No one has asked for a ban. The demand has been for a public acknowledgement, apology, and withdrawal of his plagiarized books from the market. He would be welcome to reissue corrected versions, if either his publishers or readers were keen on that. This is very distinct from calling for a ban. Malhotra is a wealthy and influential man who has both stolen from and disrespected a talented young scholar (known chiefly for the pioneering work on Indian Philosophy Malhotra stole from). There is a massive wealth and power differential between these two figures. Malhotra's actions are very Indian ruling class, i.e. Lumpenbourgoisie, acting as if laws don't apply to him esp. in his interactions with lesser beings.

Comparing the number of signatures in the Doniger case vs. the Andrew Nicholson case is not helpful. Again Andrew is a talented younger scholar, known chiefly for his pioneering work. Wendy Doniger is an institution unto herself, a very senior scholar, obviously slightly more famous and connected than Andrew. 224 signatures is not a low number. It shows that more than two hundred people want to see Malhotra exposed for his lack of intellectual integrity, recently materialized in the vulgarest possible way. This is not pettiness. Malhotra made a serious violation, and he should have to answer for it.

Silence would only condone. Here is a link to the petition again for others who may not have seen it:

https://www.change.org/p/harper-collins-india-in-view-of-the-widespread-plagiarism-found-in-rajiv-malhotra-s-book-indra-s-net-published-by-harper-collins-india-we-call-on-the-publisher-to-make-a-formal-public-apology-and-to-withdraw-the-book-from-the-market?recruiter=5167386&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:38 PM, <koenraad.elst@telenet.be> wrote:

Dear listfolk,

After having provided the link to what Malhotra has to say to Andrew Nicholson's attack on him (linked even earlier), here is the link to what he is doing about it: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/nicholsons-untruths/ Briefly, in agreement with the publisher, he is throwing Nicholson entirely out of his book, replacing him by Indian authors writing on the same unifying-Hinduism efforts. After all, he had only quoted a Westerner because that is more prestigious and unsuspect, but there is a lot of better knowledge about Hindu tradition among Hindus themselves. In the spirit of decolonization, he is taking this opportunity to highlight Indian scholars in the "decolonized" second version of Indra's Net. The broader context of which the present controversy forms part, is given here: http://www.firstpost.com/living/decolonising-indology-rajiv-malhotra-wont-follow-rules-set-west-2356234.html

Established Western scholars who only talk to one another, might not realize it, but as I notice in non-mainstream media, Malhotra is turning the tables on his attackers, and is coming out of this affair with increased prestige.

While some of you have provided links to the attacks on him, it has fallen to me to provide links to his responses. Given your apparent interest in the affair, this must have been a useful service. Amid the holy indignation about plagiarism by a man who has amply referred to Nicholson and quoted him many times, thus annulling the very rationale a plagiarist would have, I find it more anomalous that so many academics consider it perfectly normal to hear (and act on) only one half of the story. As Hegel said, "das Wahre ist das Ganze" (truth is the whole). But no, the fact that I have made his voice audible has served as proof among several scholars that I must be in agreement with him, or even in his pay. The latter allegation, and conspiracy theory, sure to be a hit among fishwives, betrays an interesting mentality: the assumption that defending someone's right to be heard implies agreeing with him. By that principle, even Hitler and Stalin were champions of free speech -- at least the free speech of those who agreed with them. It ought to be obvious to scholars that hearing a position and agreeing with that position are two different things. Well yeah, while the affair loses its steam, it becomes time for me to formulate my own thoughts about it, tomorrow or so.

Fortunately, we can conclude on a positive note. We should take heart from the complaint uttered here that, while so many people signed a petition opposing the pulping of Wendy Doniger's book, so few have now signed the petition demanding the pulping of Malhotra's book. At that time, I wrote that there may be many things wrong with Doniger's book (indeed, a great many), but that banning it is not the answer. It seems that today, a healthy majority here thinks that to the few things wrong with Malhotra's book, banning is still not the right answer.

Kind regards,

Koenraad Elst

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

Jesse Ross Knutson PhD

Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures

University of Hawai'i at Mānoa

452A Spalding