The New Orientalism: Professors, Power, and the Dismantling of Hindu Confidence.

The old Orientalists wore pith helmets and carried notebooks. The new ones wear tweed and carry laptops. But their mission has not changed. To interpret India. To discipline Hinduism. To tell Hindus what their civilization means.

The vocabulary has shifted. Empire is now called scholarship. Conversion is now called critique. But the pattern is identical: power masquerading as knowledge.

Western academia still speaks about Hinduism as if Hindus were illiterate in their own faith. Professors who cannot pronounce Sanskrit words dictate what the Vedas “really” mean. Scholars who have spent two or three years in India return as experts, confident enough to instruct a billion people about themselves.

The arrogance is monumental. The motive is control.

American universities, rich with endowments, discovered that religion could be a political weapon. Hinduism was the easiest target. It was vast, polycentric, and fragmented. It lacked a single church to defend it. It tolerated critics. It did not strike back.

So the professors came. They mined Sanskrit texts for scandal. They sexualized saints. They psychoanalyzed gods. They reframed philosophy as patriarchy. They called it theory. They called it liberation. It was neither. It was academic imperialism.

Hinduism became a case study in dysfunction. Every text was read as guilt. Every ritual as domination. Every myth as trauma. The Gita became war propaganda. The Ramayana became patriarchy. The Upanishads became metaphysical confusion.

The West applauded. Another civilization domesticated.

Money fueled the machinery. Indian billionaires, seeking prestige, financed their own erasure. The Murty Classical Library at Harvard turned Sanskrit into an American export commodity. Translations arrived polished, precise, and bloodless. The philosophy was gone. The metaphysics was gutted. Sanskrit was made to speak English guilt.

Other donors followed. Universities received millions from Indian immigrants who imagined they were promoting culture. They were funding its dismantling. Their checks bought dinners with deans and plaques on walls. The result was humiliation wrapped in gratitude.

No one does this to Islam or Judaism. No professor builds a career mocking the Quran or psychoanalyzing Moses. But Hinduism is open season. Criticize it, you are bold. Defend it, you are fundamentalist.

The asymmetry is structural. Western academia feeds on civilizations that do not retaliate. Hinduism’s tolerance became its trap.

The new Orientalists know this. They wield language as weapon. They talk about “decolonizing knowledge” while recolonizing Hinduism. They use postmodern vocabulary to achieve old colonial aims. Replace the missionary with the Marxist. The sermon is the same: Hindus need to be saved from themselves.

Every generation of Hindus produces brilliant engineers, doctors, and scientists. Few produce defenders. STEM brings success but not sovereignty. The child who can design a chip cannot defend a chant. The parent who buys a Tesla cannot argue with a professor. The community is rich, educated, and voiceless.

Professors exploit that vacuum. They frame themselves as liberators of Hindu women, lower castes, and minorities. They preach equality while practicing domination. They say they fight hegemony while exercising it. Their classrooms are not forums; they are pulpits. Their students are not disciples; they are recruits.

The damage begins in the classroom and ends in the home. Hindu parents in America send their children to elite universities. They return embarrassed of their faith. The professor has replaced the priest. The syllabus has replaced scripture.

What the sword did to temples, the syllabus does to confidence. It burns not stone but self-respect.

India’s intellectual life has become dependent on foreign approval. An article in Foreign Affairs matters more than a thousand lectures in Banaras. A professor’s insult is treated as insight. A Hindu’s rebuttal is treated as fanaticism. The hierarchy is colonial, the obedience psychological.

The West still narrates the East. The accent has changed. The arrogance has not.

This is not scholarship. It is strategy. It is how soft power works. It trains future diplomats, journalists, and policy makers to view Hindu civilization as defective. It ensures that India remains under moral probation. The classroom becomes the embassy of empire.

The irony is cruel. Hinduism, a civilization of inquiry, is now lectured on by those who have no curiosity. They come to confirm, not to learn. They come to correct, not to understand. They come to deconstruct, not to discover.

The West once looted gold. Now it loots meaning.

And the Hindus? They applaud the looters, fund their projects, and call it dialogue. They mistake condescension for conversation. They confuse flattery with respect. They believe a chair at Harvard is validation, not subjugation.

The old Orientalists drew maps. The new ones draw syllabi. Both serve empire. Both define the native as object, not subject. Both speak of knowledge while enforcing hierarchy.

Hindus are not conquered by force. They are conquered by flattery, by English, by guilt.

That is the new Orientalism — polite, progressive, and poisonous.

They call it “academic freedom.” It is not freedom. It is permission to insult.

In the classroom, Hinduism is a specimen. The professor is the scientist. The Hindu student is the frog.

Every ritual is reduced to power. Every god is reduced to gender. Every verse is reduced to violence. The conclusion is always the same: Hinduism is guilty.

The trick works because Hindus rarely fight back. They still think universities are sacred. They still mistake criticism for dialogue. They believe that if they behave, they will be respected.

They will not.

Respect in the West is not earned by politeness. It is earned by power. Jews learned it. Muslims learned it. Christians never lost it. Hindus refuse to learn it.

Donors continue to write checks. They fund chairs, conferences, and translation projects. They think they are buying dignity. They are buying servitude.

The Murty Library showed the pattern. Money left India, prestige returned to Harvard. The translators stripped Sanskrit of its soul. The gods were turned into metaphors, the saints into neuroses. The donors applauded.

Other projects followed. Each claimed to “modernize” Hindu studies. Each replaced philosophy with politics. Each presented the professor as savior and the Hindu as subject.

Inside departments, Indian academics survive as servants. They know the limits. They cannot praise their own civilization. They cannot defend it. Their tenure depends on obedience. They carry citations the way coolies once carried colonial files.

The liberal dean is the new viceroy. The grant is the new whip.

Step outside the line and you vanish. No job. No conference. No recommendation letter. The lesson is clear: be loyal, or be unemployed.

This is how recolonization works. Not through violence but through incentives. Not through fear but through flattery.

A Hindu professor who mocks Hinduism is called brave. A Hindu who defends it is called nationalist. One gets tenure. The other gets exile.

The language of liberation hides domination. “Post-colonial theory” is the new colonial theology. It baptizes old arrogance in fashionable words. It tells Hindus that freedom means agreeing with their critics.

The students absorb it unconsciously. A child raised on Sanskrit shlokas goes to college and returns fluent in contempt. The home turns into an apology. The mother lights a lamp, and the daughter rolls her eyes. The father quotes the Gita, and the son quotes the professor.

The conversion is complete. No church required.

The immigrant generation watches in confusion. They built temples and careers. They expected gratitude. They got ridicule. Their English stumbles. Their children correct them. The old gods stand silent.

The same parents who once stood up to visa officers cannot stand up to professors. They whisper, they retreat, they fund more “dialogue.” They mistake appeasement for sophistication.

This silence travels from homes to politics. Hindu Americans succeed in business but vanish in debate. They donate to both political parties but shape none. They organize festivals but not think-tanks. They defend everyone’s rights but their own.

The result is predictable. Every major newspaper quotes the same handful of liberal scholars as “experts on Hinduism.” They set the tone for policy and journalism. Their words travel from classrooms to editorials, from editorials to embassies. The pipeline of power begins in the seminar room.

And because Hindus rarely build counter-institutions, they remain outsiders in their own story. They argue online instead of writing books. They complain in temples instead of founding universities. They act as customers in the marketplace of ideas, never as producers.

The West knows this weakness. It flatters Hindu intellect in science, but not in philosophy. It respects Hindu math, not Hindu metaphysics. It welcomes Hindu labor, not Hindu pride.

The new Orientalism runs on this double standard. It praises the Hindu brain and despises the Hindu soul.

This is not accidental. It keeps India technologically useful and spiritually subordinate. A colony of minds is easier to manage than a colony of land.

Every generation that fails to see this will repeat it.

The irony burns. The same civilization that taught the world about consciousness now imports self-esteem from Ivy League psychologists. The same tradition that produced the Gita now needs Western professors to explain morality. The same culture that birthed logic now begs validation from departments that cannot reason beyond ideology.

This dependence is not modernity. It is defeat.

Real modernity would mean arguing on equal terms. It would mean Hindus producing their own scholarship, funding their own centers, defining their own vocabulary. It would mean saying to the professor: “You may study us, but you will not own us.”

Until that happens, the recolonization will continue. The syllabus will remain the sword. The classroom will remain the battlefield. The Hindu mind will remain the prize.

The war is quiet. The casualties are internal. Confidence, not territory, is being conquered.

The classroom is only the first battlefield. The newsroom is the second.

The professor writes the script. The journalist repeats it. The diplomat quotes it.

A handful of American academics have become the gatekeepers of what the world is allowed to think about Hinduism. Their papers turn into op-eds. Their lectures turn into talking points. Their vocabulary becomes policy language.

Every word carries power. “Hindutva” becomes “fascism.” “Nationalism” becomes “extremism.” “Reform” becomes “persecution.” The adjectives do the work of armies.

Western media outlets cite the same professors as sources. Their opinions are recycled as facts. The narrative becomes self-sustaining. India is portrayed as intolerant. Hindu activism is cast as dangerous. Every success of India is reinterpreted as aggression.

This is the politics of moral hierarchy. The West writes the report card; the rest of the world takes the exam.

India is never graded on its achievements. It is graded on its alignment. When it follows Western lines, it is praised. When it asserts independence, it is scolded. The Hindu majority is treated as a moral suspect, forever on probation.

That mindset was born in colonial offices and survives in classrooms.

It calls itself “liberal.” It is not. It is paternalism in polite English.

It sees itself as a moral custodian of the East. It assumes that the brown world cannot be trusted with its own virtue. It needs supervision. It needs correction. It needs professors.

This is why Hinduism fascinates and irritates the liberal establishment. It is old, complex, plural, and unmanageable. It cannot be contained in one book or one prophet. It cannot be centralized. It refuses monopoly. It defies the Western template of religion as authority and obedience.

That refusal is interpreted as chaos.

So the Western mind simplifies it. It invents caricatures. It calls the Gita violent, the Vedas oppressive, the caste system eternal. It freezes a civilization into one paragraph of guilt.

Then it turns guilt into geopolitics.

Every criticism of India is framed as moral duty. Every defense of India is framed as nationalism. The critic is called brave. The defender is called bigoted.

This double standard is not random. It maintains the old colonial division of labor: the West defines virtue, and India performs penance.

In global institutions, this narrative repeats itself. Conferences on “religious freedom” quote professors who have never entered an Indian village. Reports on “Hindu nationalism” are written by scholars who cannot read a line of Sanskrit.

Their conclusions are predictable. Hinduism is dangerous when confident and tolerable only when apologetic.

The logic is circular. When Hindus are weak, they are pitied. When they are strong, they are feared.

This moral framing travels easily. It shapes the tone of NGOs, think-tanks, and policy groups. It gives the West a language of control without the burden of conquest.

The missionary has become the moral activist. The empire has become the human rights lobby. The goal is the same: to supervise India’s soul.

India is never allowed to be an equal moral subject. It must always explain itself, justify itself, and reform itself under Western gaze.

The new Orientalism hides behind humanitarian rhetoric. It claims to protect minorities, women, and dissenters. In practice, it delegitimizes majority self-expression. It reduces a civilization to an accusation.

Every time India asserts itself, the chorus begins: “intolerance,” “authoritarianism,” “Hindutva.” The adjectives arrive before the evidence. The verdict precedes the trial.

Meanwhile, real oppression elsewhere is ignored. Saudi Arabia is never lectured about blasphemy laws. China is never lectured about Tibet. Pakistan is never lectured about minorities. But India is lectured daily about pluralism — by the same nations that built their empires on genocide.

This hypocrisy is not a bug; it is the system. It allows the West to preserve moral superiority while outsourcing manufacturing and guilt alike.

The liberal professor plays a crucial role. They provide the moral vocabulary that justifies this hierarchy. Their research becomes the raw material of diplomatic sermons. Their students become policy aides. Their syllabi become ideology.

This is why the battle over Hinduism in academia matters far beyond campus. It decides who speaks for a billion people. It decides how India is imagined, measured, and judged.

The old missionaries carried crosses. The new ones carry credentials.

And behind the academic tone lies the same impulse: to civilize, to correct, to dominate.

When a Western scholar “interprets” Hinduism, they are not describing it; they are rearranging it to fit Western comfort. When they claim to “critique” Indian nationalism, they are not protecting democracy; they are protecting hierarchy — their own.

The colonial grammar remains. Only the punctuation has changed.

The professor’s essay becomes the journalist’s headline, becomes the diplomat’s speech, becomes the activist’s slogan. The chain of interpretation turns into a chain of custody.

By the time the Hindu hears their own civilization described in Western media, it is unrecognizable.

This is how soft power becomes hard control.

India’s image abroad is not shaped by its citizens but by its critics. Its cultural exports are filtered through Western editors. Its thinkers are evaluated by Western reviewers. Its pride is policed by Western professors.

This is not equality. This is empire in the language of inclusion.

And it thrives because Hindus still confuse politeness with peace. They mistake Western approval for progress. They forget that respect is not granted; it is taken.

The New Orientalism wears a liberal smile but keeps the same imperial eyes.

The new empire does not occupy land. It occupies minds.

The most colonized people today are not the poor. They are the educated.

Degrees replaced chains. The modern Indian academic is taught to distrust himself. To speak English fluently and think apologetically. To quote Western theory as scripture and his own tradition as superstition.

This is not education. It is conditioning.

It begins early. The best students are sent to Western universities. They are taught to see their culture through the lens of guilt. Caste becomes their only vocabulary. Colonial trauma becomes their only history. Hinduism becomes their only problem.

When they return, they repeat what they were taught. They translate humiliation into lectures. They call it critical thought. They call it progress. They join the same academic machine that trained them. They climb by dismantling.

They become what the empire needs: brown managers of white ideology.

They write in English about the backwardness of Sanskrit. They sneer at Hindu reformers but quote Western philosophers like prophets. They compare their gods to Greek myths but never compare their conquerors to crusaders.

The reward is tenure. The price is servitude.

Every system needs intermediaries. The old empire had clerks. The new one has professors. Both serve the same purpose — to manage native intelligence, to prevent rebellion, to translate obedience into policy.

These professors do not wield swords. They wield seminars. Their loyalty is to funding agencies, not truth. They echo their deans the way colonial clerks once echoed viceroys.

They know the boundaries. They cannot defend Hinduism. They cannot celebrate it. They can only dissect it. The moment they express pride, they are branded regressive. The moment they dissent, they are erased.

They live inside an invisible prison built of grant money and fear.

The Indian intellectual today measures his freedom by the tolerance of his Western superiors. He writes books that please them, speaks words that comfort them, teaches courses that reflect them. His job is not to lead India’s thought, but to keep it harmless.

This is what Rajiv Malhotra once called “intellectual cooliehood.” It is not an insult. It is a diagnosis. The colonial system outsourced its clerical labor; the postcolonial academy outsources its moral labor. Indians do the paperwork of their own subjugation.

They review, translate, annotate, and critique their own civilization — for Western consumption. They play natives in a theater of humility.

Their reward is a fellowship and a visa.

This mentality travels back home. Indian universities copy American syllabi. Indian journalists echo Western headlines. Indian think-tanks seek Western funding. The result is a perfect feedback loop: Western critique becomes Indian common sense.

The colonized mind defends its colonizer. It calls dependence dialogue. It calls obedience cosmopolitanism. It confuses mimicry with modernity.

The tragedy is not lack of intelligence. It is lack of confidence.

India’s intellectual tradition was once fearless. Philosophers debated gods in the marketplace. Buddhists argued with Brahmins. Shankara argued with everyone. Ideas were tested, not tolerated. Confidence was natural.

Now, that confidence is gone. The Indian scholar apologizes before he speaks. He begins every argument with “of course, there are many problems.” He ends every essay by quoting a Western thinker.

The new Orientalism has succeeded where the old one failed. It has made Indians ashamed of being original.

This shame breeds dependency. Every Indian achievement is measured by Western applause. A Nobel Prize means legitimacy. A critical article in The New York Times means crisis. A mention in The Economist means progress. A slight from a professor means panic.

This anxiety is not globalism. It is inferiority with broadband.

The colonized elite will deny it. They will say, “We are only being critical.” They will call self-defense “nationalism.” They will call pride “fascism.” They will call surrender “open-mindedness.”

But the pattern is visible. Every major debate about Hinduism is judged by Western standards. Every Hindu intellectual who steps outside those standards is isolated. Every defense of Hindu civilization is labeled propaganda. Every critique from the West is labeled scholarship.

The imbalance is moral, not academic. The professor knows that the Hindu will not strike back. He can mock the Gita and still be invited to festivals. He can misquote the Vedas and still be funded by Hindus. He can ridicule India and still be called its friend.

That tolerance, once a virtue, has become a weapon turned inward.

The new Orientalism hides inside the Indian mind. It speaks through Indian voices. It publishes through Indian presses. It praises itself for “inclusivity” while excluding the native perspective.

It convinces the colonized that rebellion is extremism, and obedience is sophistication.

The empire has achieved perfection: it has made its subjects police themselves.

India may be free politically, but intellectually it remains occupied territory. Its temples stand, its texts survive, but its narrative is foreign-owned.

The next frontier of freedom is not geographic. It is psychological.

Until the Indian scholar, journalist, and student reclaim their right to interpret their own civilization, independence will remain unfinished.

The new Orientalism must be confronted not with violence, but with voice. Not with slogans, but with scholarship. Not with anger, but with accuracy.

The decolonization of the Indian mind will not come from guilt. It will come from confidence.

And that confidence begins with a single refusal: to stop apologizing for existing.

Freedom is not given. It is taken.
Independence without intellectual confidence is decoration.

India broke its chains in 1947 but never broke its mental leash. The body left the empire; the mind stayed behind.

The first step out of subjugation is to recognize it. The new Orientalism is not an academic dispute; it is a system of control. It writes the vocabulary through which Hindus see themselves. It trains the elite to look upward for approval and downward with contempt.

The cure is not anger. The cure is clarity.

Hindus must rebuild the habit of reason. Their scriptures are arguments, not commandments. Their saints debated kings. Their philosophers challenged gods. The civilization’s essence is questioning, not conformity. That power must be reclaimed.

Start with education. Teach children that critique is not monopoly. Teach them that Sanskrit is not dead. Teach them that a civilization cannot be understood only through the insults of its enemies.

Build institutions. Endow chairs that defend as well as analyze. Create journals that publish in Sanskrit and English. Translate with reverence and accuracy. Fund universities that are not ashamed of Hindu thought.

Stop financing humiliation. Do not write checks to departments that mock you. Build your own platforms. Fund the scholars who fight back. Support the students who refuse silence. Prestige is not worth self-contempt.

Refuse guilt. Colonialism taught Hindus to apologize for survival. Every success was called privilege; every failure, proof of inferiority. That language must be buried. A civilization that invented zero, grammar, and logic has nothing to apologize for.

Recover humility, but redefine it. Humility means precision, not submission. It means acknowledging complexity, not confessing guilt. The professor who claims omniscience after three years in India is not humble. The Hindu who learns, questions, and corrects is.

Reclaim narrative power. Write books, not petitions. Produce documentaries, not excuses. Occupy the public square with facts, not slogans. The world listens to those who speak first and loudest; it forgets those who whisper later.

Hindus must learn to argue in the global language without surrendering their own. English is a tool, not a throne. Use it; do not kneel to it.

Stop mistaking civility for cowardice. The polite Hindu is admired but ignored. The assertive Hindu is attacked but remembered. History favors those who speak.

Refuse to be defined by enemies. The West respects only resistance. Every community that survived Western hegemony—Jews, Chinese, Muslims—did so by mastering its own story. Hindus must do the same.

The new Orientalism cannot be defeated by outrage alone. It can only be defeated by competence. By scholars who know Sanskrit better than their critics. By writers who can explain the Gita in clear English. By thinkers who can expose bias with logic, not emotion.

Create an intellectual ecology where pride and precision coexist. Celebrate scholarship that enlightens, not merely flatters. Reward argument, not echo.

And remember: silence is surrender. Every time a professor distorts a text and goes unanswered, another brick is laid in the empire of condescension. Every time a Hindu intellectual hesitates to defend dharma, another student learns to be ashamed.

The empire is rebuilt one omission at a time.

Break it with words.

The next battle for India will not be fought at borders but in classrooms, newsrooms, and minds. It will not be won by soldiers but by thinkers.

When Hindus speak for themselves, the empire of professors collapses.

Until then, the lecture hall remains the last colony.

Bibliography

• Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. New York: Penguin, 2009.
• Doniger, Wendy. Siva: The Erotic Ascetic. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Kripal, Jeffrey J. Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
• Tyagananda, Swami, and Pravrajika Vrajaprana. Interpreting Ramakrishna: Kali’s Child Revisited. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2010.
• Pollock, Sheldon. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
• Pollock, Sheldon, ed. The Murty Classical Library of India. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ongoing series.
• Truschke, Audrey. Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017.
• Truschke, Audrey. Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.
• Malhotra, Rajiv. Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2007.
• Malhotra, Rajiv. Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity. New Delhi: HarperCollins India, 2014.