Prof.Rambachan's arguments against RM stem from the basic misconception that only academic "scholars" can write 'scholarly' dissertations on religions. RM has tremendous scholarship, amply proven by his dissertations enclosed within the pages of his several books.

Neo-Hinduism is an ugly development in recent times, propounded and clandestinely promoted by the Christian church in the US and the Vatican, which no amount of denial by Rambachan can wish away.

Rambachan should not shy away from debate with RM or anybody, who wants to contest his neo-Hinduism concepts and if RM and/or his supporters are inviting rambachan for a debate or even a series of debates, why should he run away from it on the specious plea or spurious ground that RM is a non-academic and therefore can't be engaged in any scholarly debate? A debate can, in fact, unravel several ideas, accusations and theories about each other's sources of funding, the promoters behind them etc.

And, finally, let me say this loudly: There is absolutely no meaning in engaging in the so called inter-religious or inter-faith debates, if one of the parties in the debate is solidly standing on the foundational belief and faith that it alone is true, its God alone is the true God and its God is the ONLY GOD and all other Gods of all other faiths are false,?

B.V.SHENOY.

I want to ask one very simple direct question to this gentleman. Is he prepared to in no uncertain language denounce the hateful attempts by the Evangelists to convert Hindus all over India by using their superior money power and using most hateful methodology in their endeavour, which includes using filthiest languages coupled with concocted stories to describe various sacred Hindu dities to show them in very low light?

Dear Rambachan Saheb - Basically you try desperately to pass of as a Hindu scholar because of your Hindu name. Let us grant you that. So can you say the following clearly?

1.) Are you a Neo Hindu or a Hindu? Please elaborate.

2.) Would accept the that modern Hinduism was and is a continuum and not a fractured set of distortions as set out by various westerners?

3.) Would you write a critique of these westerners who have distorted perhaps deliberately this thesis? Or do you value your career? I know this is loaded, but so is your theory which denigrates my Dharma.

Keeping aside the invective: Would you have the intestinal fortitude to fight these westerners who have indulged in this slander? Believe me it will be a game changer for you too.

4.) Finally "chief villain" (your term, not mine): Why do you not debate this with Rajiv Malhotra Saheb who can nuance this with you? Is it because of the fake smugness that you know it all or the genuine fear that you will loose?

So Rambachan, please I exhort you to answer these questions along with these questions that you have posed after the Durga temple fiasco:

Rambachan: Q1 Respect for the religious other should be not 
conditional upon the transformation of the other into our religious 
likeness.

Rambachan: Q2 Mutual respect does not preclude conversations about troubling issues.

Please do answer these questions so that we know where you stand.

In this article the author is getting too personal by only focusing on what Mr. Malhotra said about "him". It would be great to hear what Dr. Rambachan has to say on Mr. Malhotra's critique of his writings particularly addressing the issue of Swami Vivekanda and Adi Shankara (the Shruti v/s Anubhava debate). That way laypersons like me will get to witness a scholarly debate between to well studied individuals and in the process learn a lot. Academic issues which are the main focus of Mr. Malhotra have not even been mentioned in this article by Dr. Rambachan.

Look Mr. Rambachan, why this obfuscation? Why don't you just answer the question?

- Do you think that Hinduism has been a continuously evolving, self-critiquing tradition from ancient times, with many sub-traditions learning, borrowing from and enriching each other? Or is it a recent political construct.. made by the likes of Vivekananda to counter the West? perhaps some other option.

And it should be possible to state succinctly what your views are.. no need for another book or essay on this topic. Otherwise we will interpret all of that as obfuscation.

And please.. we care more about the tradition than what you and Rajiv Malhotra have to say about each other.

The heading of this blog gives the intentions of this writer away. He is a rabid Hindu hater. The whole world knows Hindus are the most tolerant & accommodating people on earth. Imperialists who ruled India knew this truth. So what did they do? They demonized Hinduism. And who bought this propaganda wholesale? Of course the Imperialist west and it's cronies like Rambachan & Sanjeev Sabhlok !

Oh! Please Mr. Rambachan. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you are somehow the centre of Rajiv's attention. Rajiv is against the academic system and you are just a cog of.
May be.. just may be your heart might be in the right place, but brain is deluded by being in the system for too long... I don't know... I don't know you personally.
BTW, you even now aren't denying or have denied the allegations made by Rajiv about your PoV about Vivekananda, Neo-Vedanta, Hindutva, Yoga et al. Instead of attacking Rajiv personally, you should IMHO focus on clarifying your perspective on these burning issues and let your readers and students and more importantly your 'superiors' decide which team you are in.

"I do not recognise myself in Malhotra’s representation of my work, which would make any effort to ‘defend’ conclusions that I have never made and do not support an exercise in futility."

This is called running away from debate using bullshit as argument!

"Moreover, in a recent article, Malhotra incorrectly claims that my PhD supervisor was a ‘church minister’."

So, if that is incorrect why do you not inform your readers who your supervisor is?

"My contributions are freely available for public scrutiny. Also, I shall never apologise for my work that promotes inter-religious understanding— work that I believe to be vital for mutual respect and peace in a diverse world."

I am sure your 'contributions' will be studied in far greater depth now. And you shamelessly borrow a phrase 'mutual respect' that Rajiv Malhotra has coined especially with regard to inter-faith encounters without attributing it to him. Who is the plagiarizer?

"Tensions, ignited and fanned by Malhotra, reached such a boiling point that law-enforcement protection for my safety was required, a first in my 40 years of public speaking at Hindu temples. The Durga Temple, to their great credit, did not waver in the face of considerable intimidation and I refused to pull out."

Usage of words designed to sensationalize and create a feeling of sympathy. Thereafter followed by typically sanctimonious words of being brave in the face of extreme hostility. Playing the victim card to perfection. Bravo!

"No single person has spoken for or can speak for a tradition as vast as the Hindu tradition.."

So also, no cabal of vested interests has the authority to speak for a tradition as vast as Hinduism and pass theses in its name.

Let us hear Rambachan's position on Vivekananda. Let him leave it to others to decide which camp he really belongs to.

Dear Rambachan:

1) Why are you aligned with evangelists like Richard Fox Young? Does it pain you as a Hindu (if you are truly one) that you find comfort in his foxy activities? Would it have been better had you made your points without seeking alliance with that notorious man? Or is it more important for you to impress the churchmen?
2) Why do you raise side issues like quoting what some unknown twitterati wrote - which is the way twitter is, You ought to be indifferent and not so touchy like a schoolboy.
3) Your seem too touchy and over sensitive. Not like someone claiming to be Vedanta expert. Try to think higher, not cheap shots. Grow up.
4) You have always milked Swami Dayananda Saraswati's name sucking every drop for your personal image boost. But you do not have a real practice of his teachings. You are a mere parroting and cutting and pasting what he taught.
5) Why do you work for a christian university?