My response to Mr. Vedantam: First of all, I am glad that Mr. Vedantam has entered this dialog on Sulekha, where nobody gets home turf advantage. Below are my responses to his article:
Vedantam: “Sulekha.com did not seek my response before providing a forum for Mr Malhotra.”
Malhotra’s response: Nor did WP seek my response before or after it posted Mr. Vedantam’s article. Why was Sulekha supposed to get his okay
before? It is good that they gave him the chance
after, is it not? Is he operating under some presumed privilege, whereby he gets an advance chance to refute me even before mine appears?
Vedantam: “I ran his quotes and the context in which they would appear past him (via email) before publication.”
Malhotra’s response: What he was required to let me know was the quotes he would use from our interview. What he was
not required to do as per his interpretation and did not do were two things: (i) He did not feel compelled to
change any items that I complained about pertaining to my quotes, and he merely felt that he had to
notify me of them – which does not prevent being quoted in ways that causes misunderstandings. (ii) He made clear that quotes he got from sources other than the interview were not subject to being disclosed to me in advance, and these included whatever he picked up from third parties and various materials on the internet. Given these two caveats, his system of disclosure was not fool-proof the final article demonstrates.
Vedantam: “He was given lengthy opportunities to rebut his critics in my story, and is quoted doing so.”
Malhotra’s response: Again, he did lip service by including a few items from my side, after first ‘setting me up’ (by association) as potentially linked with violent and being “dangerous,” and then letting me come across like a defendant trying to cover his rear-end. What about my emails about the importance to contextualize and frame properly – why did he ignore them?
Vedantam: “No PR executives ever contacted me.”
Malhotra’s response: PR is more than just what is done by “executives” who are officially designated for PR, and nor would they necessarily call him directly. To come out clean, Mr. Vedantam must disclose ALL contacts he or WP had from all third parties, individual scholars with status, institutions including SAJA (which gave him 3 or 4 awards and have a privileged access to him), etc.
Vedantam: “Mr Malhotra claims my story was strategically published on Easter weekend.”
Malhotra’s response: I did not say the timing was intentional. I said it was unfortunate. We can never find what the intentions might have been, but the consequences are the same on the readers: many devout Christian called me and said that they had no idea I was linked to violent Hindus.
Vedantam: “Dr Doniger denies saying it” [that
”the Gita is a dishonest book”].
Malhotra’s response: Naturally she would deny. But the Philly Enquirer is no rag, and a quote from a prestigious paper should have held weight in the mind of Mr. Vedantam, being a journalist himself. Did he bother to chat with the Philly Enquirer’s reporter to get his side of the facts?
On what basis did he give Doniger the benefit of the doubt over the report of a prestigious newspaper? Why did he not give me the same benefit of doubt over Doniger? Equivalent treatment would have been for him to have printed Doniger’s quote in the Philly Enquirer, along with Doniger’s denial. That would be similar to his quotes of Doniger against me and then citing me as denying the charges. Vedantam: He reported that “Mr. Sanu “charged that Doniger's article perpetuated misleading stereotypes and asked for a rewrite by an “insider.”
Malhotra’s response: Stating it as Sanu’s “charge” does not have the same weight as citing a few specific items where Sanu
proves bias. Why did Mr. Vedantam have to cite several specific examples of violent threats by Hindus right at the beginning of his article, and why could he not simply have generically alluded to “threats?” He knows very well that generic references do not have the same dramatic impact as specific items. Just as “the Gita is a dishonest book” arouses readers, so also many specific items pointed out by Sanu in the Encarta would have undermined Doniger more than Vedantam wanted to. His strategy: When the charges are against Hindus they are very specific and dramatized, but when they go against the Doniger club, they are left vague and dubious.
Vedantam: “My story does not blame Hinduism.”
Malhotra’s response: Ask a panel of neutral readers what they would think of this guilt-by-association. To name “Sambhaji Brigade” is meaningless to American readers unless one points out that they are opposed to Hindutva parties, i.e. this attack was about Marathi pride and not religion.
Vedantam: “He [Malhotra] fails to mention that critics are quoted throughout the story.”
Malhotra’s response: Vedantam did not mention Hinduphobia at all as being the issue, when that was precisely my issue. Rather, he framed it as “academic freedom” being denied by Hindu fanatics, and once placed in this frame no amount of nominal denials would be enough to offset the damage he caused.
Vedantam: “Mr Malhotra claims he is not involved in public relations.”
Malhotra’s response: Again, a slick manipulation of context here: My championing India’s case on outsourcing kinds of issues is unrelated to the issue framed by Vedantam’s article. My issue about academic scholars causing Hinduphobia, is unrelated to India, Inc. as I explain that it is about an American minority as well. If as he now claims, “improving the image of something” is PR, then are he and the Post not basically doing PR a great deal of the time?
Vedantam: “Mr Malhotra acknowledges that his article 'censors' the Washington Post.”
Malhotra’s response: Another misquote by Vedantam. Readers may please verify that my column says as follows: “In anticipation of any accusations that this Sulekha article “censors” Washington Post, I wish to say the following...” That this is being equated by Mr Vedantam with my “acknowledging” that my article censors Post shows how inaccurate his reporting is, even when the hard facts are sitting right before everyone’s eyes. Is this journalistic incompetence or what?
Furthermore, Mr. Vedantam’s so-called response fails to even mention the core of my criticisms, which remain as follows:
1) He fails to acknowledge Hinduphobia by scholars and media (such as his article) as being my main concern – what I called intellectual corruption and media corruption.
2) He fails to address my criticism of Indian sepoys who work for this corrupt system, including many of his cabal at SAJA who give him awards, and how this resembles the way the British appropriated many Indians to help run the Empire.
3) He ignores the intense debate going on between Emory and a group called “The Concerned Community” consisting of eminent NRI professionals.
4) He ignores the criticisms of Doniger by many eminent academic scholars, some of whom I listed in my column. He ignores that Prof. Ramdas Lamb gave him concrete data in a telephone interview that would contradict his prejudices but that he entirely disregarded in his article.
5) He implicitly rationalizes Courtright’s “limp phallus” by calling it high-flown Freudian scholarship, while failing to point out the numerous experts in Freudian psychoanalysis who have criticized that work.
6) He fails to admit that conflating the issue with the Laine controversy was misleading to the readers, and was a device used to sensationalize the article at the cost of spreading Hinduphobia (so as to get another SAJA award???)
7) He ignores my points about how Muslims, Christians and other have made similar protests, which got treated more sympathetically by the press without pathologizing the protestors. I gave the concrete example of MF Hussein just from a week ago and yet he ignores this point of asymmetry.
8) He ignores my complaint about selective labeling. While some persons are tagged as “Hindu activists” and fundamentalists/militants, he fails to use consistent standards and tags. To be consistent, Mr. Prashad should have been tagged as a “communist activist” which he is by his own admission, and Ms. Flueckiger as having a “Christian fundamentalist” family background. He fails to disclose the axis between Indian communists and evangelists, and how it is impacting Indian politics and South Asian Studies.
9) He ignores my point about Hinduism as an American minority religion and not just about India.
10) He fails to appreciate my comparisons with Japan Studies, Pakistan Studies, among others, as ways to examine the state of India Studies.
11) He fails to note the important critique by eminent physicist, ECG Sudarshan, in support of my position.
12) He ignores my point about the correlations between Hinduphobia and the Dotbusters and others like them.
13) He ignores Richard Crasta’s deconstruction of Indian writers’ servility to the system even when it abuses their culture.
Washington Post should not think that Mr. Vedantam’s entering the debate on Sulekha absolves it of printing my side of the story in its own pages. Post’s articles have a readership in the millions whereas whatever we do here on Sulekha will get readership in the thousands only. There must be equivalent levels of distribution of ideas of all sides to have a level playing field.
I respect Mr. Vedantam’s freedom and he must give our side the courtesy of an equal amount of exposure through his paper.
Regards,
Rajiv Malhotra
Close
Dear Mr. Vedantam, imagine if an equally irresponsible journalist were to frame those who support the war in Iraq with the following story of horror that has just appeared. Imagine if these sporadic instances were the headlines to blame them on our government’s top decision-makers. Would they not be justified in calling it bogus journalism? Would Washington Post ever let such a piece get through? If not, then why is Hinduphobia allowed by using guilt-by-association?
http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=332995
Photos reveal US abuse
April 29, 2004 17:16 IST
Last Updated: April 29, 2004 17:44 IST
A US television station has broadcast pictures showing US soldiers abusing Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, reports the BBC.
CBS TV says it has "dozens" of pictures - taken by US troops - showing prisoners being subjected to a wide range of maltreatment. Many of the pictures show American troops looking on in apparent approval, the BBC said. The army announced last month that 17 soldiers had been suspended over the allegations of abuse of prisoners. The group includes a brigadier general. Six are facing court martial, the BBC said.
According to CBS, the network had held on to the story for two weeks following a Pentagon request but decided to air it after photos began to circulate.
Some pictures show uniformed US soldiers posing with naked Iraqi prisoners in various positions. One had naked male prisoners kneeling on each other in a pyramid with a female US soldier behind them.
Other pictures show naked Iraqis positioned to simulate sex with each other, a detainee with wires attached to his genitals and a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. In most of them, the Americans are seen laughing or gesturing approval.
According to CBS, the military investigation started after a soldier received the photos from a friend and gave them to his commanding officers.
CBS said the army investigation found that one Iraqi prisoner was made to stand on a box with his head covered and wires attached to his hands, and told if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
The deputy commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, said he was appalled and that the entire army was let down by the actions of a few soldiers.
General Janice Karpinsky, who was responsible for the prison, is among those facing charges, and CBS said an army investigation had concluded that her "lack of leadership and clear standards" led to problems in Abu Ghraib and three other prisons for which she was responsible.
According to the BBC, "the military police officers have been charged by the US Army with crimes ranging from assault and maltreatment to indecent acts against prisoners."
The soldiers were reportedly assisting interrogators from US intelligence agencies. Last month, when the six military police officers were charged, an army spokesman said the alleged crimes involved fewer than 20 prisoners and happened around November and December, it said.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Rajivji,
I by chance got to know about sulekha web site.After reading your articles i see sulekha whenever i find time.i am now enthusiastically recommending this site to all of my friends and in particular to read your articles.i have also informed them to be vigilant with regards to the image of india/hindu religion.many of my friends are now logging on to sulekha.keep up the good work.i am sure many more are doing their bit to help your(everyones) common cause in their own small ways.All of us have to help each other in making our voices heard loud and clear.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Rajiv-ji,
Great to see your blog, in your hallmark precision, meticulous research and an enlightened approach to indic traditions.
It would be lovely to have your articles here.
Again, welcome...
- atracus
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Rajiv,
The reason why my husband and I are on Sulekha is you. It in not an exaggeration, it is but the truth.
Your articles about western scholars and their 'scholastic' interpretations of Hinduism gave my husband and me sleepless nights, as I am sure they did to any Indian who read/heard about these. From the incredibly intellectual, sensitive and informed write-ups by concerned fellow Indians as an outrage to these, and our discussion with a whole bunch of fellow Indian friends (who might I mention are highly educated, liberated and have lived in the West for years) I guess I can make a safe assumption that a lot, if not all Indians feel very raw about the denigration of Hinduism. For days together, the two of us would sit together and discuss for hours as to what balanced and positive solution we can bring about this. We forgot food at times and at times we forgot it was well past 2:00 in the morning and that there was another challenging busy day ahead of us - and we are not even practising Hindus!!
We just want to say that we are totally behind you: to say that we are 'fans' would be in fact a ridicule to the profound gratitude we feel towards you and your efforts. It must be a lonely fight. Tell us what we can do to get involved, to contribute positively, to help - to do our bit.
Best regards and wishing you strength and tenure.
Rama and Godan.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Rajiv,
I have read your article and have also read Mr. Vedentam's response and your response as well. I find an element of fact in your views and opinions. You are right on target that some Indians in persuit of power/money or so-called western visibility/status lose moral obligation to speak the truth and follow the truth. By doing this they might gain short-term publicity/awards in the western world but would not do justice to their roots, tradition or even their profession.
In this world of media hype and media domination by vested interests, it is all the more important to present facts to the people so that people can form an unbiased opinion. I am very glad that there are people like you who are doing exactly that.
I do not understand why people have coined terms like "hindu fundamentalism" or "hindu militants" because if a person is fundamentalist or militant then he/she is not following the great principles of World's greatest Dharma and at that point he/she ceases to be hindu or follower of hinduism. Such people are just fundamentalist or militant that's it. Can anyone tell me that Vedas or Gita or Upanishads or Purranas have anything against other religion or other paths, they always say that there are various paths to reach the same God.
I am ready to listen all other views on this.
Keep doing great work Rajiv.
thanks,
Anant Sharma
Reply | | Report Abuse
Here are the links to give the background of this intense David/Goliath debate. Please read in sequence:
1) My column: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305924
2) Washington Post rebuttal:
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305926
3) My rebuttal back to them: http://www.sulekha.com/weblogs/weblogdesc.asp?cid=12949
My next column (only 4 pages) with a crisp list of issues that CHALLENGE the Post is forthcoming.
Regards,
Rajiv
Reply | | Report Abuse
Rajiv,
As I see it, the very fact that he got down (in his world-view for sure) from WP to Sulekha Expressions, to (allegedly) rebute a diatribe of an ignorant "hindu activist", is a great sign! Suddenly, they seem to consider you a threat!
I think you should add the links to your article as well as his response in this blog, just to give the context...
best wishes,
asuph.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hi Maria, thanks for the encouragement - need all the help. Regards,
Rajiv
Reply | | Report Abuse
Welcome *New-Blogger Rajiv,
Nice to see you over here-join us..at the other end of Sulekha!....Will look forward to your Blogs on Love, Life and all the rest of the fun-stuff* as well:)..A few recipes and some music/movie reviews, you are all set- to be officially a Blogger!
Maria
* Ok, Now Sulekha- why does the word 'love' automatically turn commercial and take us to 'someone single- looking someone Ad -website??!! Enough' already:)
Reply | | Report Abuse
Vedantam's column??
Reply | | Report Abuse