Doniger’s thesis can be demolished quite easily – but it means discussing “hinduism”, which I am not sure I should go into right now. One of the primary contradictions of such works can be seen immediately even in the short summary by Mishra. That very “hinduism” which is “heterogenous”, non-unified, is also somehow strangely “syncretic”, “accommodating” at the same time. Were the “bhakti” cults not part of “hinduism” then? were they themselves homogeneous? (they definitely were not by Abrahaic standards of the West – for they were numerously subdivided into “sects” ) If they themselves were not homogenous, how could they all converge to similar or same ideals of “syncretism” and “accommodation”?

Doniger has a project that supplements the political need in a section of historians to delegitimize existence of underlying concepts of “cultural nationalism” and “unity” in the Bharatyia philosophies, incluidng its lokayata. For example she mentions the acceptance of atheism or agnosticism as part of “Hindu” philosophical tradition but carefully fails to mention that the eraliest proponents of such theories like Kapil in his Sankhyo, actually base their arguments on interpretations of the Vedas. Both atheists, and theists derive support from the same tradition and the very Sanskritic Vedas. Doniger of course cannot afford to highlight this. Doniger’s thesis is a complete failure of perception natural to someone who remains an alien in her outlook to the Bharatyia, and irrational in that inimitable way that only so-called professional historians can usually match.

Doniger sees only Sanskrit as a language of the minority elite. She ignores the linguistic dynamic of the subcontinent, the processes by which Sanskrit (itself meaning “re-edited/purified/cleaned”) was formed, and how it went through or generated prakrit, magdhi, odero-magdhi etc – giving rise to a majority of languages spoken now in India. Doniger’s lack of experience shows in her linguistic claims. Actually, more words of Sanskritic root are used at non-elite level than the elite level. It is at the elite level that loan-words and expresssions from Persian or Arabic or English manifest more, for obvious reasons of gerater interaction with foreign regimes.

Will think of whether this should take up a more elaborate response. Thanks for the ref, Observer!

“In his article, Creation of Pakistan – Safeguarding British Strategic Interests, Narendra Singh Sarela, former Indian Ambassador to France wrote to suggest that recently unsealed British top secret documents indicated how Mohammed Ali Jinnah (leader of the Muslim League) articulated his demand for partition in 1940 only after getting the approval of Lord Zetland, then secretary of state for India. The British encouraged the partition proposal in order to safeguard their interests in a post-colonial world. Earlier in 1939, Jinnah had pledged the loyalty of Indian Muslim troops (who comprised over 40% of the British Army in India) and the British expected that this loyal fighting force would come in handy in controlling the oil-wealth of the Middle East, and provide the Western powers with a “reliable ally” that could serve as a foil to the former Soviet Union. (The commentary appeared in the Times of India, March 17, 2000)”

“Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html
Mar 23, 2005

“[Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain … It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan.
- Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command.

A little over half a century on, driven by the forces unleashed by the tragic events of September 11, 2001, imperial Britain’s Pakistan project is being reinvented. It is hard to imagine a more unlikely caliph than Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, but that is precisely what the United States seems determined to anoint him.

Pakistan, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Musharraf at their recent meeting in Islamabad, is “a model country for the Muslim world”. Among other things, she praised Pakistan’s president and chief of army staff, who came to power in a coup in 1999, for his “bold vision for South Asia and initiatives to promote peace and stability in the region”. “