Productive and useful contributions are flowing in the form of citing examples of quoting /citing /referencing instances from ancient Sanskrit literature.
Prof. Dominik Wujastyk brought to us the great news of a great project of "comprehensively collecting and analyzing the quotations and paraphrases
from and allusions to the texts of ancient Sanskrit literature" "investigate the Indian convention of quoting and referring to earlier works or views as an element of composition in other branches of scientific literature." by Dr Ernst Prets at the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
 
It might be in response to RM's alleged assertion to the contrary.
 
But the sentence
 
 "Sanskrit does not even have quotation marks in its character set."
 
 that is virally making rounds from RM's
 
<http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/07/15/rajiv-malhotra-says-those-accusing-him-of-plagiarism-are-really-out-to-silence-his-voice/>
 
is in fact part of a paragraph:
The second level is whether there is omission of references in a merely technical sense. This is where customs for acknowledgment differ, depending on whether it is an academic book (which mine are not), which readership is viewing it, and so forth. I wish to point out that in ancient Indian traditions, references were required (as in ancient Sanskrit texts) but the Western conventions did not apply. Sanskrit does not even have quotation marks in its character set. Yet traditional scholars made clear when they referred to someone else’s thoughts. So in the worst case, I might be accused of violating a specific technical convention of the style and form of acknowledging sources. But certainly no plagiarism can be said at the level of the intention and spirit of my work.
It is, in fact, part of a compound of two sentences :
Sanskrit does not even have quotation marks in its character set. Yet traditional scholars made clear when they referred to someone else’s thoughts.
 
Did the two sentences from the paragraph:
 
1. I wish to point out that in ancient Indian traditions, references were required (as in ancient Sanskrit texts)....
 
2. Yet traditional scholars made clear when they referred to someone else’s thoughts. 
 
probably missed the attention of scholars ?
 
Even if they did,  triggering of all these wonderful contributions on quoting /citing /referencing instances from ancient Sanskrit literature, by that probable missed attention is doing good to Indological studies.
 
Thanks to all the scholars who brought in the ancient Indian views on plagiarism and examples of  Indian convention of quoting and referring to earlier works. 
 
--
 
Prof.Nagaraj Paturi
Hyderabad-500044