[INDOLOGY] Against the petition against Prof. Pollock
karp at uw.edu.pl
Mon Feb 29 10:43:31 UTC 2016
> Professor S.D. Joshi was in the audience and wanted to make a comment
> that disagreed with Patañjali's views. The Pandits told him that he
> not participate in the discussion, unless he first accepted the supreme
> authority of Patañjali.
I have met (where?) some time ago with a peculiar definition of Sanskrit.
According to it Sanskrit is Amrita. Not "*is like* Amrita", it *is* Amrita.
Would anyone in their sound mind want to change the composition of the
drink of immortality?
2016-02-28 15:01 GMT+01:00 Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>:
> Dear Colleagues,
> I could not agree more with Dr. Nityananda Misra's concluding statement: "As
> I see it, both petitions are rooted more in strong differences of
> opinion/ideology than in misunderstanding or wilful misconstrual/misrepresentation."
> This ideological divide is now at the boiling point, but the first time I
> came face to face with it was in 1965 in Pune. There was a Pandit Sabha in
> which some leading Pandits were discussing some grammatical point, citing
> the authority of Patañjali. My teacher, Professor S.D. Joshi was in the
> audience and wanted to make a comment that disagreed with Patañjali's
> views. The Pandits told him that he could not participate in the
> discussion, unless he first accepted the supreme authority of Patañjali.
> Professor Joshi sat down, without being allowed to speak at this event. I
> don't know where the current "Battle for Sanskrit" will end up, but it
> clearly has very deep roots.
> Madhav Deshpande
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 February 2016 at 21:22, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com>
>>> I discovered yesterday that there exists a petition
>>> launched by Prof. K. Ramasubramanian that asks for Prof. Sheldon Pollock to
>>> be removed from his editorial leadership role with the Murty Library.
>> Dear list members
>> It is the season of petitions and statements! Adding some more details
>> before my comments:
>> 1) While the petition of change.org has been started by Prof. K
>> Ramasubramanian, as many as 131 Indian intellectuals apart from Prof. K
>> Ramasubramanian signed the original plea to Mr. Narayana Murthy and Mr.
>> Rohan Murthy. I do not know if it was covered in a mainstream media source,
>> the much less-known newsgram.com carried it:
>> I personally know and have met with many scholars on the list: and some
>> of them are very well respected in India, in addition to being well-known.
>> Prof. Ramasubramanian himself is a recipient of the Badarayan Vyas Samman.
>> 2) Apart from the aspects highlighted in Dr. Wujastyk's email, two other
>> aspects which are very relevant to this petition: the letter by the
>> academicians mentions Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's *Battle of Sanskrit* as well
>> as Prof. Pollock's recent signing of the solidarity statement with the
>> “students, faculty, and staff of JNU”: the petition against Prof. Pollock
>> may well be a reaction to this. On the first aspect: Recently, Mr. Rajiv
>> Malhotra's book has been widely discussed in Indian universities of late.
>> Mr. Malhotra has been hosted by several Indian universities and institutes
>> (e.g. Karnataka Sanskrit University and TISS) for talks where he has
>> received both support and opposition, but more support than opposition as
>> far as I can say. On the second aspect, there was a discussion on the *Bhāratīyavidvatpariṣat
>> *mailing list (Mr. Rajiv Malhotra recently joined this mailing list).
>> The thread was started by me, and I remarked in my short initial post
>> “Before the Indian courts decide, 455 academicians have already reached a
>> decision.” The discussion can be read here:
>> My quick comments:
>> If it can be argued that the petition against Prof. Pollock is based on
>> ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘wilful misconstrual’ (as members on this list have
>> described), then it can also be argued that the solidarity statement (to
>> which Prof. Pollock is a signatory) on the JNU issue is based on a ‘lack of
>> understanding’ of jurisprudence in India or ‘wilful misrepresentation’ of
>> facts. On jurisprudence: The Delhi Police has the documentary (video tapes)
>> and non-documentary (eye-witnesses) evidence, and the Indian courts will
>> examine the evidence and rule on the matter: then in what capacity does the
>> solidarity statement declare thrice that the police action on JNU was
>> ‘illegal’. On misrepresentation, the solidarity statement misses that fact
>> that a large section of JNU students and teachers did support the police
>> action on JNU. This was also covered in the news:
>> As I see it, both petitions are rooted more in strong differences of
>> opinion/ideology than in misunderstanding or wilful
>> Thanks, Nityanand
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> Madhav M. Deshpande
> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
> The University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY