#

#

Online Chat

hits counter
Add New Qutation

Rajiv Malhotra (born 15 September 1950) is an Indian-born American Hindu nationalist ideologue, author and founder of Infinity Foundation, which focuses on Indic studies,[note 1] and also funds projects such as Columbia University's project to translate the Tibetan Buddhist Tengyur.

Apart from the foundation, Malhotra promotes a Hindu nationalist view on Indic cultures. Malhotra has written prolifically in opposition to the western academic study of Indian culture and society, which he maintains denigrates the tradition and undermines the interests of India "by encouraging the paradigms that oppose its unity and integrity".

Biography

Malhotra studied physics at St. Stephen's College, Delhi and computer science at Syracuse University before becoming an entrepreneur in the information technology and media industries.[web 1][9] He took early retirement in 1994 at an age of 44, to establish the Infinity Foundation at Princeton, New Jersey in 1995.[web 1][9] Besides directing that foundation,[10] he also chairs the board of governors of the Center for Indic Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, and advises various organisations.

Malhotra had been a speaker at an international conference held over the Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and was a board member of the Foundation for Indic Philosophy and Culture at the Claremont Colleges.[11] He also wrote extensively on internet discussion groups and e-magazines.

In October 2018, Malhotra was appointed as honorary visiting professor at the Centre for Media Studies at Jawharlal Nehru University, Delhi.[12] On 6 November 2018, he delivered his first lecture organized by the School of Sanskrit and Indic studies on the topic of Sanskrit non-translatables.

Infinity Foundation

Malhotra founded the institute in 1994;[6] followed by Educational Council of Indic Traditions (ECIT) in 2000.[11][14][note 1] The foundation works without any full-time workers; sans Malhotra himself.[11] The stated goals were to fight a perceived misrepresentation of ancient Indian religions and to document the contributions of India to world civilization.[11] None of the members of the advisory board was an academic and most belonged to the software industry.

The Foundation has given more than 400 grants for research, education and community work and has provided small grants to major universities in support of programs including a visiting professorship in Indic studies at Harvard University, Yoga and Hindi classes at Rutgers University, the research and teaching of non-dualistic philosophies at University of Hawaii, Global Renaissance Institute and a Center for Buddhist studies at Columbia University, a program in religion and science at University of California, an endowment for the Center for Advanced Study of India at University of Pennsylvania, and lectures at the Center for Consciousness Studies at University of Arizona. The foundation has provided funding for journals like Education about Asia[18] and International Journal of Hindu Studies[19] and for the establishment of the Mahatma Gandhi Center for Global Non-violence at James Madison University.

While the foundation's own materials describe its purposes in terms of education and philanthropy, scholars of Hinduism and South Asia see it largely as an organization committed to the "surveillance of the Academy", and a senior U.S. scholar of Hinduism, Columbia University's Jack Hawley, has published a refutation of the foundation's characteristic charges against the study of Hinduism in North America.

Criticism of American academia (2000s)

Wendy's Child Syndrome

See also: Invading the Sacred

In early 2000s Malhotra started writing articles criticising Wendy Doniger and related scholars, claiming that she applied Freudian psycho-analysis to aspects of Indian culture.[web 1] His 2002 blog post titled "Wendy's Child Syndrome"[21] was considered as the starting point[22] of a "rift between some Western Hinduism scholars [...] and some conservative Hindus in India, the United States, and elsewhere".[web 1] Martha Nussbaum has called it a "war"[16] by "the Hindu right"[23] against American scholars.

The blog post "has become a pivotal treatise in a recent rift between some Western Hinduism scholars—many of whom teach or have studied at Chicago—and some conservative Hindus in India, the United States, and elsewhere".[web 1] Malhotra concluded in his blog post: "Rights of individual scholars must be balanced against rights of cultures and communities they portray, especially minorities that often face intimidation. Scholars should criticize but not define another's religion."[web 1]

According to Braverman, "Though Malhotra's academic targets say he has some valid discussion points, they also argue that his rhetoric taps into the rightward trend and attempts to silence unorthodox, especially Western, views."[web 1][note 2]

The essay, together with a series of related essays and interviews, has been republished in Academic Hinduphobia, in the wake of the withdrawal of Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History from the Indian market, due to a lawsuit "alleging that it was biased and insulting to Hindus".[24] The withdrawal led to extensive media attention, and renewed sales in India. According to Malhotra "the drama has diverted attention away from the substantive errors in her scholarship to be really about being an issue of censorship by radical Hindus", hence the republication of his critique of Wendy Doniger[24] and scholars related to her.

American academia

In his 2003 blog post "Does South Asian Studies Undermine India?" at Rediff India Abroad: India as it happens, Malhotra criticises what he views as uncritical funding of South Asian Studies by Indian-American donors.[7] According to Malhotra:

Many eminent Indian-American donors are being led down the garden path by Indian professors who, ironically, assemble a team of scholars to undermine Indian culture. Rather than an Indian perspective on itself and the world, these scholars promote a perspective on India using worldviews which are hostile to India's interests.

Malhotra voices four criticisms of American academia:

"American academia is dominated by a Eurocentric perspective that views western culture as being the font of world civilisation and refuses to acknowledge the contributions of non-western societies such as India to European culture and technique".[8]

The academic study of religion in the United States is based on the model of the "Abrahamic" traditions; this model is not applicable to Hinduism.[8]

Western scholars focus on the "sensationalist, negative attributes of religion and present it in a demeaning way that shows a lack of respect for the sentiments of the practitioners of the religion".[8]

South Asian Studies programmes in the United States create "a false identity and unity"[8] between India and its Muslim neighbour states, and undermine India "by focusing on its internal cleavages and problems".

Malhotra argues that American scholarship has undermined India "by encouraging the paradigms that oppose its unity and integrity",[7] with scholars playing critical roles, often under the garb of 'human rights' in channelling foreign intellectual and material support to exacerbate India's internal cleavages.[7] According to Malhotra, Indian-American donors were "hoodwinked"[7] into thinking that they were supporting India through their monetary contributions to such programmes.[7] Malhotra compares the defence of Indian interests with corporate brand management, distrusting the loyalties of Indian scholars:

Therefore, it is critical that we do not blindly assume that Indian scholars are always honest trustees of the Indian-American donors' sentiments. Many Indian scholars are weak in the pro-India leadership and assertiveness traits that come only from strongly identifying with an Indian Grand Narrative.

They regard the power of Grand Narrative (other than their own) as a cause of human rights problems internally, failing to see it as an asset in global competition externally. Hence, there is the huge difference between the ideology of many Indian professors and the ideology espoused by most successful Indian-American corporate leaders.

According to Malhotra, a positive stance on India has been under-represented in American academia, due to programmes being staffed by Westerners, their "Indian-American Sepoys"[25] and Indian Americans wanting to be white — whom he disparages as "career opportunists" and "Uncle Toms"[26] who "in their desire to become even marginal members of the Western Grand Narrative sneer at Indian culture in the same manner as colonialists once did".[26] Malhotra has accused academia of abetting the "Talibanisation" of India, which would also lead to the radicalisation of other Asian countries.

Courtesy – Wikipedia

- Rajiv Malhotra

Authors
Online Chat

© 2021 - All Rights Reserved