|
This article by me is in two parts, and brings out debates concerning my book, The Battle For Sanskrit. PART 1: The challenges of understanding Sheldon Pollock. CLICK TO READ My book examines the important new school of Indology led by Prof Sheldon Pollock, based in Columbia University. He is a formidable scholar with a great reputation. He is a Padma Shri awardee by the Indian givernment, and the Editor-in-chief for translating 500 volumes of Indian texts under the banner of the Murty Classics Library project. There are too many honorifics to list here, but suffice it to say that he is considered arguably the most influential Western Indologist today. Unfortunately, many people who did not read my book, simply assume that their general knowledge about Western Indologists must apply to Pollock in particular. Such a superficial attitude trivializes Pollock and also trivializes my book. The whole point in my book is to show that he is very different and original in his methods and conclusions. This is why I wrote the book - not to regurgitate the same old discourse people have written about colonial Indology. A new kind of thinker demands a fresh purva-paksha (analysis of the opponent's work). In this Part 1 of my article, I explain in 6 pages what is new about his approach; why it is complex and challenging for most Indian scholars to understand him; and what are some of his key ideas one must understand before being able to develop an informed opinion of him. PART 2: Has Shatavadhani Ganesh really understood Pollock? CLICK TO READ After laying the ground in Part 1, the second part starts my response to one of India's foremost Sanskrit experts, a man named Shatavadhani Ganesh. Shri Ganesh has written a review of my book, which would require him to have an understanding of Pollock as a prerequisite. I like debates, as they bring out deeper insights for all parties concerned. I intend to write multiple articles in response to Ganesh. This initial rejoinder by me focuses on my claim that Ganesh has not understood Pollock. He falls into the trap explained in Part 1, namely, that of applying a generic understanding of Western Indology to a specific scholar like Pollock. Our purva-paksha tradition does not allow one to examine a specific opponent by merely superimposing superficial stereotypes about a diverse group. By way of analogy: Suppose someone writes a detailed assessment of Narendra Modi without having read Modi's own works and analyzed his speeches and policies. Suppose such a critique makes sweeping assumptions about "Hindu nationalists" and "Sangh Parivar" based on knowledge about various other leaders such as Advani, Vajpayi, etc. No informed person would take such an analysis of Modi seriously. Though there are family resemblances between Modi and prior BJP leaders, he is not be assumed as "one more man from the same lot". The scholar who wants to write about a new, original thinking leader must invest the quality and quantity of time required to do research. This tapasya applies whether you agree or disagree with the subject of your research. There is no easy or quick substitute to this effort. I invested two years of my full-time effort at a frantic, high intensity level to write about Pollock's school of Indology. Unfortunately, as my article shows, Ganesh's review lacks adequate understanding of Pollock, and yet he pontificates with so much aplomb. I write with utmost respect for both Pollock and Ganesh. I plan to write more blogs on this subject and the above two parts will provide an important foundation. Please read and post comments under the articles where they are published. Thanks and regards, rajiv | 
No comments:
Post a Comment