insist on providing an interpretation, which is
completely divorced from the reality a practitioner experiences.
For those at the receiving end of Mr Malhotra’s ire, he
is but a gadfly, a wannabe scholar who wishes to gate-crash into that exclusive
Brahminical club of scholars who have an impressive list of academic
qualifications behind them.
Yet, unlike many others who had made similar attempts in
the past to reclaim Hinduism, but had failed to gain much traction, Rajiv
Malhotra could not be ignored by his detractors. Not encumbered by lack of
finances, Mr Malhotra tasted blood (and won a legion of followers) with his
seminal essay on Hinduism studies by western scholars – RISA Lila Parts 1 and 2.
In due course of time, Mr Malhotra authored books, some with eminent names in
the field of Indology, others with upcoming scholars. In all, he ensured that
he was a hated but still a presence, which could not be ignored when Hinduism studies were being discussed.
Given the ‘esteem’ which Mr Malhotra commands in Indology
circles, it was hardly surprising that allegations of his plagiarising works of
others’ made his detractors delirious with joy. Wasting little time, the
internet was awash with articles on how this charlatan’s frauds had been
unearthed. Petitions were floated, asking Harper Collins to withdraw the book
and little known journalists had a field day attempting to discredit Rajiv
Malhotra and the entire genre of Hinduism studies associated with him.
After initial shock, when even right-leaning commentators
condemned Rajiv Malhotra for his alleged acts of plagiarism, his supporters
rallied around him. Mr Malhotra hit back through a series of articles and
tweets, Madhu Kishwar floated a petition which soon raced to over 10,000
endorsements, while fellow travellers like Sankrant Sanu and Rajeev
Balakrishnan extended their support.
Interestingly, the viciousness of attacks on Rajiv
Malhotra only serve to corroborate his arguments that Hinduism studies are
inherently biased and that an incestuous cabal of academicians, rooted in
western ways, probably serving an insidious agenda, tend to guard their turf a
little too zealously. It is they who decide, whether the ‘other’ is worthy
enough to merit their attention and whether, what the ‘other’ professes, even
if backed by decades of self-realisation, is good enough to pass their tests of
‘academic rigour’
In the given case, plagiarism was alleged by Richard Fox
Young, who wrote to Harper Collins, the publisher to pulp the book, apologise
and refund money to all those who had purchased the book in the first place.
Soon, the usual suspects like Ananya Vajpayi rallied around Mr Young and
floated a petition,
which on last count had some less than 250 supporters.
An analysis of the purported plagiarism revealed them to
be instances of sloppy referencing, i.e., while it was acknowledged that Prof
Andrew Nicholson’s book ‘Unifying Hinduism’ had been referred to, endnotes provided,
and many citations properly referenced, some were missed out and for some,
while endnotes had been provided, the quotation was not indicated as a ‘quote’.
Normally, such cases are treated as what they are, i.e.,
sloppy referencing. A simple way to deal with it would have been to highlight
it, ridicule Malhotra for the gaps and ask the misses to be corrected.
But no, these were treated as ‘proofs’ of Rajiv Malhotra’s
intellectual dishonesty and the shallowness of his books and arguments. For
such ‘crimes’, there was only one possible punishment, absolute banishment of
the individual and his thoughts from any scholarly realm.
This is where many, who otherwise felt that Mr Malhotra
should have accepted the gaps gracefully and re-issued a revised version,
decided to stand in solidarity with him. The attack on Mr Malhotra was not an
attack on the individual. It was a concerted attack on the very idea that
Hindus needed to have a voice on how Hinduism is presented in the academia,
that foreign scholars do not ‘own’ the scholarship of Hinduism, that practice
and study can be an equal if not a stronger substitute for academic degrees
(that too, of the ‘right’ kind).
One of the many ways in which sundry columnists mocked Mr
Malhotra was their questioning of his academic credentials. Interestingly, the
very same people who claimed that Mr Malhotra was no scholar, had no qualms in
recognising Richard Fox Young as a respected scholar, when he is a theologian
from a Christian seminary in the town of Princeton. So, a person who writes on
Hinduism after having lived his life as a Hindu, and after years of study and
analysis is not respectable enough but a person dealing with theology of an
alien religion is respectable enough to question Mr Malhotra?
This is hardly surprising given that the left has
consciously claimed that the right does not have intellectuals. How can the
right have any intellectuals, when the left declares anyone on the right to be
a non-intellectual? When works of even a Jadunath Sarkar or BB Lal get
dismissed as trash, what hope does a Sita Ram Goel, a Dharampal or a Rajiv
Malhotra can have to be accepted by the left? Like the case of Richard Fox
Young shows, the left will declare any Tom, Dick or Harry an intellectual as
long as they parrot the official line. It is not without reason that a cricket
historian like Ramchandra Guha gets recognised as a modern historian and a
travel writer with limited academic qualification in Indian history, like
William Dalrymple, gets recognised as an authority on India. It will only be
the left which will consider an economist like Amartya Sen to be the most
eminent person suited to re-establish an ancient University of learning. If,
tomorrow, Rajiv Malhotra has a change of heart and becomes a protégé of Sheldon
Pollock school of Indology, his very same detractors are likely to hail him as
the next best thing in Indology.
For argument’s sake, let us agree for a moment that Rajiv
Malhotra did indeed lift passages from Andrew Nicholson and others with intent
to plagiarise. Would that, in itself, rob Mr Malhotra’s works of all merit? If
not, then why is there so much of clamour to dismiss all of his work, and
worse, all his theories? It is only the security which an incestuous cocoon
provides, which can prompt Prof Wendy Doniger (the one who can make kinky sex
interpretations of even a cow grazing peacefully) to joyously claim
that ‘Mr Malhotra does not know anything of the subjects he writes on’. Quite
rich coming from someone whose each book is a minefield of errors, faulty
assumptions, wrong interpretations, and simply put, nonsensical conclusions!
Certainly, Mr Malhotra’s conduct in the entire state of
affairs could have been better. While the allegations around plagirasim of
Andrew Nicholson can be treated as sloppy referencing and the one claim on
lifting of a line from Swami Krishananda can be dismissed outright, there still
are some issues around non-referencing of works of Shrinivas Tilak in Indra’s
Net. Whatever Mr Malhotra may claim now, he has not been very kind to even
those on this side of the fence, who he believed, had plagiarised from him.
Second, his act of first calling Andrew Nicholson an
ally, then to claim that he was a mediocre scholar and that Unifying Hinduism
was a sub-standard work and that he would be removing all citations from the
revised version of the book, seems to be a case of childish pique. Maybe he had
no option left, driven the wall, the way he way by Nicholson. Yet, one cannot
call a book ‘brilliant’ while referencing and then claim it to be ’sub-standard’.
The world of Indological studies is weird. In any scientific
discipline, discoveries or inventions by amateurs are not dismissed by
scientists simply because of a lack of ‘adequate’ and ‘kosher’ academic
qualification of the amateur. Astronomy in particular, has been made quite rich
by amateurs and the scientific community has recognised those contributions by
naming galactic bodies in their honour. Even those disciplines, which fall in
between humanities and sciences, like archaeology, have respected contribution
of amateurs. Then what is so different about Indology that the existing power
structure allows entry of only a certain ‘type’ of people? Under the current
structure, a book by a Shankaracharya, (who would have spent all his years
studying scriptures) on a Dharmashastra, would not be considered ‘scholarly’ but
some interpretation of a translated work by a non-Hindu in some university,
when guided by one of Wendy’s children, would be considered authoritative. This
power anomaly ensures that the interpretations of Sanskrit, made by, say
Pandits of Maths, who have spent long years in study of scriptures in their original
language, carry zero weight but the words of a Wendy Doniger, who doesn’t know
the difference between even ‘Asakti’ and ‘Anasakti’ get treated as gospel.
Many like to claim that Indian right-wing, unlike that in
the west, does not have intellectuals. The reason why the west has recognised
right-wing intellectuals is that the right-wing created its own ecosystem.
Aware that the left would never accord respect due to them, they bypassed it
and created a movement powerful enough to be taken note of and formally
recognised. Unfortunately for India, such a situation is nowhere near possible.
Such ecosystems require political support and even the allegedly Hindu
governments in India have little time for Hindu scholars.
It is a rare occasion that a publisher makes
unsubstantiated allegations against an author unconnected to them. But when Permanent
Black did precisely that, you know that you cannot let down someone who has
been on the forefront of the struggle to reclaim Hinduism studies.
Two events, fracas over Wendy Doniger’s horrible book and
Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism, have only served to highlight the need for
Hindus to reclaim scholarship on Hinduism.
