Get in the Ring: Subrahmanyam vs, well, half the world

"Many of Chaudhuri’s basic assumptions are largely unfounded. Let us begin at the beginning. It is quite untrue that public airings of intellectual differences are rare in India." That would be Sanjay Subrahmanyam, preparing to air several of his own differences, with a vengeance. (Amit Chaudhuri's two-part article is linked to in 'The Great Debate', posted on Kitabkhana on Sunday, August 1, 2004. Scroll down for the post.)
"This is what I mean when I see Nandy as a colonial thinker, namely his utter subservience to Orientalist clichés regarding India’s past. In this Nandy is like Ranajit Guha or Dipesh Chakrabarty, other thinkers whom Amit Chaudhuri much admires. Their position may be ostensibly anti-colonial, but in fact — no matter what their internal divisions — they are all prisoners of the very same heritage as the Chaudhuris, both Nirad and Amit, as well as of the Greater India theorists of the inter-war period. Amit Chaudhuri’s own essay drips with cultural cringe, with his gratuitous references to Eliot, Blake, Lawrence, Auden and Whitehead, who are obviously the defining points of his universe."