Mihir Sharma’s abusive article and Michel Danino’s civil response to it – BS

Debate
“While classical India refined and practised the art of debating, Mihir Sharma’s vituperative but crassly ignorant language is fairly typical of a trend to demonize what one does not agree with—a trend that has taken the place of academic debates in much of India’s intellectual life. It does spare one the trouble of having to study, carefully weigh arguments and evidence, and engage other viewpoints in a civilized manner.” — Prof Michel Danino 

Mihir S. SharmaThe Rajiv Malhotra issue is a cautionary tale for publishers – Mihir Sharma  

Rajiv Malhotra, who writes angrily from New Jersey about American attempts to monopolise the conversation about India and Hinduism, is in trouble. True to form—he is, after all, more loudly Indian than anybody else, especially anybody else not in New Jersey—the trouble he is in is that quintessentially desi problem, plagiarism.

The facts are these. Richard Fox Young, who teaches at a seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, released a series of passages on Twitter from Mr Malhotra’s books, Breaking India and Indra’s Net. In some cases, Mr Malhotra appeared to have lifted whole passages from various academic books without sufficient attribution—particularly from Unifying Hinduism by Andrew J Nicholson, published by Columbia University Press in 2010. This is no coincidence, but it is gently ironic: Indra’s Net makes the argument for Hinduism’s philosophical unity, precisely the kind of effort that Prof Nicholson examines in Unifying Hinduism. In addition, Prof Young points out how Mr Malhotra sometimes uses plagiarised passages in completely different contexts—an impressively complex feat of intellectual deception.

Rajiv Malhotra: Being different!Mr Malhotra‘s response, when it came, was instructive. As detailed by Shoaib Daniyal on the web site Scroll.in, Mr Malhotra—who tends not to deviate from his pet passions—denounced Western standards of referencing as unnecessary for Indian scholars. In other words, quotation marks are a despicable Macaualayite imposition on India’s ancient civilisation. I wish I was making this up, but I don’t have the imagination. This is Mr Malhotra’s direct quote: “Sanskrit language has no quotation marks, yet scholars cited others for thousands of years. Western standards not the only way to acknowledge.”

In effect, Mr Malhotra has accepted Prof Young’s charges of plagiarism, but denied their importance. Good for him. I look forward to a bright future—25 years on, as Amit Shah assures us—when we will never need to use quotation marks at all. Think of the time saved on tiny phone keyboards! If only the iPhone could make copying and pasting a bit easier for us desis, we could really conquer academia.

(I should make one thing clear parenthetically: I have closely followed Mr Malhotra’s writing for 15 years, and deeply admire much about him. His energy, for one. Thanks largely to that he has, like Subramanian Swamy, built up an online following that thinks he is a once-in-a-lifetime genius, doing god’s work in a difficult and inhospitable environment.)

But Professor Young’s accusations create a somewhat difficult predicament for Mr Malhotra’s publishers, Harper Collins. I assume Mr Malhotra sells well—his are the kind of books loved by engineers who possess an inchoate anger and disdain for the humanities. Somebody within Harper Collins will be saying: look, we’re a business. We are not an academic publisher. So we must not be held to the standards of peer review and referencing that such publisher must perforce follow. We really have one major constraint: profitability. Can we shut down Mr Malhotra, who makes money for us, because of academic nit-picking about plagiarism? (Not to mention the fact that, were Harper Collins to let Mr Malhotra go, he would unquestionably send his millions of devoted fans on jihad against his unfortunate ex-publishers.)

And we reach, thus, a deeper question. To what degree can we trust “serious” works of non-fiction from non-academic presses? To be frank, few publishing houses, here or abroad, can afford the kind of reviewing and editing that comes up to the standard of, say, the average academic journal. Academic presses come somewhere in between. I think they would at least ensure that referencing and footnoting was clear and accurate. Recently one of our finest public intellectuals told me that, in the end, he was unclear what advantages an academic publisher would have for non-fiction over a trade publisher. I think I now have an answer to that question. Mr Malhotra would have found it more difficult to get away with this apparent intellectual dishonesty in an academic publisher.

This is the correct context in which to view the constant, irritating whine from India’s social conservatives that they have been excluded from academia. (A whine that is used to justify all sorts of saffronisation and interference.) There is more to the story than just the unscrupulous Marxists and post-Marxist domination of academic institutions—after all, this domination has not stopped a strong liberal grouping from developing within Indian history, political science and economics. No, this incident underlines the true tragedy of Indian social conservative “scholarship”: that most of its critics are right. The authors who write the “path-breaking” studies that “Western-style academia doesn’t want you to read” are in fact, most likely, peddling outlandish work that would easily fail the standards that the existing body of work has had to meet. The Shrikant Talageris and the Michel Daninos of the world, like the Rajiv Malhotras, are online heroes rather than respected historians or linguists because their work just doesn’t match up. The endless ways in which the “new Hindu right” uncovers ways in which caste and external migrations were invented but the Saraswati was not are not being suppressed because of a giant Western conspiracy; they simply don’t meet the academic standards required to conclude that they’re not just a bunch of crackpot theories dreamed up by nativist bigots. – Business Standard, 14 July 2015

» Mihir S. Sharma trained as an economist and political scientist in Delhi and Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is editor of the opinion pages at the Business Standard. 

Prof Michel DaninoMy response to Mihir Sharma’s false charges – Michel Danino

In his article “The Rajiv Malhotra issue is a cautionary tale for publishers”, Mihir S. Sharma finds it necessary to close with the following statement: “The Shrikant Talageris and the Michael Daninos of the world, like the Rajiv Malhotras, are online heroes rather than respected historians or linguists because their work just doesn’t match up. The endless ways in which the “new Hindu right” uncovers ways in which caste and external migrations were invented but the Saraswati was not are not being suppressed because of a giant Western conspiracy; they simply don’t meet the academic standards required to conclude that they’re not just a bunch of crackpot theories dreamed up by nativist bigots.”

While Mihir Sharma is welcome to his opinions, he has no right to misrepresent, abuse and demonize people whose work he is completely ignorant of. I will not speak for Rajiv Malhotra or Shrikant Talageri, but I protest against his statement concerning me. I am by no means an “online hero”, maintaining neither a website nor a blog nor a Facebook account. My work on ancient India has spread through my books and papers, which have been published by reputed publishers and journals of Indology and archaeology in India and abroad. I have also contributed chapters to over twenty scholarly volumes. I am sure Mihir Sharma has read none of my work; indeed, he cannot even spell my name correctly.

Thus he implies that the Sarasvati River is “invented”, which means he has not read my The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati published by Penguin India in 2010 and warmly reviewed by many national newspapers (including Business Standard: see here and here) as well as Current Science and reputed journals of archaeology such as Man and Environment and Puratattva. Had he read it, he would have known that the vanished Vedic river was identified with the now dry Ghaggar-Hakra of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Cholistan, not by a few “nativist bigots”, but in 1855 by the French geographer Louis Vivien de Saint-Martin. In the next few decades, nearly all European Indologists, from H.H. Wilson and F. Max Müller to M. Monier-Williams, A.A. Macdonell, A.B. Keith or F.E. Pargiter, and more recently L. Renou, A.L. Basham or Jan Gonda, accepted Vivien de Saint-Martin’s thesis. Geologists such as the British R.D. Oldham (1886) joined in, followed by geographers such as the Indian Shamsul Islam Siddiqi (1944) or the German Herbert Wilhelmy (1969). Alexander Cunningham, founder of the Archaeological Survey of India, was one among many who, in the 19th century, published maps clearly naming the Sarasvati as a tributary to the Ghaggar. The celebrated British archaeologist and explorer Marc Aurel Stein was the first to discover Harappan sites along the bed of the dry river and published his findings in a 1942 report entitled “A Survey of Ancient Sites along the ‘Lost’ Sarasvati River.” The late British archaeologist Raymond Allchin fully accepted the river’s identification, as did his U.S. colleagues the late Gregory L. Possehl or J.M. Kenoyer, among others. I could line up many more non-“nativist” names. If there was a “Western conspiracy”, to use Sharma’s name, it was to conclude that the Sarasvati had been a very real river—like all others listed in the Rig-Veda—and could be precisely placed on the map. While there are still important geological issues to be resolved, my book has brought together literary, cultural, archaeological and geological evidence in an objective and open-ended manner.

Lastly, while classical India refined and practised the art of debating, Mihir Sharma’s vituperative but crassly ignorant language is fairly typical of a trend to demonize what one does not agree with—a trend that has taken the place of academic debates in much of India’s intellectual life. It does spare one the trouble of having to study, carefully weigh arguments and evidence, and engage other viewpoints in a civilized manner. – Business Standard, 14 July 2015

» Prof Michel Danino is a guest professor at IIT Gandhinagar, and the convener of the International Forum for India’s Heritage. He is also a member of the Indian Council of Historical Research.

8 Responses

  1. Let us Hindus work with Dr Swamy’s motto “We will give Harder than what we get and MORE”

  2. Mihir Sharma is a filthy running dog of China and Italy, from Chinese Pimps of India=CPI. Does Mother F..king pass for scholarship. My Foot. Only White Terror and Suharto solution is the answer to these Commie whores, pigs in Human clothing. Hey DHOORTH Brahmin named Sharma, I’am a IITian and support Rajiv Malhotra, not a two bit dog from JNU

    • Did you know that Mihir Sharma is a Crypto Christian? So he is bound to bark like a rabid dog fed by Vatican Mullah Richard Fox Young.

  3. Mihir Sharma is a sepoy (and a posh sepoy at that with a name like Mihir Swaroop Sharma). How much extra was he paid for his crude attack on Prof Danino?

  4. In this exchange, Mr. Mihir Sharma cuts a sorry figure. As rightly pointed by Prof. Danino, Mr. Shrama has forsaken the Indian polemical tradition of fighting with words. He has chosen to fight with vituperative outbursts. Sesham kopena poorayet [The rest is filled by anger] is a Nyaya quip to expose debaters, short on facts, long on acrid remarks.

  5. Rajiv Malhotra on Hindu Intellectuals – Rajiv Malhotra – Niti Central – 15 July 2015

    For nearly 20 years, after voluntarily retiring early from a successful business career, I’ve spent my time and energies exclusively to studying, documenting and critiquing Western and Christian scholarship on India’s religions and traditions. My work including books such as Invading the Sacred, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, Indra’s Net, and Breaking India have exposed in great detail the biases and conflicts of interest that colour and mar much of the scholarship that has emanated from America’s most prestigious universities and professors. I have pointed out at the way Indians are in awe of the white man telling them what they presumably did not know about themselves. I have pointed out the inferiority complexes many Indian so-called intellectuals suffer from.

    From the very beginning of my activism, not surprisingly, I’ve invited the wrath of certain American academics and their Indian followers. From character assassination and name calling to the obstruction of my ideas and the slamming shut of doors, the price for talking back to power has been high for me personally. Thankfully, there are many Indians and Indian Americans who read my works and follow me on social media and discussion forums and are familiar with some of these battles. I frequently share the challenges and obstacles that I face not only to chronicle the cultural and social history of Hindus in America but also to let our community know, without any sugar coating, what we’re up against. The battles that I fight publicly are after all the battles that many of us wage privately in encounters that denigrate and heap contempt on our heritage. As I’ve taken on the Western academy or scrutinized their pet theories, I along with the many Indians watching, have realized that some people are given more freedom to speak than others.

    There has been a vicious campaign against me and my writings in the cyber and media space. This started soon after I gave a talk recently at the 16th World Sanskrit Conference in Bangkok, about the key ideas in my forthcoming book ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’. It addresses some key disagreements: should Western assumptions in Sanskrit studies be the dominant paradigm for understanding our tradition? Are Indians simply becoming consumers rather than producers of discourse on their own tradition? Can Sanskrit be viewed as mainly a tool of oppression? Is Sanskrit also sacred rather than purely secular? And so on. The points certainly generated lot of interest and support from the traditional side. But there were a lot of disgruntled voices as well which felt threatened.

    Many attempts have been made in recent years to stop my work under one allegation or another. The latest attack is a petition signed by 192 persons alleging that in my previous book, Indra’s Net, published one and a half year ago, there are 9 places where I ‘plagiarized’ from sources which I have not adequately cited – implying that I have appropriated ideas without due acknowledgment. Hence, the response demanded by them is for the publishers to drop my books and make an apology. The petition was written by one Richard Fox Young who teachers at a Christian seminary in New Jersey. It just happens to be in the same town where I live, but many Indians have been misled to believe that he is a professor at Princeton University which he is not.

    I saw a strong rebuttal by some scholars who have actually read my book, and it has been used as a counter petition. While the petition attacking me got 192 signatures, this petition supporting me has received 6,500 signatures already. See: https://traditionresponds.wordpress.com

    The complaint claims that I have ‘plagiarized’ primarily from a book by Andrew Nicholson. But in fact, I have heavily cited Nicholson in both the chapters the petition complains about. 12 out of the 30 Endnotes in Ch.8 refer to Nicholson. Not to mention that the chapter is replete with invocations of Nicholson by name numerous times. The same pattern applies to Ch.11 where any reader will see that Nicholson is mentioned enough number of times to suggest that a passage followed from Nicholson. But in a manipulative way, the allegations are made to make it seem as if I never acknowledged.

    As in just about any complex work by scholars, in this book there are some omissions and copyediting errors which are more a result of oversight than mala fide intention. These ought to be rectified. And if this were the petition’s real intent then why would they simply not write a letter to the publishers highlighting the omissions and suggesting corrections? That is the standard practice in academia of which the complainant claims to be a puritan adherent. And why do they launch this sudden well-orchestrated attack one and a half years after the book has been in circulation? Has Richard Fox Young ever reacted the same way concerning his colleagues in his seminary whose works are full of such omissions and even blatant misrepresentations? I doubt it, and this brings me to my next point which relates to his over-enthusiasm and over-reaction.

    Richard Fox Young uses the brand name ‘Princeton’ leading gullible Indians to believe that he is a professor at Princeton University. Let me be clear: He is NOT a professor at Princeton University. His employer is a Christian Seminary that happens to be located in the town of Princeton. This town has many institutions, of which his seminary is one, just as Delhi has many universities, madrasas and seminaries. The web site of his seminary is: http://www.ptsem.edu/ and his personal page at the seminary is: http://www.ptsem.edu/index.aspx?id=1960&menu_id=72. Imagine someone is working at a madrasa or church in Delhi and leads people to assume that he is a professor at Delhi University.

    Let me also state that I have known him for 20 years. He leads his seminaries’ Afro-Dalit work. This is something I have come down heavily upon in my book Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian Faultlines. This critique is neither personal nor emotional. It is criticism of a system that I find harmful to us. It was by interacting with some persons from his seminary that I learned about Afro-Dalits. So I turned my investigation into a very successful book that has opened many eyes.

    When I was invited by Princeton University to present and discuss Breaking India, the host wanted to have a Christian view represented as well. He asked Richard Fox Young to be the discussant at the event, but he refused and suggested another person to speak for Christians. This man was Rev. Thompson.

    The video of that evening event is available at: http://www.breakingindia.com/princeton-university-discussion/

    Richard Fox Young used an Indian Christian as his front man to speak his ideology, and another Dalit Christian was planted in the audience who made a nuisance by attacking the host before walking out in protest on behalf of Dalit Christians. The video makes clear why Young hates me ever since. He knows well that when I refer to the ‘breaking India forces’ in my talks, his work is being implicated for nurturing the anti-Hindu propaganda I talk about.

    This also explains why Richard Fox Young and John Dayal in India are collaborators and one retweets the other routinely. When I debated John Dayal on foreign funded NGOs in Delhi (see:

    ) it naturally would have upset Richard Fox Young. He is considered as the seminary’s resident expert on Hinduism, training Christian evangelists and missionaries on Hinduism so they can go about doing their work to save Hindus more effectively. A natural ally for him is the Indian Left – the common enemy being Hinduism for both. Yet he tries to be very friendly and caring towards Hindus.

    The timing of his attacks could be a combination of two factors. First are his insecurities stemming from the increasing acceptance of my work which challenges established Western paradigms in Indian and Sanskrit studies; and second is the fear of my forthcoming book which will shake some of their ideological foundations and their role as a gatekeeper of Hindu studies. His is a strategic attack on behalf of the entire Hinduphobic coterie because my book challenges their positions at a very seminal level. Though parroting intellectual freedom and the importance of dissent, their persistent attacks on me for twenty years prove them to be the ones violating the spirit of intellectual freedom.

    The person named on the petition as the one who formally uploaded and started it is Jesse Knutson based in Freemont, California. He is a Sanskrit scholar who collaborates and follows Sheldon Pollock, the main target of my critiques in my forthcoming book. (See: http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520282056 and https://globalcenterforadvancedstudies.org/jesse-ross-knutson/). My forthcoming book also discusses Knutson’s work as aligned with Pollock’s theories, according to which Sanskrit poetry was written primarily to serve political agendas of the elites; the sacred dimension is side lined in their interpretations.

    Some of the prominent signatories to their petition are well-known Pollockites like Ananya Vajpeyi, a fire-brand anti-Hindu journalist and scholar affiliated with elitist organizations. It is clear that this hit-job is from a collaboration of leftists and Christian evangelists, the classical cartel of Hinduphobics.

    I write this to give my readers an insight into what is going on. But I request them not to lose heart, nor to expect easy victory. What we face is the potential risk of the intellectual re-colonization of India, this time using brown-skinned sepoys working as puppets controlled in foreign-based centres such as the seminary located in Princeton. I wish to thank my supporters for standing up for me in such large numbers. I am moved by this and encouraged to continue fighting the good fight. – NITI Central

    Important Note : Supporters of Rajiv Malhotra ji have started petition ‘Requesting publishers of Rajiv Malhotra not to yield to mafia pressure tactics that seek to threaten intellectual freedom’. The petition can be signed on following link : Change.org

  6. Rajiv Malhotra
     
    Rajiv Malhotra says those accusing him of plagiarism are really out to silence his voice – Rajiv Malhotra – News Laundry – 15 July 2015

    I was recently “bombed” by an online petition with a sensational charge that I had “plagiarised” in my earlier book, Indra’s Net. The demand was that publishers must withdraw my books. The accusation is that in nine different instances in Indra’s Net, I should have cited a certain book by Andrew Nicholson, which I failed to do.

    However, the facts are different: I do cite Nicholson’s book about 10 times in the main text with an additional 20 references in the endnotes. Clearly, I am informing the reader that I utilise Nicholson’s ideas with a combination of his words and mine. I do not cite him after every single sentence where I use him, but it is unambiguously clear when reading entire passages of my book that I am discussing his works. Unfortunately, none of those attacking me have bothered to acknowledge this simple fact. Those passing judgment need to figure out why someone wanting to plagiarise a source would bother referencing it about 30 times.

    Highly experienced writers say this is a common grey area in scholarship, with no absolute standard or norm. In the worst case they see this as a simple copyediting human error – but not critical because Nicholson does get ample references and hence the purpose of citing gets satisfied in spirit if not in every literal instance.

    The routine method for someone who finds errors in a book is to write to the publisher asking for corrections. Publishers routinely process this. We are not in the era when commandments were carved in stone. In the digital age, content does change routinely, due to various factors including inadvertent copy editing errors.

    There is a general understanding among publishers and authors that any errors/addendums get routinely fixed in the next print run. My earlier book, Being Different, has had over 100 small changes made over several print runs – ranging from cosmetic to more significant. These were brought to our attention by readers in a constructive manner as well as those we detected ourselves. None were intentional and none caused any controversy. Each of my books has 300 to 600 citations of various sources, and my editors and I do the best we can to cite accurately. But we are not perfect. Neither me, nor my publisher have a problem in adding quotation marks or citing the source each and every time in the next print. I am happy to do that.

    But I suspect the intention is not to help the discourse (and me) become more accurate, but rather to shut me and others out of the debate altogether. The demand to withdraw books (as opposed to correcting the issues) is unprecedented in such a situation. It is a tactic to make a mountain out of a molehill or fake a molehill to make a mountain. Those very voices who hated Dinanath Batra for asking for a book to be withdrawn, are now asking for my books to be withdrawn.

    An independent analysis done by serious readers was posted online and out of the nine alleged omissions, they found that six were properly acknowledged, albeit not using the precise format required by certain Western conventions. In the other three cases, there could be a misunderstanding if someone wants to nit-pick, although a reader of the entire chapter would get a clear sense of the source being acknowledged.

    However, there is much more going on in the background. The complaint comes from some people whose anger is really targeted at my forthcoming book that exposes some problems in Western scholarship on Indian culture. The petition was started within days after I presented an overview of my next book at an international conference. The chief complainants are individuals I have had tense arguments with in the past, due to the controversial positions I take. I am open to engage in a debate with them on issues of substance without personal acrimony, and with neutral moderation. I have made numerous offers of debate but the other side has not responded. They have chosen to try and silence me instead.

    The real issue is even broader. A common criticism they level against me is that I am not in an academic job, hence I am an “outside”’ who is not entitled to “meddle” in the discourse. Despite having researched full time for two decades, produced four major books and countless blogs and lectures, these “high priest” of academics still remain unimpressed.

    Or is it that they are worried? Is their monopoly being threatened over the public discourse on matters of general importance, such as how our civilisation is to be interpreted? Why is there a presumption that the adhikara to think creatively is reserved only for the academicians? From Jesus Christ to Sri Krishna, from Vivekananda to Gandhi, from Shashi Tharoor to Narendra Modi to Arvind Kejriwal – public intellectuals all across the ideological spectrum have included influential persons who were not academicians. In this Internet age and with its dis-intermediation (eliminating the middlemen), the world of knowledge producers has expanded and the high priests of the past feel threatened.

    This brings us to the further question of the norms and standards of English usage that we are supposed to obey literally. My attackers wish to judge me by certain specific norms of citation that most Indian writers do not follow – including many trained in Western systems. In fact, one academician suggested that someone should examine the published works of the persons accusing me, as that is sure to reveal that they are guilty of the very same thing they accuse me of. In other words, in actual practice most scholars like to give “enough” references to indicate their sources clearly, but without over-populating the text with “scare quotes”. The extent of literal citation should also depend on the type of genre and audience.

    Unfortunately, our colonised minds are programmed to obey the rules of idiom, quotation, style, etc. set by the West. It is time to discuss whether we should decolonise ourselves in this regard. I believe we should be free to innovate in the way we use language. I am not writing academic books, but writing for the commoner. I am taking subject matter that has remained hidden in the academic closet, and I am making it accessible to the mainstream reader. This is frightening to the gatekeepers of the academic world who see me as a trespasser on their turf. I am not bound to obey the rules they have made. It is for my readers to judge whether my works are useful or not, and academics do not have the license to authorise or deny my free speech.

    Ironically, these very same academicians are claiming to champion the downtrodden voices, the subalterns, on the basis that elitist Brahmins have controlled the Sanskrit rules, idiom, etc. and non-Brahmins have been treated as unqualified and lacking the adhikara to write in Sanskrit. I feel they are guilty of the same elitism by treating me as unqualified to write in English. My forthcoming book, in fact, examines these very topics of Sanskrit versus English elitism and issues of who controls the intellectual production.

    An allegation of plagiarism must look at the issue at two distinct levels: substance and form. Plagiarism as a matter of substance is when the author hides a source because he wants to claim originality for something he has borrowed. Nobody who has read my book has said that that is even remotely the case, because it would run counter to the fact that I have very frequently referenced Nicholson’s work.

    The second level is whether there is omission of references in a merely technical sense. This is where customs for acknowledgement 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.

    Suppose we gave the dog a bone by increasing the number of citations for Nicholson from 30 to 35, would that really bring them to the discussion table to sort out the matters of substance and avoid playing such games? I hope so.

    The author can be contacted on Twitter @RajivMessage

  7. REBUTTAL: PLAGIARISM CHARGES SHOWN TO BE FALSE LINE BY LINE BY INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS

    Rebuttal of false allegations against [Rajiv Malhotra’s] Hindu scholarship

    A review of allegations of plagiarism in:

    Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines, by Rajiv Malhotra (RM), Aravindan Neelakandan (AN), (Amaryllis, 2011)

    By Independent Readers and Reviewers

    &

    A review of allegations of plagiarism in:

    Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity, by Rajiv Malhotra (HarperCollins, 2014)

    By Independent Readers and Reviewers

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: