Talk:Sheldon Pollock/Archive 1

Reviews of The Language of the Gods
Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * D Shulman, The Journal of Asian Studies, Volume 66, Issue 03, August 2007, pp 819-825
 * Ashley Thompson, BRYN MAWR REVIEW OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE, Volume 10, Number 1 (Fall 2012)
 * John Nemec, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 75:1 (alternative link: )
 * Herman Tieken, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 51 (2008) 338-383]
 * List of reviews

Rajiv Malhotra
The (repeated) addition diff diff of this info is WP:UNDUE
 * "He is one of the leading group of American Orientalist critiqued by Rajiv Malhotra in his latest book The Battle for Sanskrit."

The stature and significance of Skedon Pollock is not determined by Malhotra's writings; at best, Malhotra's most recent publication is noteworthy because Sheldon Pollock is an outstanding author and scholar. Malhotra is not a scholar, and academically completely insignificant.

This piece of text was added with the following edit-summary:
 * ''"Let the reader decide whether Malhotra is a scholar or not. In any case, a criticism is a criticism."

It's not "the reader" who decides, it's us, the editors. And not every criticism is worth mentioning at the same extent, certainly not in the lead. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, twice diff diff text was added from this blog, which is a WP:COPYVIO.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rajiv Malhotra is published by HarperCollins, one of the biggest publishers in the world. Also, please establish "Sheldon Pollock is an outstanding author and scholar".VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, get a life! Or do an RfC. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with Victoria's argument? She gave her reason. --Ekvastra (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Malhotra is not a scholar, and academically irrelevant. Mentioning him in the lead is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. To give a comparison: there is this joke of a mouse and an elephant walking together. Says the mouse: wow, are we having fun stamping together! This is an article on Pollock, not on Malhotra. If someone is seriously interested in Pollock, let them expand the article by writing a synopsis om The Death of Sanskrit and The Language of the Gods. Either by reading those publications, or by reading WP:RS - which is not Malhotra. For the moment, two sentences in the body of the article suffice. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that a person be a scholar. Wikipedia uses nonscholars all the time, when attributed.  Rajiv is published by HarperCollins and is on the largest news site Huffington Post.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is. WP:RS states, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." If RM wrote a review of Pollock's work in a journal, which was taken to be a prevalent view regarding the work, then by all means we would put it in the lead. But, rants expressed in a book, which is mostly about RM's own views, need to be accepted by other scholars before we know if it has any standing at all. The Huffington Post is entirely irrelevant. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a policy that info, c.q. authors, have to be relevant to be included. Look again at the sentence:
 * ""He is one of the leading group of American Orientalist[1] critiqued by Rajiv Malhotra in his latest book The Battle for Sanskrit."
 * Who's the topic here? Sheldon Pollock, or Rajiv Malhotra? Sheldon is the 'passive subject' ("lijdend voorwerp," Dutch) in this sentence, not the 'active object' (sorry, I really don't know the English terms for these words). The only relevant info is: RM has written a book on Sheldon Pollock. That's undue for the lead; it's not a 'defining caharacteristic' of Sheldon Pollock.
 * Ask yourself: how many people, scholars, have commented on, or interacted with, Sheldon Pollock? Which comments and replies are really relevant, and which are not, to understand what Sheldon Pollock is writing about. What makes Rajiv Malhotra so extraordinary that his personal opinion is more relevant than the scholarly research of accomplished scholars, and a correct presentation of Sheldon Pollock and his research? Be aware also that RM is not WP:RS regarding Sheldon Pollock, or any topic regarding Indian religions. At best RM's views are his personal opinion, and the relevance of his opinions have to be weighted against the relevance of other authors, who do give scholarly responses.
 * Put another way: those people who want to add this kind of information, are they really interested in an encyclopedic presentation of Sheldon Pollock and his research? Do they know anything about Sheldon Pollock and his research, except for what is written about what RM has written about Sheldon Pollock (this critique, of course, does not apply to Vic!!!)? Editors who blindly copy blog-texts about RM without even being concerned about attribution, quotation-marks, and sources, do not give the impression that they are seriously interested in Sheldon Pollock, academic research, or writing an encyclopedia.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hermeneutics of suspicion
What's the function of this section? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please respect WP:BRD, and explain what "hermeneutics of suspicion" is. Google gives plenty of links on "Hermenutics of suspicion".  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The “hermeneutics of suspicion” is a phrase coined by Paul Ricoeur to capture a common spirit that pervades the writings of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. In spite of their obvious differences, he argued, these thinkers jointly constitute a “school of suspicion.” That is to say, they share a commitment to unmasking “the lies and illusions of consciousness;” they are the architects of a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths (Ricoeur 356). Ricoeur’s term has sustained an energetic after-life within religious studies, as well as in philosophy, intellectual history, and related fields[.]" Rita Felski, Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion, M/C Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2012) - 'suspicion'
 * ''"Hermeneutics is both science and art. In many ways this beguilingly simple statement is responsible for the modern ferment in hermeneutics - a process begun with F. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and his attempt to gain meaning through understanding the mind of the author; given significant impetus more recently in the seminal work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and his call for a dialectic between the horizons of the text and reader; and radicalized in the increasingly reader-response oriented hermeneutics of today.[1]
 * ''The French philosopher, Paul Ricoeur, while essentially operating from within the reader oriented end of the spectrum, is uncomfortable with the intrinsic subjectivity associated with such hermeneutics and seeks to walk the fine line between a call for objectivity (grounded in some way in the text), and yet at the same time seeking to remain "open" to what the text may have to say. Ricoeur's hermeneutic of suspicion represents his attempt to retain both science and art, whilst disallowing either an absolute status; "Hermeneutics seems to me to be animated by this double motivation: willingness to suspect, willingness to listen; vow of rigor, vow of obedience."[2] Distilling the essence of Ricouer's hermeneutics here stated, A. Thisleton notes that:
 * ''The first addresses the task of 'doing away with idols,' namely, becoming critically aware of when we project our own wishes and constructs into texts, so that they no longer address us from beyond ourselves as "other." The second concerns the need to listen in openness to symbol and to narrative and thereby to allow creative events to occur "in front of" the text, and to have their effect on us.[3]
 * It is this hermeneutic of "critical openness," of "suspicion and hope"[4] that I wish to examine briefly below. It is hoped that by examining Ricoeur's own heroes of suspicion, how his hermeneutic applies to certain genres of text, the implications of suspicion with respect to epistemology, and finally, how a hermeneutic of suspicion works out in a suspicion of ideology, that both the strengths and limitations of such a hermeneutic for Biblical studies will be made clear." [G. D. Robinson, Paul Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion: A Brief Overview and Critique, PREMISE / Volume II, Number 8 / September 27, 1995 / Page 12]
 * "Ricoeur distinguishes between two forms of hermeneutics: a hermeneutics of faith which aims to restore meaning to a text and a hermeneutics of suspicion which attempts to decode meanings that are disguised." Ruthellen Josselson, The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand what hermeneutics means, then thats a fault of your English skills. Its not a reason to delete material.VictoriaGraysonTalk 08:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're crossing a dangerous border here, Vic, making personal attacks, and you know it. If you can't explain what "hermeneutics of suspicion" means, and need others to do the job, then you have got a problem.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You repeatedly demand other editors define English words that you don't know. Otherwise you delete material. Thats absurd. Okay here is the definition of hermeneutic: "1. the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) 2. a method or principle of interpretation. Merriam-Webster" .<b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It may have escaped your attention, but I asked you two or three times about "hermeneutics of suspicion," not about "hermeneutics." As you may have noticed, I already found out what it means. I trust you appreciate the effort.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the definition of suspicion: "1. a feeling that someone is possibly guilty of a crime or of doing something wrong 2. a feeling that something bad is likely or true 3. a feeling of doubtMerriam-Webster" <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's another description of Ricoeur's phrase "hermeneutics of suspicion":
 * "Ricoeur considers human understanding to be cogent only to the extent that it implicitly deploys structures and strategies characteristic of textuality. It is Ricoeur's view that our self-understandings, and indeed history itself, are "fictive", that is, subject to the productive effects of the imagination through interpretation. For Ricoeur, the human subjectivity is primarily linguistically designated and mediated by symbols. He states that the "problematic of existence" is given in language and must be worked out in language and discourse. Ricoeur refers to his hermeneutic method as a "hermeneutics of suspicion" because discourse both reveals and conceals something about the nature of being." Kim Atkins, Paul Ricoeur (1913—2005), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * And here's a blurb from Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion:
 * "In Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion, Alison Scott-Baumann takes a thematic approach that explores Ricoeur's lifelong struggle to be both iconoclastic and yet hopeful, and avoid the slippery slope to relativism." About Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion
 * Sounds like an honest and admirable approach. I have to admit that the phrase "hermeneutics of suspicion" is actually quite informative, and not a negative epithet at all. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Faculty statement
The over-the-top coverage of the Faculty statement is totally UNDUE. It was just a signature on a letter! All that it shows is that Pollock opposes Hindu nationalism. Surprise? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pollock opposes the entire idea of India. He wants to break India up into various countries. Here are some facts which reveal the lies in the petition:
 * Modi was cleared multiple times by the Supreme Court. Leftists file something in the court, just so they can say there is an active court case against Modi.
 * Congress Party literally tried to institute a dictatorship, oversaw the 1984 mass genocide of Sikhs, and forcibly sterilized 6 million men.
 * They claim they were harassed online. Everyone who creates an Internet splash is harassed.  Even five year olds with cancer get harassed.
 * The claims against Hindu American Foundation are too ridiculous to even address.

<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is not about Modi, or the Cogress party, or the Hindu American Foundation. None of this belongs here. If there is a reliable third-party source that says something about Pollock, we might consider covering it here, not otherwise. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think even mention of this petition warrants inclusion on the Digital India page leave alone the blow by blow account included in this here page of one of its many signatories. I've blanked the section for now; if this does warrant inclusion, then please establish notability (on Talk) from this article's perspective and with reliable sources rather than a couple of blogs.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Petition For Ouster Of Sheldon Pollock As Editor Of Murty Classical Library
Lack of any reference to this widely discussed event is now quite noticeable. See

Scott Jaschik (March 1, 2016) Nonscholarly Litmus Tests for Key Scholarly Role, Inside Higher Ed https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/01/scholars-india-demand-harvard-u-press-drop-its-well-respected-editor

And also from http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-March/042858.html:

[1] Staff Reporter (March 1 2016). Murthy foundation under fire. The Hindu. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/murthy-foundation-under-fire/article8297746.ece

[2] Indrani Basu (March 1 2016). Pro-JNU Statement Spawns Petition For Ouster Of Sheldon Pollock As Editor Of Murty Classical Library. Huffington Post India. URL http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/01/sheldon-pollock-murty-lib_n_9345928.html

[3] ET Bureau (February 29 2016). JNU fallout: Petition wants Murty Classical Library to remove editor. Economic Times. URL: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51186110.cms

[4] Anushree Majumdar (February 29 2016). Murty library editor: Petition wants US scholar removed, cites JNU remarks. Indian Express. URL: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/murty-library-editor-petition-wants-us-scholar-removed-cites-jnu-remarks/

Malaiya (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * .  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. It is not yet clear to me who has signed/initiated this petition. Obviously this is part of the "Battle for Sanskrit." Vic has been giving us forward information all along... - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can tell you what will happen though. Harvard won't budge. The Murthy family won't interfere. The intellectual kshatriyas will sharpen their swords. India will get recognized as a fundamentalist country. All happy ever after! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be covered by multiple sources. Please add JJ.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Me? Some quotes from the petition: With other words: 'no scholarly approach please, but a reproduction of the "traditional" understanding.'  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "such a historical project would have to be guided and carried out by a team of scholars who not only have proven mastery in the relevant Indian languages, but are also deeply rooted and steeped in the intellectual traditions of India. They also need to be imbued with a sense of respect and empathy for the greatness of Indian civilization."
 * "In his recent book, “The Battle for Sanskrit", Shri Rajiv Malhotra has articulated that many of the writings of Pollock are deeply flawed and misrepresent our cultural heritage."
 * "we now find that Pollock is a prominent signatory of two recent statements released by US academicians condemning the actions of the JNU authorities and the Government of India against separatist groups who are calling for the independence of Kashmir, and for India’s breakup."
 * "Thus, it is crystal clear that Pollock has shown disrespect for the unity and integrity of India. We submit that such an individual cannot be considered objective and neutral enough to be in charge of your historic translation project."
 * "There must be a fair representation of the lineages and traditional groups that teach and practice the traditions described in the texts being translated. This would ensure that the sentiments and understanding of the millions of Indians who practice these traditions are not violated."
 * "The project must be part of the “Make in India” ethos"
 * "What will be the posture adopted towards the “Foreign Aryan Theory” and other such controversial theories including chronologies?"
 * "We urge you to invite critics of Sheldon Pollock and the approaches being followed in his project, for open and frank discussions. We are convinced that this would lead to a dramatic improvement in your project and also avoid any adverse outcome."
 * (ec) Here is apparently better information: Mridula Chari on scroll.in. The petition was apparently led by a Sanskritist K. Ramasubramanian from the Humanities department of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (intellectual backwaters?) and it apparently misquotes Pollock. Sound familiar? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Prof. Ramasubramanian is a respected historian of science, and the Bombay IIT is a centre of excellence. I have been in personal correspondence with Prof KR, and he tells me that he has withdrawn his name as the starter of the petition.  This is confirmed if you look at the change.org site. Wujastyk 23:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is good to know. The change.org petition still shows name however
 * www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library
 * But there are 33 signatories from the IITs including the originator (whose name is given as Ganesh Ramakrishnan, a Computer Scientist). And 7 signatories from the JNU itself. This is disturbing. What should we call the academics who attempt to shut down the very academic freedom that sustains them? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been dense. The reason Computer Scientists are in the lead is that N.R.Narayana Murthy was the Head of an IT firm, Infosys. All these Computer Science profs would have sent hundreds or thousands of their own graduates to work for Infosys, they would know people know in Infosys at all levels, and they are even likely to be personal acquaintances of Narayana Murthy. And, the Murthys need their goodwill for the sustenance of Infosys. So, this is in fact extreme economic pressure being put on them. I am afraid RM has scored big! I hope there will be a robust public debate about the issues (and non-issues) they have raised so that the Murthys can make up their mind. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Petition is/was misquoting Sheldon Pollock
See Kautilya3's edit, Vic's revert, JJ's re-revert & subsequent self-revert, and JJ's expanded note.

Why is the petition quoting a purva paksha statement from Pollock's speech? Is this RM's doing again? Nandini Majumdar, What the Petition against the Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock Is Really About. Well, if it is, his dubious scholarship will get fully exposed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3, a selective quote is not the same thing as a misquote. Moreover, a quote being selective is a matter of opinion.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 03:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the expertise of Mridula Chari, and Nandini Majumdar? Should a dissent be mocked because it is against individual inclination. It is sick to note that "We urge you to invite critics of Sheldon Pollock and the approaches being followed in his project, for open and frank discussions." is being interpreted in such a twisted manner to kill any dissent. --Ekvastra (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mridula Chari, with Harvard scholar Diana L. Eck, "I am perfectly aware of the fact that the sense of Hindu belonging to the land can be interpreted as sons of the soil and everybody should just sort of admit that they are all Hindu. I was just reading in the paper this morning that Subramanian Swamy was giving a speech in Nashik that we have to rebuild the Ram Mandir and after all everyone going back that far was really Hindu, and he was using "Hindu" in this very broad way." Is this "against" something? --Ekvastra (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm reading What the Petition against the Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock Is Really About; it seems to me that it does make sense to mention this misquoting. It's typical of these 'traditionalists'; their "purva paksha" is more than "criticism"; it's deliberate misrepresentation. But I also think we have a fine piece of talkpage-discussion to do again.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * what's your point? It's not clear to me what you want to say. But I think that the "urge to invite critics" is indeed meant to kill any dissent - from scholars and non-traditionalists.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently there also other voices; people who don't buy the isolationism of the 'new traditionalists'.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry for the confusion; these comments are all about the misquoting of SP. I split it off as a separate discussion, to keep clear the various topics. I hope this make sit clear why your comments were moved too; you too were responding to Kautilya3 & the info provided by Nandini Majumdar's article.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's another update Petitioners angry after Sheldon Pollock gets Rohan Murty support – may stay on as Murty Classic Library editor: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rohan Murty seems to have rejected a petition to remove noted academic Sheldon Pollock as the general editor of the Murty Classic Library of India."
 * "The petition cites a 2012 lecture delivered by Pollock at Heidelberg University's South Asia Institute. In the lecture, the petitioners allege that Pollock echoes the contemptuous views of Macaulay and Max Weber on the Indian shastras. However, their interpretation of the lecture has been challenged by many academics."
 * "One of them, Ramesh C Bhardwaj, reportedly told The Telegraph that "like-minded academicians" would oppose any effort to supply the Murty Classic Library's books to public libraries in India. "It is our national duty to prevent these books from reaching public libraries. These books give misleading interpretation about Indian heritage," Bhardwaj was quoted saying by The Telegraph."


 * And some more: Basant Kumar Mohanty and K.M. Rakesh, Scholarly reply to Swadeshi - Citing JNU, academics target leader of landmark project, The Telegraph, India.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, it looks like the real leader of the group has now come forward. Let us see what he has to say (other than polemics that is). - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Foreign Aryan Theory"
What's being meant with
 * "What will be the posture adopted towards the “Foreign Aryan Theory” and other such controversial theories including chronologies?"

I guess this refers to the Indo-Aryan migration theory, which likely is being rejected by the petitioners? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it is RM's coinage . I think the movement is sidestepping the "invasion" vs "migration" debate, which they think is a waste of time. Their real grouse is that Aryans have been labelled "foreign." - 09:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No it means that the Aryan theory is a foreign idea that has been imposed upon Indians. In other words, if you time travelled to India in the 1700s no Indian would know about Aryans and Dravidian.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that line of reasoning, computer science is also foreign.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But computer science is not used to artificially split apart north and south India.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid Joshua Jonathan is misinformed :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The title is silly, but the content seems legit.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Toucher for Kautilya3! But my point is clear, I think: one may try to reject scholarly insights, but it won't change reality. Also in the 17th century northern Indian languages were related to European languages (a relation which had already been noted in the 17th century, by the way). One may view this as being "imposed" on Indians, but it doesn't change the fact of this relation, no matter how hard some may try to do so. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This note was removed by Vic,
 * "Another point of concern of the petitioners is: "What will be the posture adopted towards the “Foreign Aryan Theory” and other such controversial theories including chronologies?" The "Foreign Aryan Theory" is the Indo-Aryan migration theory, which is part of the standard-theories on Indo-European migrations, which explain why northern Indian languages and European languages are related to each other. It does so by positing migrations from Indo-European speakers from a steppe homeland to Europe, Anatolia, South Asia and East Asia. The theory is rejected by some Indians, despite the scholarly concensus."
 * with the following edit-summary:
 * "personal opinions of Wikipedia editors"
 * What exactly here is "personal opinion," and not in line with mainstream scholarship, except for the concerns of the petitioners on the "Foreign Aryan Theory"?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Former Harvard professor Edwin Bryant, who is an expert in Aryan migration, is "agnostic" about Aryan migration.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There we go again. There are two gods in this Universe. One is called Rajiv Malhotra and the other Edwin Bryant. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * People who seriously think that there is any question on the "posture" toward the IAmt are plainly rejecting the accepted standards of scholarship and scientific research. It's not a matter of "posture"; it's a matter of accepted methodology and research. "Posture" is only at stake for people who place themselves outside the scholarly community and the accepted standards of scholarship.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Rohan Murty response
That's a bright young man, not afraid to take a clear stand:
 * "It is quite rich to sit in the peanut gallery, pass comments and throw empty shells at those who are actually rolling their sleeves up and working on the ground." 

Not fit for an encyclopedia, but quite outspoken. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Bright young man? That is an understatement! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And Bangalore Mirror seems pretty solid too. High signal-to-noise ratio. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

POV-pushing
[ This edit] subtly changed the tone of the section on the petition against Pollock, rephrasing opinions as facts. The edit moved the subparts downward in the comparison-table, so I'll compatere them here:


 * Political activism: "various actions like the students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University" is vague and incomprehensible: which actions; what was problematic about these actions?
 * "The petitioners further raised concerns [...] the greatness of Indian civilization." - unexplained removal.
 * "The petition notes from the long academic career of Prof. Pollock that it is well-known that he has" - what does this sentence mean?

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ramayana material is not cherrypicked
The Ramayana material was representative of a paper which frequently repeats terms such as the "Other", "Others", "demonizing", "fully demonized Other" etc.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b>
 * I like the quote; it's claryfying. It's also quite complicated, though:
 * "Pollock believes the Ramayana'' is "profoundly and fundamentally a text of 'othering'" where the other is represented as "sexually, dietetically, politically deviant." This "othering" is due to a "psychosexual perspective, as representing all that certain traditional Indians-within a Sanskrit cultural formation-might most desire and most fear".


 * ''Pollock believes this "demonizing formulation" has been used for communalist purposes for 1,000 years, with effects on present day India:


 * If the  Ramayana  has  served  for  1,000 years  as a code  in which  protocommunalist relations  could be activated  and theocratic  legitimation  could be rendered-if  it constitutes  an imaginary  within  which  the  public  sphere  is not  sundered from  the religious,  and at the  same  time  cannot  be conceptualized  without  a concomitant demonization  of  some  other-it makes  sense  that  it  would be  through  this  mytheme par  excellence  that  reactionary  politics  in  India  today would  find  expression  in  the interests  of  a theocratization  of  the  state  and  the  creation  of  an internal  enemy  as necessary  antithesis. "

So, it might need some clarification. But, it's a start. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have consensus.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No such thing. This section, if it is to be here at all, should give a synopsis of the paper, i.e., a short neutral summary. The material should come from the abstract/introduction/conclusion of the work, or it should be an overall summary of the work picked from a scholarly review. Your material is indeed cherry picked, and you have been told not to do it by . - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess there's room for improvement here.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Accusatory finger"
It would have been fair to mention that Frazier's "accusatory finger" was quoted by Rajiv Malhotra at his website:
 * "One author wrote in The Continuum Compendium of Hindu Studies that Sheldon Pollock is important for pointing “an accusatory ﬁnger at the language [Sanskrit], highlighting its function as a purveyor of forms of authority that are culturally and ethnically exclusive, beneﬁting the few at the expense of the many.” This is not a flattering portrayal of Sanskrit that is consistent with Indian sanskriti."

Or did Rajiv Malhotra get his quote from Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This Petition update. Rajiv Malhotra’s responses to questions by Nikita Puri of Business Standard is dated 8 march 2016, well after the first insertion of this quote at 26 february 2015. The interview was published 12 march 2016. Ergo: Rajiv Malhotra reads Wikipedia. Sorry Vic, you were first. Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rajiv reads way more indology than you or I. So what?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Very simple Vic: I first thought that you had picked-up the quote from Rajiv Malhotra. In that case, you should hav ementiined he context. But apparently, RM picked it up from you. So, nothing to blame you for, and actually a compliment, since your contribution has been appreciated in the real world.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah well, let's put it back to the original place - with a note on RM's quote.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to know somebody reads the Wikipedia! - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding by removing
with this edit you split-up the section on critical methodology, with the edit-summary "moving info to reception section and adding." I don't see why this info should be split-up. And you actually did more:
 * You removed "Sheldon Pollock takes a critical stance toward the texts he analyzes."
 * You replaced
 * ''"According to Jessica Frazier, Pollock points "an accusatory ﬁnger at the language." According to Frazier, Pollock shows how texts can function to support and spread forms of authority which exclude specific cultural and ethnic subgroups, thereby benefiting small groups within society, at the expense of other groups.
 * by
 * "According to Jessica Frazier, Pollock points "an accusatory finger at the language, highlighting its function as a purveyor of forms of authority that are culturally and ethnically exclusive, benefiting the few at the expense of the many." According to Frazier, Pollock shows how texts can function to support and spread forms of authority which exclude specific cultural and ethnic subgroups, thereby benefiting small groups within society, at the expense of other groups. "


 * You removed ''"Rajiv Malhotra notes that Pollock uses a political philology, which unearths "social abuses in the texts (against dalits, women, Muslims)". According to Pollock, "political philology" is "an active mode of understanding." It does not simply take (religious) texts at face-value without any connection to a social and polotical context, but situates them in this context, and is sensitive to the social and political implications and usages of a (religious) text.
 * Notes


 * References

I could understand the removal of "Rajiv Malhotra used the same quote after it appeared at Wikipedia. ", but not the rest, and certainly not when you do not mention so in the edit-summary.
 * References

I find moving the sentence "highlighting its function as a purveyor of forms of authority that are culturally and ethnically exclusive, benefiting the few at the expense of the many" back into the main text also problematic; the sentence is almost incomprehensible, unless you read it very carefull - or paraphrase it, as I did. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
You removed my edit with this revert citing cherry picking. I don't understand why is it cherrypicking? HemaChandra88 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the article toy quoted from. It's a critique of Pollock's critique of pre-war German Indology. You don't mention the cpntext; you only give two random quotes which seem to be unfavorable of Pollock.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that the paper is a critique of NS Indology, a term Pollock coined and I believe I made it appear so in the edits. Do you have any suggestion to make it more amenable? HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * summarize the whole article, in the shortest possible way. But then, still: is this topic, or publication, a major topic or issue?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe so, yes, as NS Indology is an important and unique aspect of Pollock's scholarship. BTW, what was missing in the previous one liners. The author was stating that Pollock's assertions were wrong, using facts from German academic records. HemaChandra88 (talk)
 * Correct. But when you only add those statements, without the context, it looks like a one-sided attempt to paint a negative picture of Pollock. You'll have to provide the context.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Auschwitz

 * Reinhold Grünendahl (2012), History in the Making: On Sheldon Pollock's 'NS Indology' and Vishwa Adluri's 'Pride and Prejudice', International Journal of Hindu Studies; Aug 2012, Vol. 16 Issue 2. Auschwitz: p.227
 * Sheldon Pollock (1993), Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj. In: Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds., Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia, 76–133. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (South Asia seminar series. New Cultural Studies. Papers presented at the 44th Annual South Asia Seminar held at the University of Pennsylvania, 1988/1989). Auschwitz: p.114

Please provide a context for "beyond Raj and Auschwitz"; as this quote is being used now, it's totally unclear what it means or what it refers to, ut somehow suggests that Indology is connected to Auschwitz. In Europe, this is a very sensitive topic. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indology is connected to Auschwitz.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does Pollock describe his "school of Indology" as "Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz" based on "self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America"? The supporting reference, written by a critic, does not state so and itself appears to be cherry-picked. Later in the article, you present the same opinion as that of Grünendahl's.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both "Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz" and "self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America" are from Pollock's Deep Orientalism pages 114 and 112 respectively. With all that said, I used a different quote of Pollock in the lead. Hopefully this satisfies you and JJ.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is certainly better than the other statement. It is however, still out of place in the lead as the statement lacks context. The reader has no idea what "post-Orientalist Indology" means. The reader has no idea what "domination of traditional India" is about either. If this is "one task" of post-Orientalist Indology, what about the others? And the article's body states that Pollock founded post-Orientalist Indology while in the lead, he is just an advocate. The entire article already suffers from WP:TOOMANYQUOTES and this has now crept into the lead as well.


 * As for the, "Pollock has founded a post-Orientalist school of indology, which he describes as an "Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz" based on "self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America"." It is not Pollock who has stated so in that form. It is Grünendahl and he has stated so in a rebuttal of a criticism of his criticism of Pollock. He also says nothing about Pollock founding a post-Orientalist school of Indology. And from the looks of it, this statement of his consists of cherry-picked phrases from Pollock's Deep Orientalism. From page 114: What, then, are the prospects of a scholarship that is "postmodern" with respect both to the subject and to the object of scholarship? How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz in a world of pretty well tattered scholarly paradigms? I can only offer some very tentative thoughts, little more than notes to my "Notes." And from two pages earlier on page 112: A self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America may recognize and attempt to escape its implication in new forms of coercive power by fostering a critique of the imperial conditions of our scholarly production. In other words, the statement is essentially synthesis. If it needs to be used in its present form, it needs to be presented as a statement by Grünendahl (on Pollock's "post-Orientalist messianism") ideally collated along with his other criticisms of Pollock in the context of German Indology. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Grünendahl is a source. See WP:VNT in regard to your accusations of cherrypicking and synthesis.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

, What's wrong with citing things as Pollock describes in his papers? We're not here to sanitize things, are we? As mentions the quotes are as it appears in his book Deep Orientalism. HemaChandra88 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the context, or better said, the lack of it. I've already explained this above: "as this quote is being used now, it's totally unclear what it means or what it refers to, ut somehow suggests that Indology is connected to Auschwitz. In Europe, this is a very sensitive topic."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. He does allege that. Pollock argues that Nazi ideology aka Socialist Nationalist German ideology has roots in Indology studies. I would suggest you to read the paper 'Deep Orientalism: Sanskrit and Power beyond the Raj'. The quotes provided by is absolutely not cherry-picking. HemaChandra88 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read part of that paper. My point is, that the context should be provided, as you did in your response above. Though the sentence "Pollock argues that Nazi ideology aka Socialist Nationalist German ideology has roots in Indology studies" needs some qualification too; does Pollock argue that Indology was the sole source for Nazism? Probably not, but that is what the sentence suggests.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, basically yes. There are multiple quotes in the paper to suggest that. Pollock writes and I quote, "Paired to the bone, orientalism is disclosed as a species of a larger discourse of power that divides the world into "better and lesser" and thus facilitates the domination of any group...Sanskrit knowledge provides itself to us as a major vehicle of the ideological form of the social power in traditional India". If not the sole source of Nazism, he does allege it to provide the major ideological backing for Nazi "othering" of Jews. HemaChandra88 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... sounds inviting to read the whole paper. You quote Pollock as stating that orientalism (not Indology) is part of a larger discourse; next you mention social power in India. So, that does not confirm that Pollock saw Indology as "the major ideological backing for Nazi "othering" of Jews." Social Darwinism and western racism may be a more likely source. Well, anyway, I'll have to read the paper myself.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is wrong because it is not as Pollock stated it. Please feel free to point out where it is stated that,


 * 1) Pollock has founded a school.
 * 2) Pollock has founded a school of Indology.
 * 3) Pollock has founded a school of post-Orientalist Indology.
 * 4) Pollock has founded a school of post-Orientalist Indology which he describes as "Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz" based on "self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America".


 * Please re-read my reply to VG above. I note that the juxtaposition of the two quoted phrases in #4 above is of Grünendahl's doing. I have no problems in it being used provided it is attributed to Grünendahl as part of his critical stance against what he calls Pollock's "post-Orientalist messianism" in the context of Pollock's criticism of German Indology. This is already largely covered in the section titled "National Socialist Indology". And when Pollock states, How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz …, it does not immediately follow that this is somehow the lynchpin of his scholarship. Better (and ideally neutral secondary) sources are needed to make such statements.


 * And as it stands, the section titled, "Domination in traditional India" is largely a nonsensical amalgam of quotes. Nothing in it even bother to explain what "domination in traditional India" means … And nothing in the entire article explains what "post-Orientalist Indology" means or what "Orientalist Indology" means either.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Funny, I just wanted to notice the same fact: Grünendahl quotes Pollock in a suggestive way, making his own sentence out of a question that Pollock states: "How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz in a world of pretty well tattered scholarly paradigms?" Pollock answers this question himself in the pages that follow, where Grünendahl jumps back to p.112. Better to summarize Pollock himself, I'd say.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is, not only the pages Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj he states at the first page that his paper brings together two topics, namely German Indology between 193301945, and pre-colonial domination in south Asia. He suggests that Orientalist constructions in the service of colonial forces are only an instance of a wider problem of the interaction of knowledge and power. A classical theme for the Frankfurter Schule and Michel Foucault, I think. And not the kind of text to summarize in a few quotes; Pollock is heavy stuff to read.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Tag: too many or too-lengthy quotations
Based on my experience editing contentious articles with numerous editors, your "excessive quote" tag is incorrectly applied. There are many Featured Wikipedia articles with more quotes, or even lengthy quotes. See for example Truthiness and Wife selling (English custom). Also note WP:QUOTEFARM says to remedy by "working smaller portions of quotation into the article text", which is what this article already does. The 4 lengthy quotes in this article are not in a quote box. Lastly, obtain consensus for this tag.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b> <b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find the relevant policy, but you don't resolve a difference of opinion on the use of quotations by simply removing the tag.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose that it is resolved by first taking unilateral steps. You have been putting such tags on other pages also without any discussion. I would like to ask, why the tagging cant be done later? Adiagr (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you can remove the tag, since there is consensus against it.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 10:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know! Maybe an expert, like Drmies can tell us; I can't find the policies, only a long list of maintenance-tags that can be used. I do agree, though, that those should be contextualized. Victoriagrayson is a master in sifting the essence from the additional info, but some more context would be usefull here.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Only by adding the tag can you alert and invite other editors to participate in the discussion. Please see WP:TAGGING.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

but then, please, also explain (or repeat) what problems you see here. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are 3 people who want to remove the tag, HemaChandra88, Adiagr and myself. Only you want to keep it. 's position is not clear.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see HemaChandra88 and Adiagr adress the issue at stake here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, nor is 'obtaining concencus for the tag'. The issue is: are those quotes overdone? I think they need to be contextualized.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is, if someone summarizes Pollock's writing, you allege him/her of "willful denigration" and "no context". But then as soon as someone quotes Pollock in his own words, you put the tag of "too many quotes". You cannot have both side of the coin, can you? Anyway, let's ping . HemaChandra88 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan, Featured articles "are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" and "They are used by editors as examples for writing other article." Both Truthiness and Wife selling (English custom) are Featured.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 12:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

removing dupes from see also section
What does your edit 'removing dupes' mean? see — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 (talk • contribs)
 * Those links were already present in the article. The See Also section generally should not repeat links from the article. (I had no idea how "Social Justice Warrior", or whatever that was called, was relevant.)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

New Deep Orientalism section
I do not think you are accurately presenting Pollock's views here.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 12:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying. Those quotes are very hard to comprehend, so I'm trying to paraphrase them.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also if you italicize the header for "Deep Orientalism?", should you not italicize the headers for "The Death of Sanskrit" and "The Language of the Gods in the World of Men"?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep :) The details, after the comprehension.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ramayana
I was actually rewriting the same section. Here's what I had when I hit preview (and saw your edit!):

"In his 1993 paper, Ramayana and Political Imagination in India, Pollock studies the evolution of Rama, the protagonist of the Sanskrit poem, Ramayana, from a mythological ruler to an object of worship often used by kings and leaders to legitimise their rule. He calls the Ramayana fundamentally a text of "othering" as outsiders in the epic are "othered" by being represented as sexual, dietetical, and political deviants. The primary antagonist, Ravana of Lanka, is not only "other" due to his polygyny but is presented as a tyrant. Similarly, Pollock states that the rakshasas (demons) of the poem can be viewed from a psychosexual perspective to symbolise all that the traditional Sanskritic Indian might desire and fear. He contrasts the "othering" in the Ramayana with the Mahabharata which not only has no "othering", but in fact has "brothering" due to the shared identity of the antagonists.

Pollock notes that the Ramayana's apparatus of othering and its demonising formulation lent itself for use by the ruling elite of medieval India particularly after the 12th century. He tracks its use in later commentaries of the Ramayana where the Muslim outsiders were cast as rakshasas and asuras, or in the case of a Mughal translation, of Akbar being projected as the divine king, Rama and divs as the rakshasas. He reasons that this recurrent "mythopolitical strategy" of using the Ramayana as a political instrument has also found favour in modern India in the form of the Ayodhya dispute. This is clear not only in the choice of Ayodhya, the traditional birthplace of Rama, but also in the attempts by the BJP and VHP to portray Muslims as demonic."

I've kinda paraphrased (at least the thrust of) the long (and abstruse) quote into the text. I think the fact that the "othering" is of outsiders needs to be clarified (Pollock does so too). Anyhow, I think your edit provides some much needed context to the section. Thanks :) Will you be editing the "Lack of an Indian culture" section as well?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about that. I didn't know you were working on it. I had read this paper a long time ago and ever since this section got added here I had been thinking I had to go back and write a summary. Somehow the time arrived today!
 * I don't think Pollock is entirely right about the "demonisation" bit (he is not actually a historian) because I haven't seen enough of Hindus depicting the Turks as demons (even though the Jains did, without recourse to Ramayana). But the fact that Ramayana rose to prominence along with the Muslim rule is an extremely interesting fact that is not widely known. This paper is valuable for that reason.
 * If you want to edit/reshape my text in the light of your version, please feel free. I am quite busy this week. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the section a little bit. Please tweak as you see fit. I've also removed the quote at the end (which I actually do think summarises his position very well, but is couched in overly complex language) and replaced it with his conclusion on the use of "othering" in the Ayodhya dispute. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Two more texts
I tried to find free pdf's with texts from Sheldon Pollock; I found only two a few: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sheldon Pollock (2011), Crisis in the Classics, social research Vol. 78 : No. 1 : Spring 2011
 * Sheldon Pollock (year?), Cosmopolitan and vernacular in history, book chapter
 * Sheldon Pollock (2004), The Ends of Man at the End of Premodernity, Gonda Lecture
 * Sheldon Pollock (2000), Indian Knowledge Systems on the Eve of Colonialism, Intellectual History Newsletter 22 (2000): 1-16

Crisis in the classics
Now, "Crisis in the classics" has a very interesting opening-part:
 * "At the time of independence in 1947, India was home to scholars whose historical and philological expertise made them the peer of any in the world. They were the heirs of the longest continuous multicultural literary tradition in the world, and produced editions and literary and historical studies of texts in Apabhramsha, Assamese, Bangla, Brajbhasha, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya, Persian, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu — the list could go on because the list of Indian languages goes on — that are still used today. Two generations later their works have not been replaced not because they are irreplaceable — it is in the nature of scholarship that later knowledge should supersede earlier — but because there is no one capable of replacing them. And this is a sign of what people should be worrying about: if Indian education and scholarship continue along their current trajectory, the number of citizens capable of reading and understanding the texts and documents of the classical era — or precolonial or premodern or pre-1800 era, all equivalent terms for my purposes here — will very soon approach a statistical zero. India is about to become the only major world culture whose literary patrimony, and indeed history, are in the custodianship of scholars outside the country: in Berkeley, Chicago, and New York; Oxford, Paris, and Vienna. This would not be healthy either for India or for the rest of the world that cares about India."

This sounds very familiair, doesn't it, predating a certain recent book on Sanskrit and Sheldon Pollock?...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Which he seems to have foreseen:
 * "India is well on the way to losing its memory, and not just losing it — since in fact the past never passes away — but surrendering it to the abusers of memory. If classical scholars in India or elsewhere cede control of memory, it will be left to the delusions and the ravings of the antihistorians, who almost in lockstep with the loss of classical knowledge over the past generation have moved ever closer, if incredibly so, to a credible place at the center of public discourse in India." (p.38-39)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Read it, read it! What a great scholar! No wonder we read such a respect (serious!) in-between the lines of the writer of this certain book:
 * "The third end, recovering “tools for living” from the past, means recovering possibilities of other ways of being in the world that have been lost or that we have falsely come to believe are impossible, thanks to the amnesia enforced by the insistent universalizations of Western modernity. It was for me a transformative life experience to have been able to glimpse, in my study of classical Kannada and Sanskrit literature, the existence of practices now deemed unthinkable: a voluntary cosmopolitanism as opposed to the familiar compulsory one, a vernacularity of accommodation instead of the usual vernacularity of necessity, ways that globalism and localism could beneficially coexist (Pollock 2006). The possibilities for imagining a different future are sometimes made available by discovering a different past." (p.39)
 * This is not an enemy of India, this is a friend. NB: Carl Jung once made a long journey through Africa. He noted how African culture was on the brink of collapse, due to the hegemonical force of Western culture, leaving the African soul barren and desolate. That's the force of western culture. It's not even happening according to a sinister plan; it's just the sheer dominance. Which makes it very painfull that the scholarship, and even the enthusiasm and advocay for classical Indian culture, is coming from this same western culture. Domination in all respects; that really hurts. And I'm serious here; it's not sarcasm.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Crisis in the Classics describes Sanskrit culture as barbarism, toxicity, extraordinary inequality, social poisons etc.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 07:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's Pollock for you. He'll praise the language for the literary content, but at the same time lament about the toxicity in the texts. It is similar to how Germans praised Sanskrit in colonial German indology. They weren't praising India, but connecting the dots, linking German heritage to Sanskrit and praising themselves in the process in the quest for 'German grand narrative'. HemaChandra88 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "toxicity" refers to the inequality in power in classical Indian, and the role Sanskrit played in maintaining that inequality. What's the problem with that analysis? Is it incorrect? Or is it an embarrasing side of India's history? Mind you, the west wasn't that different for most of it's history... (NB: "for most of it's history" is incorrect English, I know, but I don't know how to phrase it correctly).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * well, of-course not because it's embarrassing. The toxicity of manusmruti, at least for pollock percolates into Mahabharata and Ramayana. Sanskrit for him is dying (for which he laments at numerous places), but efforts for it's regeneration is disguising to him. That's troubling for me. This double standards/ double speak. But again, we're not here to do a dharmavada. We are analysing Pollock. HemaChandra88 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

JJ, Pollock will praise local languages like Tamil, Telugu, Kannada etc., but will attack Sanskrit. There is a difference.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the Crisis
The "Crisis" is more or less well-known in India, at least among the people familiar with Indian culture. It is mostly a self-inflicted crisis by the Independent India, and had to do with the so-called "scientific temper," "communalism" vs. "secularism" dichotomy, and the Leftist hold over the Indian academe.

The "toxicity" is also well-known. Until the 20th century, Manu, whoever he was, was celebrated as a pioneering law-giver of the world. His icons had been installed all around the world, from Indonesia to New York. But in 20th century, he was roundly demolished, and his Dharmashastra is routinely burnt as a form of protest.

If Pollock engages in advocacy on these issues, he is quite welcome, but it is not particularly original or novel. The scholarship is really in his interpretations of the texts and, there, I think he takes considerable liberties. Not as bad as Wendy Doniger, but about halfway along the same road. I think it is right to critique it as neo-Orientalism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your summary is inaccurate. Manu was never anywhere close to how you project, actually not even a subject of discussion. --Ekvastra (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * exactly, the importance of Manu was the result of British indologists notably, William Jones. Manu is one of the many authors of Dharmasashtras. HemaChandra88 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, let us not debate "Manu." He is just a prime example of the toxicity we are talking about. The ideas of dharmashastras are pervasive all throughout Sanskrit literature. And it is only the literature that Pollock is talking about. He is not a historian and he doesn't know what was important in the society and what wasn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit reversal by Kautilya3 on Ramayana and Rama
this is about your revert -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, as I said in the edit summary, you either need to write a proper synopsis (like JJ has been doing), or use critiques from scholarly sources. You can't write your own critique here. And, picking selective quotes from WP:PRIMARY sources amounts to critiquing. It is WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, all the involved editors should be able to agree that a synopsis is accurate and is not misrepresenting. You should not edit war over this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've also removed the line you added to the Ramayana section that is sourced from Rajiv Malhotra's book which is not a scholarly resource. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by scholarly work? HemaChandra88 (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RS.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)