Some persons have accused me of not addressing various issues in my recent article on OutlookIndia.com, titled, ACADEMIC HINDUPHOBIA, which is available at:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060210&fname=hinduphobia&sid=1

I decided to focus on ONE aspect of the issue only, i.e. the fact that all religions are not being treated as equals by the California authorities, by the textbook publishers, by the American experts on South Asia, or by their Indian chelas who follow the white scholars in a bandwagon like the rats dancing behind Pied Piper.

Of course there are other aspects to the issue, including Manusmriti and the texts of other religions and of the Enlightenment. I am happy to be invited by major publishers to write on these issues in a separate article. Its up to them. I hereby also extend my offer to discuss/debate in other public forums with serious opponents, PROVIDED each side has equal opportunity to post with nobody blocking or privileging one side.

Those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers should discourage the name-calling and should facilitate serious debates focussing on the ISSUES. I was recently called by studients from UC Berkeley inviting me to debate Vijay Prashad on campus, which I instantly accepted. Unfortunately, they called me back to say that Vijay declined. Presumably, he prefers to hit-and-run behind my back in forums where I am not allowed to respond.

So to all those in the search for truth - please arrange level playing fields to debate the serious issues facing society. One-sided forums should be rejected. For the record, EVERY forum where I have written allows the public to post comments, and NONE of these forums are under any sort of control of mine or any group I belong to - these include Rediff, Outlook India, Sulekha, etc.  The same cannot be said of my critics.

Invitation to debate Prof. Madhav Deshpande or any other academician:

Meanwhile, here is my introductory point regarding Manusmriti, which I would be glad to debate further with serious opponents. I maintain, based on the following table, that Manusmriti does not define Hinduism in the same sense as Bible/Quran define those respective religions:

Bottom line: Let us by all means problematize Indian/Hindu society and let us work to remedy its flaws. There is a long tradition of such reformations from within without Iraq-style invasions or Colonialization or Imperialism by Western powers to bring "human rights" to us. Meanwhile, let us not force Manusmriti's 6 abusive verses (out of nearly 2000), that are unfortunately abusive, as the be-all and end-all of Hinduism.