You may already have looked at the bibliographical article “German Indology” by Joydeep Bagchee (JB) (Oxford Bibliographies online: www.oxfordbibliographies.com under “German Indology” or:

www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0147.xml)

Since, as I pointed out elsewhere, “Indology was more or less since its beginnings, end 18th – beginning 19th century, mainly “European” in character with intensive cooperations between French, British and German specialists, and has thus not only been sharing Oriental dreams but also a Nazi-nightmare,” the focus on “German Indology” in JB’s article is itself problematic, especially because the author justifies it by invoking “a distinct history and traditions” for German Indology, and “unique concerns that set it apart from other forms of research into India” (“German Indology”, section “Introduction”). Given this and other peculiar premises, the article contains nevertheless useful bibliographic references and brief evaluations (from the author’s point of view) of relevant publications, especially – for your subject – in two sections of the article: “National Socialism” (topic: German Indology and National Socialism) and “German Responses to National Socialist Indology.” Another relevant section is “Orientalism Debate” which, in the view of the author (JB), as he expresses it in his evaluation of Halbfass’s India and Europe (1988), really starts with the publication of “Pollock 1993” (see above). It is hence regrettable but not entirely surprising that the collective volume Beyond Orientalism (1997) is regarded by JB as a work which “does not directly address the orientalist debate; it is really an overview of Halbfass’s work as a post-orientalist scholar.” In this section a reference is lacking to my review of this work which discusses and demonstrates how the work and in particular Halbfass’s dialogical contributions to it are indeed directly relevant to the “Orientalism Debate” (“Orientalism, its critique, and beyond: review article of Beyond Orientalism, ed. by K. Preisendanz and E. Franco, Amsterdam 1997” (15 [1998]: 16) IIAS-Newsletter : Newsletter of the International Institute for Asian Studies (Leiden), no. 15. 1998 : https://www.academia.edu/6169112). With regard to Halbfass’s unsurpassed India and Europe (1988), the author (JB) thinks that it “needs revision in light of newer discoveries” but fails to point out that several currently self-styled “new discoveries” need, in fact, also revision in the light of Halbfass’s monumental achievement in comparative philosophy which is exceptionally well-founded both in “Western” and in Indian philosophy.