The subtitle of "Being Different" is "An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism". Malhotra, an Indian Hindu who has chosen to settle in Massachusetts, starts off "Being Different" by asserting that his goal is to end mere "tolerance" of religious difference, but call for a new stage of mutual respect. Early in the first 50 pages that are constantly driven by this "mutual respect" theme, Malhotra asks a Lutheran minister, "Is the Lutheran doctrine merely to 'tolerate' other religions or also to respect them, and by respect I mean acknowledging them to be legitimate religions and equally valid paths to God?"
The strangest thing about the book is that Malhotra then spends the next 300 pages trying to argue why Dharmic Hindusim is the ultimate path to God and superior to all other religions. After the opening 50 pages asserting that all other faiths need to start practicing mutual respect, he then goes on a series of very academic rants about why "Abrahamic religions are inferior due to their history-centrism", "Abrahamic religions are inferior because they don't have a good enough history of experimentation in meditation", "Abrahamic religions are inferior because they aren't built on Sanskrit, the ultimate language for knowing religious truth", and on and on. For example, here are some of his subchapter headings:
"The Birth of the West: Inherent Problems"
"Incompatible: Christian Dogma and Greek Reason"
"Indian 'Chaos' and Western Anxiety"
Historic revelations, which Abrahamic religions are supposedly based entirely on and Dharmic religions are supposed free of, are explicitly argued as a faulty way to know the divine. Dharmic religions are built on a true "integral unity", while Abrahamic religions are built on a false "synthetic unity". Dharmic religions are fully compatible with all science while Abrahamic religions are completely incompatible with both science and reason. The word "anxiety" is repeatedly used to describe followers of Abrahamic religions, while "comfort" is the trait of Dharmic religions. Secularism in the West, while focused on much less, is also described as a vastly inferior and unsupportable system to Dharmic religion.
This constant mantra of "The West is inferior, The West is inferior, The West is inferior" is so at odds with Malhotra's initial call for Mutual Respect that I began to question his own self-awareness in writing the book. (One may also question this self-awareness by noting that in the process of critiquing the inferior West, Malhotra never explains his own choice to follow hundreds of thousands of other wealthy Indians with mobility in immigrating to this inferior Western society.) It likely also explains why, by his own admission, his ideas get such a poor reception by most attendees of the "religious dialogue" meetings that he practices rhetorical combat in.
That main point aside, I want to look at the good and the bad in a few of the details:
The good:
while decrying the "Western digestion" of ideas in favor of "untranslatable Sanskrit", Malhotra actually does a great job in translating certain Dharmic concepts for a Western audience. He carefully walks through what various concepts mean and do not mean, in a manner that is accessible to western-educated readers. This is the most valuable contribution of the book.
Malhotra zeros in on the most unreasonable aspects of superficial pop Christianity and identifies true faults.
The author does well to focus on a false synthesis between aspects of Greek/Roman tradition and Christianity that were brought together in the 4th and 5th century. However, instead of analyzing this synthesis for how it happened, what is natural to Christianity and what is not, what Christianity should recover and what it should drop, he simply states the synthesis as an unalterable historical fact and additional evidence of the inferiority of the West. It was a good topic to bring up, but should have been covered much more extensively and fairly.
The bad:
The focus on the book is almost entirely limited to a very Bhramic understanding of Dharmic religion. Malhotra treats his understanding of Hinduism as if it is the only understanding of Hinduism. The religion of village people, tribal people, and lower-caste peoples, who together comprise the vast majority of Hindus, is simply ignored. The precepts in this book would be almost entirely foreign to them. Also, Buddhism is assimilated as a nice offshoot of Hinduism based on fundamentally the same principles, which fails to do justice to the uniqueness of Buddhism or its substantial critique of Hinduism.
Malhotra has a strong understanding of a superficial form of Christianity and a very limited understanding of Abrahamic religions otherwise. If he looked at Christianity with the same depth that he gives to Hinduism, or if he privileged the academic/intellectual/meditative forms of Christianity the same way he privileged the most intellectual/elite form of Hinduism, his comparisons would look quite different. Yet he repeatedly compares the most elite Hinduism to the most popular and superficial Christianity/Islam/Judaism, and as a result the comparison becomes worthless to anyone who practices anything other than this superficial faith.
In the process of declaring Dharmic religions free from history, Malhotra also makes them free from reality, making it unnecessary for him to support the superiority of Dharmic faith with superiority of result. On rare occasions he attempts to appeal to historical fact with the claim "Abrahamic religions start invasions, Dharmic religions don't" or "Abrahamic religions attempt to convert, Dharmic religions don't." The simplicity and suspect truth of such statements aside, they should open the door to many other questions. If Dharmic religion is truly such a superior way to encounter the divine, and if Dharmic society has truly been experimenting with and practicing these superior principles for such an extended time, is that reflected in the actual practices of Dharmic society? Are Dharmic societies a better place as a result of their superior principles?
Looking specifically at India, have the low-caste of India, the women of India, the dark-skinned of India, and the poor of India reaped the same benefits of Dharmic religion that high-caste Brahmins have reaped, and if not, then why not? On the ground, person-to-person level, is India a more truthful society, a less corrupt society, a less violent society, a more kind society, a less exploitative society? If not, then why not? Are Brahmins better people than those who do not practice Dharmic religion, and in what way does it show? And if they have the choice, what kind of society do most wealthy, mobile practitioners of Dharmic religion chose to locate themselves within?
Overall, Malhotra's book is a great way for many more people to understand the precepts of a particular form of religion. But the book fails to achieve its supposed objective of working towards "mutual respect", most particularly because the author himself does not appear to have embodied his own definition of such respect. And the book fails to elucidate the relationship between religious faith and the realities created by participation in that faith. A truly deep text would combine the insights of Dharmic religion in this book with the acknowledgement of social realities from popular-level books like "Being Indian" and "Games Indians Play", and ask the question relevant to most Indians, which is not simply, "What have we made as our faith?", but more significantly, "What has our faith made us?"