Pollock's 'Irresponsible' Vs Valmiki's 'Plausible' Ramayana – Animesh Aaryan

Last updated on May 13, 2017

Posted on May 13, 2017

Pollock claims Rāmāyaṇa to be socially irresponsible and his interpretation of the text revolves around the chronology of the text, the divinization-demonization construct, Indian kingship, the freewill of characters, the Brahmin supremacy and the usage of Rāmāyaṇa as a political device for social oppression and demonization of Muslims. Pollock has diligently sidelined the views of several traditional scholars who would disagree with his reductive interpretation and therefore, a representation to challenge his views is necessary to escape self-annihilation.

While several traditional scholars have challenged Pollock’s claims recently, this paper is an attempt to challenge a few of his claims in the light of scientific, historical and literary facts. This paper aims to address the following issues –

  1. Freewill from a Physics-philosophical and Vedic perspective
  2. Indian kingship and divinization-demonization construct
  3. Rāmāyaṇa as socially oppressive vs. Literary records

In this paper, Pollock’s controversial claims are examined and  evidence is cited to contest his claims.

Join Rajiv Malhotra for his FB LIVE Broadcasts
Follow Rajiv on facebook.com/RajivMalhotra.Official


Share on


Subscribe to see what we're thinking

Subscribe to get access to premium content or contact us if you have any questions.

Subscribe Now