The ability to cultivate Self Mastery and the power to guide; to acquire Wisdom, Insight and Understanding; to access Enlightenment and Illumination and to practice Respect, Radiance and Compassion and thereby govern the expression of spiritual power - and not the mere accession to an institutional of leadership - is the hallmark of a seer. Jayendra Saraswati may have aspired to such a life dedicated to Spiritual Development and service to humanity. If the charges against him are true - and he knows very well the extent of their truth or otherwise - then he has greatly fallen short of his goals. If he wishes to press on towards them nevertheless, then he must articulate the truth, relinquish the institutional positions which he has shown himself currently unable to handle and spend time regaining the spiritual skills that he has lost or never really attained. May he learn from the profound humiliation of his failure may he in time find Serenity, Satisfaction and Success.

Lets pay our last homage to religion of
the world than to discuss them.
Though religion was made to serve
humanity and with good purpose. But the
methods to achieve that are really
outdated and not workable. It didnt
worked for even great Sankracharya.
There is no use fighting and redefining
it again and again.
It is time to create a whole new world
culture which is based on the present
not on the present.
Recalling Dr. APJ abdul Kalam - "future
generations will be remebering us ,
not on account of how many temples or
mosques we have built for them but what
we have done for the development of the
country"

It is disappointing to read these exchanges. As someone very interested in reading history and historical narrative that is shorn of academic jargon, I would've thought that both Dalrymple and Guha were on the same side ! And even more disappointing is how these exchanges can lead to anti-Hindu accusations - simply because Dalrymple's last book is White Moghuls and has won acclaim ? Having worked on the BBC series Indian Journeys which included the pilgrimage to Gaumukh and not just medieval - "muslim" as some readers would put it - Delhi, I can without hesitation say that Dalrymple is hardly anti-Hindu. Anti-RSS/VHP and the like - yes. But surely, that's not the only form of being Hindu ! Or have we completely forgotten that ?

The Guha-Dalrymple fracas seems to be moving in a direction propelled by factors that have not been raised by both writers, and way beyond the latter’s review of Mishra’s book which started it all. I am a fan of both writers.

Dalrymple and his work have been amply defended by Pavan Varma and Navina Hayak – and to set the record straight, here are a few extra:

Dalrymple has no qualifications as a historian – what is this???? If it is of any help, he studied history at Cambridge under stalwarts like Bayley and Seal, though why having done so or not, qualifies or disqualifies him from writing history I don’t understand.

The White Mughals won the Wolfson prize – an accolade that recognizes history writing of the highest order. He is in the company again, of stalwarts like Simon Schama, and Roy Porter (whose seminal work on the history of medicine, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, ought to be a lesson to all those who insist on “qualifications” as a pre requisite to write engaging, accessible, entertaining history)

Dalrymple is a Hindu basher!!!!-Nothing can be more absurd. This- about an author whose endearing presentation of a pilgrimage to Gaumukh via the Khumbh in Hardwar has not only had several repeat broadcasts, but also won the BAFTA award for best documentary series a few years ago – If anything he is critical and very concerned (and in my opinion rightly so) of the antics of the lunatic fringe of the Hindu right, just as Guha is. More importantly, to set the minds of Hindutva zealots at rest, he has persistently criticized not only Islamaphobia but has been equally eloquent about the dangers and intolerance of creeping bigoted Wahabbism. He has also been consistently critical of the proselytizing antics of evangelical chauvinists, while striving to point out the strengths and traditions of Eastern Christianity (and highlight its ignorance by Euroncentric writers) from Syria to Kerala. And so, if he chooses to consistently draw our attention to the beauty of the syncretic past in humankinds history – more fist to his elbow!!

And Finally, apart from his prodigious output, which is testimony to both his literary craft and academic rigour, one can argue that Dalrymple is more visible in bookshops across India, perhaps the globe, than Guha, Ghosh or Khilnani – which does not take anything away from the brilliance of any of them. I wholly disagree with Dalrymple’s view on Khilnani for instance. But Guha, who has been campaigning, even in the pages of your magazine, for history writing in India – and on India, to become more entertaining and accessible – (and he is an exemplary practitioner of this difficult art) ought to be recognizing Dalrymple for his contribution to the cause instead of rushing to print about one observation in an otherwise substantial review.

The tragedy of all this is, that, in the end, it is Guha who emerges, seemingly bitter and jealous – which I am certain he is not, (recall the brouhaha over his criticisms of Arundhati Roy, some while ago) In that piece he advised her to go back to writing fiction!!!! He ought to restrain himself and keep his criticism to what people write about – rather than who they are and where they come from – exactly what he advises Dalrymple to do. These comments belittle the stature of a man who is, arguably one of the best Indians who write non-fiction and quite certainly the writer with the widest oeuvre! As a reader, I am convinced that Guha as literary critic cannot hold a torch to Guha the biographer, the ecological historian or the Cricket writer.

And finally, it must be remembered that no one participating in this brouhaha has questioned Dalrymple’s interest or fascination for India. Because they can’t – and that is a qualification that can neither be bestowed nor taken away by Doon, Stephens, Allahabad or Cambridge. Not even the boondocks of Bihar!

I do not know for certain if Guha is "sour and embittered", but the evidence so far tilts strongly in that direction. I would have thought that after his misguided, unwarranted and baseless tirade against Arundhati Roy was shred to pieces by academics, activists of the NBA and her own brilliant, devastating rejoinder in an interview with N.Ram in Frontline (Scmitars in the Sun), Guha would have been more careful and constructive in his criticism of Dalrymple. Irrational, personal attacks undermine the possibility of meaningful debate, but that does not seem to interest Guha.

I fail to understand Guha's gripe about Dalrymple's "Mofussil-elite" thesis. What is wrong with pointing out that most Indian writers in English come from a fairly homogenous privileged social background? Of course, the relationship between a writer's background and his craft is not a straightforward one, but neither is it irrelevant as Guha would have us believe. Being a biographer himself, he should be the first one to acknowledge that, unless he now believes in the writer as being completely socially autonomous. Therefore, it is indeed a healthy development that people, whose experience departs from the narrow mutually-referential world of English writing, are finding a voice in the emerging English (or any other)literature.

More disingenuous are Guha's mean-spirited and petulant remarks about the supposed liabilities of Dalrymple being a foreigner. Not satisfied by Dalrymple's correction about his awareness of Ambedkar, Guha now raises the bar (of political correctness?) higher. So, "foreigners", before they study what interests them in India, have now to undertake "Ambedkar Studies" to establish their bona fides? What next? Go to Ambedkar samadhi and pay homage before being accepted by his eminence, Guha?

Also, it is paradoxical that Guha continues to hammer away at Dalrymple as a "foreigner", implying that the distance that seperates him from Indians is somehow greater than that which seperates one Indian from another. On the contrary, I would say that to some people in India (say, Garhwalis), Guha and Dalrymple may be equally "foreign". Even more importantly, isn't Guha playing the same game of authenticity, which he accused Dalrymple (and his Mofussil-elite thesis) of? What is foreigness, if not a matter of degree? Or has Guha, now, also become a super-patriot?

Dalrymple crying foul. Now thats funny !

After his hindu bashing and glorification of the Mohgul era that saw the genocide of Hindus. He "Irving" of Indian history.

How has Dalyrymple who has no historical credentials come to be given so much literary space on Indian history?

I completely agree with willaim when he refutes ram. I reckon ram despite being a brilliant historian is gone a little bonkers!

In 'The Djinns of Conceit', I think the main thing Ramachandra Guha took offence to was the fact that William Dalrymple had mentioned the "the St Stephen's mafia and the Doon School diaspora". Being from St Stephen's himself, Guha decided to launch a rather uncalled-for tirade against Dalrymple in revenge, I expect.
But that is not to say that my respect for either of the gentlemen in question has diminshed in any way.

It is difficult to respond to a rambling comment, but I'll try best as I can.

1. As far as pettiness is concerned, the irony of accusing Guha of it while conveniently ignoring Dalrymple's (which started it all) is the issue here.

2. Why is not "the media allows Dalrynple to set himself up as the arbiter of literary taste in India" a kosher opinion to have? Is one not allowed to opine that Dalrymple is undeserving of the importance he gets?

3. If there are a "sizeable" number of Indians who speak and write English, I do not see why they can't write for each other. Nevertheless, I don't grudge a writer's desire to make more money by hawking his ware in a larger market, but then instead of being forthright about the fact that he set himself up in a lucrative business, why put on airs of virtue, and why the hypocritical pretence that he's striking a blow for the cause of civil liberties in India? After all, the alleged problem of the alleged lack of civil liberties in India is to be addressed by Indians; surely, the readers of NYRB can't claim to do it for us on grounds of moral superiority or whatever?

With an Indian writing for Indians, you can at least be certain he is not afflicted with this yearning to impress the whites, whatever his other faults may be.

4. If I have given you cause to be amused, so have you to me, so we'are even, not indebted to each other. :) I am amused that you think that I'm touchy about my identity, when that is precisely what I felt about you! For you believe that we are "immature" as a nation -- NATION! -- because Guha raises that "old bogey" of Brit divide-and-rule! In whose eyes do we as a NATION need to look mature, exactly, and in whose reckoning do we want to be good, well-behaved boys and girls? And why do we fail to measure up to their exacting standards if we raise this "old bogey"!?

To answer the question, yes I have read the review in full.
I agree that perhaps William Dalrymple should not be making sweeping genralisations about Indians educated abroad (though I have to confess that I didn't quite agree with Khilnani's take on India). However, its an opinion in a review which said a lot else and I don't think it merits a disjointed response which ends with literally saying we don't want your opinions here ("Yet the media allows him to set himself up as the arbiter of literary taste in India").
The truth is that by a quirk of history there are a sizeable number of Indians who speak and write English as a first language. It is inevitable that they will end up writing for a readership that includes the West and when it comes to fiction IS often the West. Mr. Guha himself lectures on the US circuit for example and is not necessarily a writer who writes for Indians (if that is a virtue i.e.). I don't think there is anything wrong in this or Pankaj Mishra frothing in the NYRB (I mean Amnesty International reports torture around the world - is it less relevant because its not read by the masses or the perperators of torture?). You go where your work is heard and read - and it is pretty much a reflection of how deeply touchy we are about the Western world and our identity in it or exclusive of it that we dub writers abroad as lusting after white approval (amused by that word!), write columns questioning how on earth a Brit could ever hope to comment on anything Indian without getting it all wrong and castigate foreign born Indian authors as knowing nothing about India (Mr. Dalrymple is guilty here! - though he does perhaps spend more time in the country than a lot of NRIs). I grew up in mofussil India, know one Indian language as well as I know English, lived in Mumbai till a short while back and yet I can't say that if I spent a month in Jhumrutalaiya I would know everything there is to it. So I get completely bored of people who suggest that they and they alone can comment on the "real" India, if it exists at all. Mr. Guha starts by pointing this out and then goes on to undermine all he has said by dragging in several authors and trashing Mr. Dalrymple's writings about the country based on some errors (which must be a very literary establishment thing because I recall Mr. Guha's work suffering a similar fate).
Sorry about this long response. I wrote this only because I otherwise admire a lot of Mr. Guha's writings and usually find his comments thoughtful.

Has Ms Moulee read Dalrymple's review of Mishra's book? Has she come across this line:

In contrast to the optimistic platitudes of a diaspora writer like, say, Sunil Khilnani—educated abroad and clearly knowing nothing of the grim reality of the boondocks of Bihar—Mishra does not lecture the world about South Asia from the sanitised safety of an East Coast campus.

and wondered what has that snide attack on Khilnani got to do with a review of Mishra's book? Did she think it was petty of Dalrymple to engage in dirty tricks like that?

I have no love lost for Mr Guha, but I'll say at least this much in his defence: eventhough, like the others he mentions, he writes in English, he writes for an Indian audience. The Pankaj Mishra types appeal to the Dalrymples because they are lusting after Western, White approval. Commenting on the incongruousness of an Indian frothing at the mouth about alleged lack of civil liberties in India in the pages of New York Review of Books, one (Western) reviewer, whose name I forget, sarcastically remarked, "but nobody reads the NYRB in India!"

Mr. Guha is being too petty in using Outlook to hone in on a few lines in a review largely devoted to Mishra's book. Surely Mr. Dalrymple is entitled to his opinions and surely he can express that opinion in Outlook as much as Mr. Guha can. As for the "East Coast types", a lot of Indians may well question why it is only the English speaking Indian elite on the East Coast/in Britain/in India who manage to get published and publicised. And really we need to mature as a nation, we can't be raising that old bogey of divide-and-rule in Mr. Dalrymple's review of a book written by an Indian author writing in - let's face it - the coloniser's language - and more likely to be read and discussed on the East Coast than by mofussil India.

Lastly, at least Mr. Dalrymple's interest and enthusiasm for all matters Indian cannot be questioned. See for example his article on Lutyens' bungalows in Delhi on the Guardian site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st ory/0,11710,1350138,00.html

Disappointed, Mr. Guha. You can do better.

Who is this Dalrymple? His name sounds quite gay.

Who is this Dalrymple? His name sounds quite gay.

Mr. Guha is being too petty in using Outlook to hone in on a few lines in a review largely devoted to Mishra's book. Surely Mr. Dalrymple is entitled to his opinions and surely he can express that opinion in Outlook as much as Mr. Guha can. As for the "East Coast types", a lot of Indians may well question why it is only the English speaking Indian elite on the East Coast/in Britain/in India who manage to get published and publicised. And really we need to mature as a nation, we can't be raising that old bogey of divide-and-rule in Mr. Dalrymple's review of a book written by an Indian author writing in - let's face it - the coloniser's language - and more likely to be read and discussed on the East Coast than by mofussil India.

Lastly, at least Mr. Dalrymple's interest and enthusiasm for all matters Indian cannot be questioned. See for example his article on Lutyens' bungalows in Delhi on the Guardian site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st ory/0,11710,1350138,00.html

Disappointed, Mr. Guha. You can do better.

Has Ms Moulee read Dalrymple's review of Mishra's book? Has she come across this line:

In contrast to the optimistic platitudes of a diaspora writer like, say, Sunil Khilnani—educated abroad and clearly knowing nothing of the grim reality of the boondocks of Bihar—Mishra does not lecture the world about South Asia from the sanitised safety of an East Coast campus.

and wondered what has that snide attack on Khilnani got to do with a review of Mishra's book? Did she think it was petty of Dalrymple to engage in dirty tricks like that?

I have no love lost for Mr Guha, but I'll say at least this much in his defence: eventhough, like the others he mentions, he writes in English, he writes for an Indian audience. The Pankaj Mishra types appeal to the Dalrymples because they are lusting after Western, White approval. Commenting on the incongruousness of an Indian frothing at the mouth about alleged lack of civil liberties in India in the pages of New York Review of Books, one (Western) reviewer, whose name I forget, sarcastically remarked, "but nobody reads the NYRB in India!"

To answer the question, yes I have read the review in full.
I agree that perhaps William Dalrymple should not be making sweeping genralisations about Indians educated abroad (though I have to confess that I didn't quite agree with Khilnani's take on India). However, its an opinion in a review which said a lot else and I don't think it merits a disjointed response which ends with literally saying we don't want your opinions here ("Yet the media allows him to set himself up as the arbiter of literary taste in India").
The truth is that by a quirk of history there are a sizeable number of Indians who speak and write English as a first language. It is inevitable that they will end up writing for a readership that includes the West and when it comes to fiction IS often the West. Mr. Guha himself lectures on the US circuit for example and is not necessarily a writer who writes for Indians (if that is a virtue i.e.). I don't think there is anything wrong in this or Pankaj Mishra frothing in the NYRB (I mean Amnesty International reports torture around the world - is it less relevant because its not read by the masses or the perperators of torture?). You go where your work is heard and read - and it is pretty much a reflection of how deeply touchy we are about the Western world and our identity in it or exclusive of it that we dub writers abroad as lusting after white approval (amused by that word!), write columns questioning how on earth a Brit could ever hope to comment on anything Indian without getting it all wrong and castigate foreign born Indian authors as knowing nothing about India (Mr. Dalrymple is guilty here! - though he does perhaps spend more time in the country than a lot of NRIs). I grew up in mofussil India, know one Indian language as well as I know English, lived in Mumbai till a short while back and yet I can't say that if I spent a month in Jhumrutalaiya I would know everything there is to it. So I get completely bored of people who suggest that they and they alone can comment on the "real" India, if it exists at all. Mr. Guha starts by pointing this out and then goes on to undermine all he has said by dragging in several authors and trashing Mr. Dalrymple's writings about the country based on some errors (which must be a very literary establishment thing because I recall Mr. Guha's work suffering a similar fate).
Sorry about this long response. I wrote this only because I otherwise admire a lot of Mr. Guha's writings and usually find his comments thoughtful.

It is difficult to respond to a rambling comment, but I'll try best as I can.

1. As far as pettiness is concerned, the irony of accusing Guha of it while conveniently ignoring Dalrymple's (which started it all) is the issue here.

2. Why is not "the media allows Dalrynple to set himself up as the arbiter of literary taste in India" a kosher opinion to have? Is one not allowed to opine that Dalrymple is undeserving of the importance he gets?

3. If there are a "sizeable" number of Indians who speak and write English, I do not see why they can't write for each other. Nevertheless, I don't grudge a writer's desire to make more money by hawking his ware in a larger market, but then instead of being forthright about the fact that he set himself up in a lucrative business, why put on airs of virtue, and why the hypocritical pretence that he's striking a blow for the cause of civil liberties in India? After all, the alleged problem of the alleged lack of civil liberties in India is to be addressed by Indians; surely, the readers of NYRB can't claim to do it for us on grounds of moral superiority or whatever?

With an Indian writing for Indians, you can at least be certain he is not afflicted with this yearning to impress the whites, whatever his other faults may be.

4. If I have given you cause to be amused, so have you to me, so we'are even, not indebted to each other. :) I am amused that you think that I'm touchy about my identity, when that is precisely what I felt about you! For you believe that we are "immature" as a nation -- NATION! -- because Guha raises that "old bogey" of Brit divide-and-rule! In whose eyes do we as a NATION need to look mature, exactly, and in whose reckoning do we want to be good, well-behaved boys and girls? And why do we fail to measure up to their exacting standards if we raise this "old bogey"!?

In 'The Djinns of Conceit', I think the main thing Ramachandra Guha took offence to was the fact that William Dalrymple had mentioned the "the St Stephen's mafia and the Doon School diaspora". Being from St Stephen's himself, Guha decided to launch a rather uncalled-for tirade against Dalrymple in revenge, I expect.
But that is not to say that my respect for either of the gentlemen in question has diminshed in any way.

I completely agree with willaim when he refutes ram. I reckon ram despite being a brilliant historian is gone a little bonkers!

Dalrymple crying foul. Now thats funny !

After his hindu bashing and glorification of the Mohgul era that saw the genocide of Hindus. He "Irving" of Indian history.

How has Dalyrymple who has no historical credentials come to be given so much literary space on Indian history?

I fail to understand Guha's gripe about Dalrymple's "Mofussil-elite" thesis. What is wrong with pointing out that most Indian writers in English come from a fairly homogenous privileged social background? Of course, the relationship between a writer's background and his craft is not a straightforward one, but neither is it irrelevant as Guha would have us believe. Being a biographer himself, he should be the first one to acknowledge that, unless he now believes in the writer as being completely socially autonomous. Therefore, it is indeed a healthy development that people, whose experience departs from the narrow mutually-referential world of English writing, are finding a voice in the emerging English (or any other)literature.

More disingenuous are Guha's mean-spirited and petulant remarks about the supposed liabilities of Dalrymple being a foreigner. Not satisfied by Dalrymple's correction about his awareness of Ambedkar, Guha now raises the bar (of political correctness?) higher. So, "foreigners", before they study what interests them in India, have now to undertake "Ambedkar Studies" to establish their bona fides? What next? Go to Ambedkar samadhi and pay homage before being accepted by his eminence, Guha?

Also, it is paradoxical that Guha continues to hammer away at Dalrymple as a "foreigner", implying that the distance that seperates him from Indians is somehow greater than that which seperates one Indian from another. On the contrary, I would say that to some people in India (say, Garhwalis), Guha and Dalrymple may be equally "foreign". Even more importantly, isn't Guha playing the same game of authenticity, which he accused Dalrymple (and his Mofussil-elite thesis) of? What is foreigness, if not a matter of degree? Or has Guha, now, also become a super-patriot?

I do not know for certain if Guha is "sour and embittered", but the evidence so far tilts strongly in that direction. I would have thought that after his misguided, unwarranted and baseless tirade against Arundhati Roy was shred to pieces by academics, activists of the NBA and her own brilliant, devastating rejoinder in an interview with N.Ram in Frontline (Scmitars in the Sun), Guha would have been more careful and constructive in his criticism of Dalrymple. Irrational, personal attacks undermine the possibility of meaningful debate, but that does not seem to interest Guha.

The Guha-Dalrymple fracas seems to be moving in a direction propelled by factors that have not been raised by both writers, and way beyond the latter’s review of Mishra’s book which started it all. I am a fan of both writers.

Dalrymple and his work have been amply defended by Pavan Varma and Navina Hayak – and to set the record straight, here are a few extra:

Dalrymple has no qualifications as a historian – what is this???? If it is of any help, he studied history at Cambridge under stalwarts like Bayley and Seal, though why having done so or not, qualifies or disqualifies him from writing history I don’t understand.

The White Mughals won the Wolfson prize – an accolade that recognizes history writing of the highest order. He is in the company again, of stalwarts like Simon Schama, and Roy Porter (whose seminal work on the history of medicine, The Greatest Benefit to Mankind, ought to be a lesson to all those who insist on “qualifications” as a pre requisite to write engaging, accessible, entertaining history)

Dalrymple is a Hindu basher!!!!-Nothing can be more absurd. This- about an author whose endearing presentation of a pilgrimage to Gaumukh via the Khumbh in Hardwar has not only had several repeat broadcasts, but also won the BAFTA award for best documentary series a few years ago – If anything he is critical and very concerned (and in my opinion rightly so) of the antics of the lunatic fringe of the Hindu right, just as Guha is. More importantly, to set the minds of Hindutva zealots at rest, he has persistently criticized not only Islamaphobia but has been equally eloquent about the dangers and intolerance of creeping bigoted Wahabbism. He has also been consistently critical of the proselytizing antics of evangelical chauvinists, while striving to point out the strengths and traditions of Eastern Christianity (and highlight its ignorance by Euroncentric writers) from Syria to Kerala. And so, if he chooses to consistently draw our attention to the beauty of the syncretic past in humankinds history – more fist to his elbow!!

And Finally, apart from his prodigious output, which is testimony to both his literary craft and academic rigour, one can argue that Dalrymple is more visible in bookshops across India, perhaps the globe, than Guha, Ghosh or Khilnani – which does not take anything away from the brilliance of any of them. I wholly disagree with Dalrymple’s view on Khilnani for instance. But Guha, who has been campaigning, even in the pages of your magazine, for history writing in India – and on India, to become more entertaining and accessible – (and he is an exemplary practitioner of this difficult art) ought to be recognizing Dalrymple for his contribution to the cause instead of rushing to print about one observation in an otherwise substantial review.

The tragedy of all this is, that, in the end, it is Guha who emerges, seemingly bitter and jealous – which I am certain he is not, (recall the brouhaha over his criticisms of Arundhati Roy, some while ago) In that piece he advised her to go back to writing fiction!!!! He ought to restrain himself and keep his criticism to what people write about – rather than who they are and where they come from – exactly what he advises Dalrymple to do. These comments belittle the stature of a man who is, arguably one of the best Indians who write non-fiction and quite certainly the writer with the widest oeuvre! As a reader, I am convinced that Guha as literary critic cannot hold a torch to Guha the biographer, the ecological historian or the Cricket writer.

And finally, it must be remembered that no one participating in this brouhaha has questioned Dalrymple’s interest or fascination for India. Because they can’t – and that is a qualification that can neither be bestowed nor taken away by Doon, Stephens, Allahabad or Cambridge. Not even the boondocks of Bihar!

It is disappointing to read these exchanges. As someone very interested in reading history and historical narrative that is shorn of academic jargon, I would've thought that both Dalrymple and Guha were on the same side ! And even more disappointing is how these exchanges can lead to anti-Hindu accusations - simply because Dalrymple's last book is White Moghuls and has won acclaim ? Having worked on the BBC series Indian Journeys which included the pilgrimage to Gaumukh and not just medieval - "muslim" as some readers would put it - Delhi, I can without hesitation say that Dalrymple is hardly anti-Hindu. Anti-RSS/VHP and the like - yes. But surely, that's not the only form of being Hindu ! Or have we completely forgotten that ?

Lets pay our last homage to religion of
the world than to discuss them.
Though religion was made to serve
humanity and with good purpose. But the
methods to achieve that are really
outdated and not workable. It didnt
worked for even great Sankracharya.
There is no use fighting and redefining
it again and again.
It is time to create a whole new world
culture which is based on the present
not on the present.
Recalling Dr. APJ abdul Kalam - "future
generations will be remebering us ,
not on account of how many temples or
mosques we have built for them but what
we have done for the development of the
country"

The ability to cultivate Self Mastery and the power to guide; to acquire Wisdom, Insight and Understanding; to access Enlightenment and Illumination and to practice Respect, Radiance and Compassion and thereby govern the expression of spiritual power - and not the mere accession to an institutional of leadership - is the hallmark of a seer. Jayendra Saraswati may have aspired to such a life dedicated to Spiritual Development and service to humanity. If the charges against him are true - and he knows very well the extent of their truth or otherwise - then he has greatly fallen short of his goals. If he wishes to press on towards them nevertheless, then he must articulate the truth, relinquish the institutional positions which he has shown himself currently unable to handle and spend time regaining the spiritual skills that he has lost or never really attained. May he learn from the profound humiliation of his failure may he in time find Serenity, Satisfaction and Success.

Battering Ram
I don’t know for sure if Ram Guha is "sour and embittered" as William Dalrymple points out (Letters, Nov 29), but the evidence so far tilts strongly in that direction. I’d have thought that after his misguided, unwarranted and baseless tirade against Arundhati Roy was shred to bits by academics, nba activists and her own brilliant, devastating rejoinder in an interview with N. Ram, Guha would’ve been more careful and constructive in his criticism of Dalrymple.
Hari Chathrattil, Syracuse, US

Who’s Afraid Of Bill Dalrymple?
Ah, the lengths to which writers go to defend their turf! Ram Guha’s latest display of dyspeptic distemper, aimed ad hominem at evil outsider William Dalrymple, has absolutely nothing to say about its ostensible target: the review of Pankaj Mishra’s book. Instead, he pounces on a single para therein in a blustery, hysterical attack on Dalrymple’s alleged "elite-mofussil thesis". In alluding to "the St Stephen’s mafia-Doon School diaspora", Dalrymple is simply stating the obvious: that Indian English writers tend to be translators of Indian sensibility to a global audience while their elite backgrounds often see them perched far above the day-to-day concerns of the masses; and that Mishra is a refreshing exception. Guha’s response is disingenuous and smacks of defensive narcissism. He bends over backward to prove the review’s sole aim was to say that legatees of elite institutions "must bow before writers born in the mofussil". This is decidedly not the case. (Surely, Dalrymple won’t say only mofussil-born writers can claim intellectual authenticity. How could he: he’s bloody Scottish, for god’s sake!) Guha scolds him with the vapid truism that "it’s how a writer tackles his subject that is important, not where he studied or lives". But 90 per cent of the review is devoted precisely to that aim. Why pillory him for a little (and not irrelevant) biographical detail furnished along the way? Armed with sarcasm, nativist chauvinism and not a little professional jealousy, Guha takes recourse to invective, innuendo and an evocation of "divide and rule"! Who is he to lecture us?—this is Guha’s thesis. (Should Guha then stop writing holier-than-thou commentary on America?) That Dalrymple, as a white man, is not free/qualified to arbitrate on us; that anything the Scotsman says is tainted by the colonial legacy, and as such is not to be trusted. Now, a British writer like Dalrymple can be held to higher standards of scholarly evidence and cultural sensitivity. Dalrymple surely understands this, and can take criticism, so long as it is proffered in intellectual good faith. Whatever his faults as a travel writer/historian, Guha’s brand of vindictive politics of the personal does nothing to illuminate them. It’s a mean-spirited hatchet job that merely betrays the worst sort of insecurity.
Rajeev K. Kinra, University of Chicago

Moghul Cornered In A Foreign Field
William Dalrymple’s letter (I Stand, Misread, Nov 29) claims I am "sour and embittered", this in response to a piece where I’d lavishly praised as many as five writers—Ghosh, Karanth, Khilnani, Mahasweta and Seth. Having got the abuse out of the way, however, he concedes that his elite/mofussil theory of literary merit lies in tatters, now writing that "someone’s background should (not) disqualify them from writing about a particular subject". But he remains delightfully vague about his contributions to Ambedkar studies. And I was amused by his artless attempts at enlisting audience sympathy by cliched appeals to the greatness of India (this "wonderful, complex, and endlessly fascinating country") and to the hospitality of its peoples (as manifest in their "tolerance, warmth and generosity"). Dalrymple calls me "slightly demented", which I suppose I am, for abandoning those ancient Indian virtues in favour of a modern British trait—frankness.
Ramachandra Guha, Bangalore

Being myself a product of St Stephen’s, I cannot fully agree with William Dalrymple. Yet I do concede that sometimes such institutions do foster an elitism not entirely in touch with India’s grassroot realities. Guha, of course, is right to say that being a product of such institutions, and of the elite echelons in India, has not been a bar to sensitivities which transcend this background, but I disagree with him when he seeks to buttress his argument by rubbishing William’s credentials as a researcher and scholar. I think William expends an enormous degree of time and effort to research the books he writes. Having myself written several books on Delhi, I consider City of Djinns a very readable and authentic rendering of the many facets of this historic city. There may be some factual errors in it, but these do not, in my view, detract from its depth and scope, and its outstanding prose. William’s next book White Moghuls is another exceptional example of scholarship and readability, and the fact that it won the Wolfson Prize, Britain’s top academic history prize, bears testimony to this. Currently researching a book on Bahadur Shah Zafar, he is undertaking prodigious research, both here and in Delhi, including new material hitherto not seriously looked at by our own professional historians. William is a foreigner who has fallen in love with India, and while he is conscious of his status as an ‘outsider’, it is wrong to superficially dismiss him merely on account of that.
Pavan K. Varma, London

Most discerning readers who’ve charted Dalrymple’s work on India will testify to two things: first, a growing maturity and depth of understanding of his subject accompanied by a refinement of his writing style; and second, a deepening affection for and commitment to India itself, as reflected in his recent relocation to New Delhi. Dalrymple’s most recent book White Moghuls has been commended in the literary and academic world for its intelligent probing of an early phase of Indo-British relations, most of it based on original research. As someone involved in cultural affairs in the US, I can tell you that his work is held in high esteem here, admired for its sensitive blending of history, places, people and art. As for the mistakes cited in Dalrymple’s work and the facts he supposedly doesn’t know, they abound in almost all writers’ works and I am certain his overall knowledge of Indian history rivals that of most of his critics.
Dr Navina Haykel, assistant curator, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Guha is making a mountain out of a molehill. If George Orwell could write so well about the British working class, it is precisely because he went to Eton, where education is all round and about making "men out of boys". If Amitav Ghosh and Vikram Seth’s generation has done well out of Doon School, it is because of that. However, there would always be exceptional boys and men in any educational institution who would shine in any situation. Pankaj Mishra is one such example. Dalrymple summed up the quality of his writing rather subtly but brilliantly in the review of his book: it could develop and prosper even "in the decaying anarchy of Allahabad University". Maybe he wasn’t right to use the word "mafia" for his fellow writers, but here I suppose professional jealousy got the better of him. But then even Guha’s piece betrays this malady. A long time ago, I read Somerset Maugham’s critique of Henry James, and he found fault with every aspect of the American writer’s quality of writing. It was, however, done with such sophistication and civility that one could not help but admire Maugham’s essay. Guha’s piece, however, appeared more personal.
Surjit Kohli, Gurgaon

While the Guha-Dalrymple exchange is entertaining reading, I think the notion of a strictly class-riven society is misplaced. The caste system has sometimes allowed for social groups to move up and down and to divide and coalesce so that status is not always a permanent or impermeable category. This is so much more true in the Indian context of the "class" system Dalrymple alludes to—the boondocks of Bihar aren’t that far from the boondocks of Dehra Dun. Never mind that someone like Pankaj Mishra, who has been to university and writes in English, is hardly a son of the soil. More pertinent is that the huge difference Dalrymple sees between St Stephen’s and Allahabad University isn’t as great as he imagines. Just as Mishra could well have a cousin in the ‘metropolitan’ world, one of the "St Stephen’s mafia" is more than likely to have a cousin in the "mofussil".
Supriya Guha, Basel, Switzerland

I have no love lost of Mr Guha, but I’ll say at least this much for him: he may write in English, but it is for an Indian audience. The Pankaj Mishra types appeal to the Dalrymples because they are lusting after Western, White approval. Commenting on the incongruousness of an Indian frothing at the mouth about the alleged lack of civil liberties in India in the pages of New York Review of Books, one (Western) reviewer, whose name I forget, sarcastically remarked, "but nobody reads the nyrb in India!"
Raghu Reddy, Bangalore

I Stand, Misread
I usually rather enjoy Ramachandra Guha’s slightly demented diatribes against his fellow writers, but since it is now my turn to be the target of his ire, I feel that I should at least point out that he misquotes and misrepresents me no less than four times in as many paragraphs.

Firstly, I never argued, as he asserts in his piece, The Djinn of Conceit (Nov 22), that Pankaj Mishra is a fine writer because he comes from a humble background. What I argued was that his background made him something of an outsider in the world of Indian writing in English, which is still dominated by authors from elite backgrounds, and that it gives his writings about mofussil India a real authority derived from personal experience. Anyone who doubts this should have a look at his sublime essay, ‘Reading Edmund Wilson in Benares’ on the New York Review of Books website (www. nybooks.com) which demonstrates all the qualities of subtlety and profundity so lacking in the sour and embittered polemics of someone like Ram Guha.

Secondly, Ram claims that in a private conversation I once expressed ignorance of Dr Ambedkar. In fact, I have written about Ambedkar and his Dalit Buddhists intermittently since the late 1980s, so could hardly have responded in the way he claims I did, even if this invented conversation had actually taken place.

Thirdly, Ram asserts that I claimed that Ahmed Ali desperately wished to return to Delhi after Partition but was continually prevented from doing so by Indian law. A quick glance at the City of Djinns (p65) will show that this is a total inversion of what I actually wrote. There I quote Ali as saying that having been prevented from returning to India from his posting in China in 1947, he thereafter refused to set foot on Delhi soil, on one memorable occasion refusing to vacate an airplane that had been diverted there, arguing "How could I revisit that which was once mine and which was no longer mine?" When the staff of the airplane begged him to be reasonable, he remained in his seat and quoted Mir Taqi Mir at them:
What matters it, O breeze,
If now has come the spring
When I have lost them both
The garden and my nest?"

Finally, I do not believe that someone’s background should disqualify them from writing about a particular subject—how could I, as a Scottish-born writer obsessed by India?—and have always been enormously grateful for the tolerance, warmth and generosity with which Indian readers and critics have responded to my successive books about their wonderful, complex and endlessly fascinating country.
William Dalrymple, New Delhi

I Stand, Misread
I usually rather enjoy Ramachandra Guha’s slightly demented diatribes against his fellow writers, but since it is now my turn to be the target of his ire, I feel that I should at least point out that he misquotes and misrepresents me no less than four times in as many paragraphs.

Firstly, I never argued, as he asserts in his piece, The Djinn of Conceit (Nov 22), that Pankaj Mishra is a fine writer because he comes from a humble background. What I argued was that his background made him something of an outsider in the world of Indian writing in English, which is still dominated by authors from elite backgrounds, and that it gives his writings about mofussil India a real authority derived from personal experience. Anyone who doubts this should have a look at his sublime essay, ‘Reading Edmund Wilson in Benares’ on the New York Review of Books website (www. nybooks.com) which demonstrates all the qualities of subtlety and profundity so lacking in the sour and embittered polemics of someone like Ram Guha.

Secondly, Ram claims that in a private conversation I once expressed ignorance of Dr Ambedkar. In fact, I have written about Ambedkar and his Dalit Buddhists intermittently since the late 1980s, so could hardly have responded in the way he claims I did, even if this invented conversation had actually taken place.

Thirdly, Ram asserts that I claimed that Ahmed Ali desperately wished to return to Delhi after Partition but was continually prevented from doing so by Indian law. A quick glance at the City of Djinns (p65) will show that this is a total inversion of what I actually wrote. There I quote Ali as saying that having been prevented from returning to India from his posting in China in 1947, he thereafter refused to set foot on Delhi soil, on one memorable occasion refusing to vacate an airplane that had been diverted there, arguing "How could I revisit that which was once mine and which was no longer mine?" When the staff of the airplane begged him to be reasonable, he remained in his seat and quoted Mir Taqi Mir at them:
What matters it, O breeze,
If now has come the spring
When I have lost them both
The garden and my nest?"

Finally, I do not believe that someone’s background should disqualify them from writing about a particular subject—how could I, as a Scottish-born writer obsessed by India?—and have always been enormously grateful for the tolerance, warmth and generosity with which Indian readers and critics have responded to my successive books about their wonderful, complex and endlessly fascinating country.
William Dalrymple, New Delhi

Moghul Cornered In A Foreign Field
William Dalrymple’s letter (I Stand, Misread, Nov 29) claims I am "sour and embittered", this in response to a piece where I’d lavishly praised as many as five writers—Ghosh, Karanth, Khilnani, Mahasweta and Seth. Having got the abuse out of the way, however, he concedes that his elite/mofussil theory of literary merit lies in tatters, now writing that "someone’s background should (not) disqualify them from writing about a particular subject". But he remains delightfully vague about his contributions to Ambedkar studies. And I was amused by his artless attempts at enlisting audience sympathy by cliched appeals to the greatness of India (this "wonderful, complex, and endlessly fascinating country") and to the hospitality of its peoples (as manifest in their "tolerance, warmth and generosity"). Dalrymple calls me "slightly demented", which I suppose I am, for abandoning those ancient Indian virtues in favour of a modern British trait—frankness.
Ramachandra Guha, Bangalore

Being myself a product of St Stephen’s, I cannot fully agree with William Dalrymple. Yet I do concede that sometimes such institutions do foster an elitism not entirely in touch with India’s grassroot realities. Guha, of course, is right to say that being a product of such institutions, and of the elite echelons in India, has not been a bar to sensitivities which transcend this background, but I disagree with him when he seeks to buttress his argument by rubbishing William’s credentials as a researcher and scholar. I think William expends an enormous degree of time and effort to research the books he writes. Having myself written several books on Delhi, I consider City of Djinns a very readable and authentic rendering of the many facets of this historic city. There may be some factual errors in it, but these do not, in my view, detract from its depth and scope, and its outstanding prose. William’s next book White Moghuls is another exceptional example of scholarship and readability, and the fact that it won the Wolfson Prize, Britain’s top academic history prize, bears testimony to this. Currently researching a book on Bahadur Shah Zafar, he is undertaking prodigious research, both here and in Delhi, including new material hitherto not seriously looked at by our own professional historians. William is a foreigner who has fallen in love with India, and while he is conscious of his status as an ‘outsider’, it is wrong to superficially dismiss him merely on account of that.
Pavan K. Varma, London

Most discerning readers who’ve charted Dalrymple’s work on India will testify to two things: first, a growing maturity and depth of understanding of his subject accompanied by a refinement of his writing style; and second, a deepening affection for and commitment to India itself, as reflected in his recent relocation to New Delhi. Dalrymple’s most recent book White Moghuls has been commended in the literary and academic world for its intelligent probing of an early phase of Indo-British relations, most of it based on original research. As someone involved in cultural affairs in the US, I can tell you that his work is held in high esteem here, admired for its sensitive blending of history, places, people and art. As for the mistakes cited in Dalrymple’s work and the facts he supposedly doesn’t know, they abound in almost all writers’ works and I am certain his overall knowledge of Indian history rivals that of most of his critics.
Dr Navina Haykel, assistant curator, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Guha is making a mountain out of a molehill. If George Orwell could write so well about the British working class, it is precisely because he went to Eton, where education is all round and about making "men out of boys". If Amitav Ghosh and Vikram Seth’s generation has done well out of Doon School, it is because of that. However, there would always be exceptional boys and men in any educational institution who would shine in any situation. Pankaj Mishra is one such example. Dalrymple summed up the quality of his writing rather subtly but brilliantly in the review of his book: it could develop and prosper even "in the decaying anarchy of Allahabad University". Maybe he wasn’t right to use the word "mafia" for his fellow writers, but here I suppose professional jealousy got the better of him. But then even Guha’s piece betrays this malady. A long time ago, I read Somerset Maugham’s critique of Henry James, and he found fault with every aspect of the American writer’s quality of writing. It was, however, done with such sophistication and civility that one could not help but admire Maugham’s essay. Guha’s piece, however, appeared more personal.
Surjit Kohli, Gurgaon

While the Guha-Dalrymple exchange is entertaining reading, I think the notion of a strictly class-riven society is misplaced. The caste system has sometimes allowed for social groups to move up and down and to divide and coalesce so that status is not always a permanent or impermeable category. This is so much more true in the Indian context of the "class" system Dalrymple alludes to—the boondocks of Bihar aren’t that far from the boondocks of Dehra Dun. Never mind that someone like Pankaj Mishra, who has been to university and writes in English, is hardly a son of the soil. More pertinent is that the huge difference Dalrymple sees between St Stephen’s and Allahabad University isn’t as great as he imagines. Just as Mishra could well have a cousin in the ‘metropolitan’ world, one of the "St Stephen’s mafia" is more than likely to have a cousin in the "mofussil".
Supriya Guha, Basel, Switzerland

I have no love lost of Mr Guha, but I’ll say at least this much for him: he may write in English, but it is for an Indian audience. The Pankaj Mishra types appeal to the Dalrymples because they are lusting after Western, White approval. Commenting on the incongruousness of an Indian frothing at the mouth about the alleged lack of civil liberties in India in the pages of New York Review of Books, one (Western) reviewer, whose name I forget, sarcastically remarked, "but nobody reads the nyrb in India!"
Raghu Reddy, Bangalore

Who’s Afraid Of Bill Dalrymple?
Ah, the lengths to which writers go to defend their turf! Ram Guha’s latest display of dyspeptic distemper, aimed ad hominem at evil outsider William Dalrymple, has absolutely nothing to say about its ostensible target: the review of Pankaj Mishra’s book. Instead, he pounces on a single para therein in a blustery, hysterical attack on Dalrymple’s alleged "elite-mofussil thesis". In alluding to "the St Stephen’s mafia-Doon School diaspora", Dalrymple is simply stating the obvious: that Indian English writers tend to be translators of Indian sensibility to a global audience while their elite backgrounds often see them perched far above the day-to-day concerns of the masses; and that Mishra is a refreshing exception. Guha’s response is disingenuous and smacks of defensive narcissism. He bends over backward to prove the review’s sole aim was to say that legatees of elite institutions "must bow before writers born in the mofussil". This is decidedly not the case. (Surely, Dalrymple won’t say only mofussil-born writers can claim intellectual authenticity. How could he: he’s bloody Scottish, for god’s sake!) Guha scolds him with the vapid truism that "it’s how a writer tackles his subject that is important, not where he studied or lives". But 90 per cent of the review is devoted precisely to that aim. Why pillory him for a little (and not irrelevant) biographical detail furnished along the way? Armed with sarcasm, nativist chauvinism and not a little professional jealousy, Guha takes recourse to invective, innuendo and an evocation of "divide and rule"! Who is he to lecture us?—this is Guha’s thesis. (Should Guha then stop writing holier-than-thou commentary on America?) That Dalrymple, as a white man, is not free/qualified to arbitrate on us; that anything the Scotsman says is tainted by the colonial legacy, and as such is not to be trusted. Now, a British writer like Dalrymple can be held to higher standards of scholarly evidence and cultural sensitivity. Dalrymple surely understands this, and can take criticism, so long as it is proffered in intellectual good faith. Whatever his faults as a travel writer/historian, Guha’s brand of vindictive politics of the personal does nothing to illuminate them. It’s a mean-spirited hatchet job that merely betrays the worst sort of insecurity.
Rajeev K. Kinra, University of Chicago

Battering Ram
I don’t know for sure if Ram Guha is "sour and embittered" as William Dalrymple points out (Letters, Nov 29), but the evidence so far tilts strongly in that direction. I’d have thought that after his misguided, unwarranted and baseless tirade against Arundhati Roy was shred to bits by academics, nba activists and her own brilliant, devastating rejoinder in an interview with N. Ram, Guha would’ve been more careful and constructive in his criticism of Dalrymple.
Hari Chathrattil, Syracuse, US