[xmonkee]

I agree with you on the hypocrisy of US media on this one. But I still don't understand what Dr swamy finds so objectionable in the book. I've started reading it, and it seems like a very scholarly treatment of the ignored sections in the history of hinduism. Surely Dr swamy understands the importance of protecting controversial academic works?

[cubancigar11]

What seems scholarly to you looks extremely offensive to most Hindus. And ultimately it should be Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism. The over-the-top reaction to what is effectively a caricature in the likes of 'Innocence of Muslims' is enabled because such treatment of Hinduism by Christians has a history, a history that still plays its part in everyday life of Indians (not just Hindus). Point in case, the article talks about the 'criminalization of homosexuality', but fails to mention that it was criminalized by British-raj. Indian judiciary just rejected to get involved into executive branch, a very sensible approach IMHO.

The article itself refers to such treatment by naming Edward Said, for example. But then swoops in with personal judgements, calling Rajiv Malhotra's essay as a right-wingist parody and trying to link everything with rise of business-friendly nationalist Modi.

This is to be expected. Economical rise of any non-western country has historically correlated with doom-and-gloom about it in articles in western media, whether it is liberal or conservative. Even now it is hard for me to read an article about China in The Economist. Just today I saw an article about Chinese government cracking down on sex-racket, and how it is fomenting unrest and civil disobedience among Chinese.

[xmonkee]

>What seems scholarly to you looks extremely offensive to most Hindus

Um... I am Hindu. I don't practice folk Hinduism too much but Hinduism and it's history are one of my areas of interest. I really want to discuss with some others who have read this book and find out what exactly put them off. Have you?

[cubancigar11]

I have read the book and its criticism. TL;DR: The book suffers from cherry-picking for telling a story. It ought not to be taken seriously as an endeavour in study of Hinduism. I mean, its in the title - An ALTERNATE History. Otherwise it is a fun read. (Imagine a book called - 'Nazism - An alternate history' based on Inglourious Basterds.)

The criticism comes from people who are taking the book seriously. :)

[jetru]

Should that matter? Even if he finds something objectionable, it's not his business what others should think. Let others make up their own mind.

[xmonkee]

It definitely shouldn't matter, but I would still like to know what he finds objectionable. He's one of the smartest scholars in Indian politics and his opinions are always interesting, if somewhat controversial.

[bruceb]

@cubancigar11 "And ultimately it should Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism."

Why? Cause I doubt they would agree. To say unless you are X then you can't comment on X is foolish.

[cubancigar11]

If it is foolish to you, then so be it. To categorically ignore the power play implied by defining a section without any input from it (and ignore rest of the comment, I suppose, along with the book and its criticism) seems intelligent to you then so be it. I am deeply aware of my inability to explain what has already been explained by others, so I resign.

"Cause I doubt they would agree." That should tell the complexity of defining Hinduism and the amateurish level western 'Indologists' have achieved which they spread around, calling any criticism to their approach 'foolish'.

[z3phyr]

The book does not mention anything as foolish IMHO.

[EdwardDiego]

How accessible is the book to a layman?

[xmonkee]

I will certainly not recommend it as a first book on Hinduism. For that I would probably go with http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Religions-India-Yogi-Rama... . It's a short and concise read and the treatment is a good mix of outsider (the writer is originally a westerner) and insider (he also happens to be a hindu).

As a second book, The Hindus is pretty accessible if you're used to reading slightly technical books. Her style is good, and she's absorbed the Indian philosophical writing tradition of using far too many analogies :)