In my opinion, while his political position seems to be something close to 180 degrees the opposite, he is in some ways remarkably similar in his almost studied ignorance of classical India. His portrayal of Nalanda is nothing short of fantasy, and I confess that I am disappointed and depressed to see such fictions repeated by someone who, until recently, was actually significantly influential in this 'neo' Nalanda project. That it might be advantageous to say certain rosy things in a political context is one thing, but the result is, to my mind, an utter misrepresentation of the historical truth. A final point is that by portraying Nalanda as an international university, using in his description explicitly secular categories, the anti-Hindutva Sen succeeds in virtually entirely subverting the Buddhist nature of Nalanda. 

I am curious if I am alone in my impressions of this piece.

Jonathan