A Lay Author’s Response to a Public Critique:

A Public Response to a Public Article on Understanding Hinduism

Author’s Note

This post is a public response to a public article published by Dr. Pawan Aryan and his colleagues. Since their article discusses my private request and questions my intentions as an author, I believe it is appropriate to place my response in the public domain so that readers may consider both perspectives.

In doing so, I have included limited excerpts from my private correspondence with Dr. Aryan only where they are necessary to provide context for the issues under discussion. No private communication has been reproduced beyond what is required for that purpose.

This post is not intended as a personal attack on Dr. Aryan or any member of his team. My purpose is simply to present my perspective on how this matter unfolded and to explain why I have decided not to rely on their legal opinion in my book.

If, at any time, Dr. Aryan and his colleagues decide to remove their public article concerning this matter, I shall gladly reciprocate by removing this response from my blog, since my intention is not to perpetuate a public controversy but only to respond to one.

IT IS A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY THE DUTY TO PRESENT THE FULL TRUTH ABOUT HINDU MARRIAGE RITUALS

By the Office Coordinators and Scholars Aarti (Punjab), Vinod Durgapal (Uttarakhand), Amit (Uttar Pradesh), Prof. Raj Pal (Haryana), Vanshika (Kurukshetra), Raj Kumar (Charuni), and others

The recent correspondence between this office and Swami Dayanand Bharti JI Marupalli concerning his forthcoming book, Understanding Hinduism, has raised a serious question that goes to the heart of intellectual honesty and the public’s right to know. Our detailed, evidence-based article on Hindu marriage rituals, succession laws, and contemporary legal realities was met not with scholarly engagement but with an attempt at censorship—a demand that we condense our extensive work into a selective, sanitized footnote designed to present a partial and, we believe, misleading picture to readers.

Our comprehensive article, drafted after extensive consultation and research, documents the multifaceted nature of Hindu marriage. It covers the sacramental rites (samskaras), the detailed statutory framework of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the landmark judicial pronouncements that have shaped the institution. We have addressed the rights of children from non-formal unions, the legal recognition of live-in relationships, the status of women under the Hindu Succession Act, and even the complex and often tragic realities of practices like Devadasi dedication, all while acknowledging the gap that often persists between law on the books and social reality.

The author’s request to reduce this extensive analysis to a single point on which he seeks our “agreement” is not merely a request for brevity. It is, in our considered view, an attempt to confound readers, to present a selective and incomplete narrative that avoids the complexities and, at times, the inconvenient truths of the Hindu marriage system.

Swami Dayanand Bharti’s proposed footnote reads: “Modern legal changes under the Hindu Marriage Act have altered ideas of marriage and legitimacy. In some cases, cohabiting couples may receive legal recognition, and children born outside formal marriage may have rights. However, social acceptance often lags behind legal change, and tensions can still arise in practice (based on information from Dr Pawan Aryan, legal practitioner, Ambala, Haryana). As laws are periodically revised in response to changing social needs, their application may also vary; in some instances, judgments are shaped case by case, drawing on prior decisions rather than relying strictly on the letter of the law.”

While this statement is legally accurate, it is deliberately myopic. It fails to capture the foundational struggle between the traditional, sacramental view of Hindu marriage as an indissoluble bond and the modern, contractual framework established by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—a law that was passed despite fierce opposition from orthodox elements who saw it as an “attack” on Hindu society. It omits, ignores the legal reality of practices like Devadasi dedication, which, while banned, persist and entrench caste and gender exploitation.

Is it author’s desire to “befool” Western readers? Is not it both insulting and counter-productive? Western or domestic readers, like every lay readers, are not uniform in their understanding, but they have an equal right to the truth. They deserve to understand that Hindu marriage is not a monolithic, static concept but a dynamic institution that has evolved through legislative reform, judicial activism, and constitutional morality.

Therefore, after a thorough discussion, our office and the undersigned scholars decline to provide our agreement to the author’s selectively edited footnote. We cannot allow our name to be associated with a publication that, by its own design, seeks to keep its readers in the dark regarding the full picture of Hindu marriage rituals and the legal framework that governs them.

We propose a clear alternative:

1.     The author must publish the full, unedited article as it was submitted to him. Our detailed piece provides the necessary context, case law, and historical background that is essential for any reader to understand the subject. The author’s proposed edit is an act of self-serving censorship.

2.     If the author is unwilling to publish the full article, we request a direct hyperlink in the footnote to our comprehensive piece, which is published on a public platform (such as LinkedIn, a blog, or Google Scholar). This ensures that the reader, who has purchased the book, can access the complete information and form their own informed opinion.

Hindu marriage is multifaceted hence, it is also under jurisdiction of statutory regulation, a subject of judicial interpretation, and a field of constant social negotiation. To present only its most palatable, simplified version is an insult to the institution itself and to the intelligence of the reader. We refuse to be a party to this intellectual dishonesty.

We call upon the author to uphold the principles of scholarly integrity and allow the full truth to be presented. A true seeker of knowledge should never fear the light of unfiltered inquiry.

Signed,

Aarti (Punjab) Vinod Durgapal (Uttarakhand) Amit (Uttar Pradesh) Prof. Raj Pal (Haryana) Vanshika (Kurukshetra) Raj Kumar (Charuni) and other coordinators.

(The full, unedited article by Dr. Pawan Kumar ‘Aryan’, Advocate, P&H High Court, is published on            [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hindu-marriage-succession-historical-contemporary-legalaryan-3aslc]  for public reference.)

Section Two [Personal Communcation]

Dear Pawan,

I approached you personally and in good faith, seeking your help on a legal footnote for my book. I expected that, if you disagreed with my proposed wording or felt it was inadequate, you would first communicate your concerns directly to me.

Instead, before sending me a personal response, you and your team published a public statement in which I was portrayed as someone attempting to mislead readers and suppress the truth. I found this both unexpected and deeply hurtful. Before circulating our correspondence within the Mandali or publishing it on a public platform, I believe it would have been appropriate to seek my consent.

Had I known that my brief footnote could not adequately represent the legal complexities involved, I would simply have avoided referring to your views or your name altogether. My purpose was never to write a legal essay. As a lay author writing for lay readers, a simple note such as the following would have fully served my purpose:

“As the legal position regarding Hindu marriage and related matters is complex and continues to evolve through legislation and judicial interpretation, readers seeking a detailed legal understanding are encouraged to consult authoritative legal works and conduct their own research.”

After your article was published, I found it difficult to understand exactly what your central objection was. Since I am not a lawyer, I sought the assistance of ChatGPT—not to validate my position, but simply to help me understand your response and to obtain an independent assessment of its tone and substance. I am sharing that assessment with the Mandali in the interest of transparency.

I also intend to publish my own response on my blog. I will clearly acknowledge that the analysis of your article was prepared with the assistance of ChatGPT to help me understand your arguments. My response will be entirely open and transparent.

Despite this unfortunate episode, I remain grateful to you and your colleagues for the time and effort you devoted to preparing your legal material. Our disagreement is not about the importance of legal scholarship, but about the manner in which this disagreement was handled.

With regards,

DB

Ashram July 26, 2026

Section Three [response to Dr. Pawan and his group’s article]

My Response as a Lay Author

I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar. I approached Dr. Pawan Aryan privately only because I wanted guidance on a brief footnote for a book written for ordinary readers. I neither intended to write a legal treatise nor to pronounce any final opinion on the legal issues surrounding the Hindu Marriage Act.

After reading the response prepared by Dr. Aryan and his team, I must honestly admit that much of the legal discussion remains beyond my competence. I am therefore not in a position to either endorse or dispute their legal conclusions. Rather than risk misrepresenting such a complex subject, I have decided not to refer to Dr. Aryan or his legal opinion in my book. Instead, I shall use a simple, generic footnote encouraging readers who seek a detailed legal understanding to consult authoritative legal sources and conduct their own research.

My concern has never been about legal scholarship. It has been about the manner in which a simple private request from a lay author was transformed into a public statement questioning my integrity and suggesting that I intended to mislead readers. I sought an opinion, not a verdict on my character.

On questions such as marriage, law, social practice, and religious tradition, there are often multiple interpretations and continuing debates. Courts themselves revisit earlier judgments, legislatures amend laws, and scholars frequently disagree with one another. As a lay writer, I do not claim to settle those debates. My responsibility is simply to acknowledge that they exist and direct interested readers to more specialized studies.

I have no desire to engage in a prolonged public controversy with legal experts. I respect their professional knowledge, just as I recognize the limits of my own. My purpose was to write a book that introduces Hinduism to general readers, not to adjudicate complex legal questions.

If my words appear firm, they should be understood as a response to the public allegations made against me—not as a personal attack on Dr. Aryan or his colleagues. I wish them well in their scholarship. I only hope they will also appreciate that a lay author seeking guidance deserves the courtesy of a private scholarly response before being publicly accused of misleading readers.

I therefore consider this matter closed and shall proceed with my book without relying on their legal material.

Section Four: by ChatGPT

Since I found the legal article difficult to understand, I asked ChatGPT for an independent assessment of whether the article primarily addressed my editorial request or instead questioned my integrity. I specifically requested an honest evaluation rather than validation of my own position. I reproduce that response below without editing.

Response from ChatGPT

Reading this purely as a lay reader—and setting aside who is right or wrong—I come away with several impressions.

The first impression is that the response is much more about defending themselves and criticizing you than about answering your original request. From what you describe, you asked for help with a footnote for a book aimed at lay readers. Instead of engaging that editorial request, they recast the issue as one of “integrity,” “censorship,” and “intellectual dishonesty.” That shifts the discussion from an editorial disagreement to a moral accusation.

Several aspects contribute to that impression:

• They repeatedly attribute motives to you (“attempt at censorship,” “self-serving censorship,” “seeks to keep readers in the dark”) without demonstrating that those are your actual intentions.
• They even ask, “Is it author’s desire to ‘befool’ Western readers?” That is not a scholarly question; it is a rhetorical accusation. A reader naturally feels that the author is being personally attacked rather than merely disagreed with.
• They state that your proposed footnote is “legally accurate.” If they acknowledge that, then the disagreement is not really about factual accuracy but about completeness and emphasis. That is an important distinction, yet they continue to frame it as dishonesty rather than an editorial choice.

That said, there is one legitimate point buried inside the rhetoric.

Their central concern appears to be:

A short footnote cannot adequately represent the complexity of Hindu marriage law and may leave readers with an oversimplified understanding.

That is a perfectly reasonable concern. Scholars often object when they feel a nuanced position has been reduced too much. They are entitled to decline endorsement if they believe the summary no longer reflects what they wished to say.

However, they go much further than saying:

“We do not think this summary adequately represents our position.”

Instead, they repeatedly infer bad faith on your part.

As a lay reader, I also notice something else.

The tone is oddly disproportionate to the issue.

This is about a footnote in a general book. Their response reads almost like a public manifesto or open letter exposing academic misconduct. Words such as:

• censorship
• misleading
• intellectual dishonesty
• self-serving censorship
• keep readers in the dark
• fear the light

create the impression that they are responding to something far more serious than an author’s request to shorten material for a footnote.

Another thing that stands out is that they do not really engage with the constraints of book writing.

Every author must condense. Every editor shortens. Every footnote is selective. A lay reader expects a footnote to summarize, not reproduce an article. The response never seriously considers whether your intended audience or space limitations justify brevity. Instead, they treat any condensation as suppression.

Their proposed alternatives also reflect this perspective:

1. Publish their entire article.
2. Link readers to their complete article.

Those are reasonable requests from someone wishing to maximize exposure to their work, but they are not the only reasonable editorial solutions. They leave little room for the possibility that an independent author may summarize another scholar’s contribution in their own words.

As for the scholarship itself, the response mixes substantive legal concerns with emotionally charged language. A more academic response might have said:

“We appreciate your summary, but we believe it omits three essential legal developments…”

Instead, they frame the disagreement as a question of integrity.

So, if I were reading this without knowing either side, my overall impression would be:

• They probably care deeply about the legal complexities of Hindu marriage.
• They genuinely believe your footnote is too brief.
• But they express that concern in a way that repeatedly questions your motives and integrity rather than focusing on the editorial issue itself.

In other words, I would not say the document is simply a personal attack, because there is a real substantive disagreement underneath it. However, the dominant tone is accusatory rather than collaborative, and the personal accusations overshadow the legitimate editorial point they are trying to make.

If their objective was to persuade you—or an impartial reader—they would likely have been more effective by:

• acknowledging that your summary is factually accurate (as they themselves admit),
• explaining precisely which two or three important ideas they believe are missing,
• proposing revised wording, and
• avoiding speculation about your intentions.

That approach would have kept the discussion centered on scholarship instead of character.

Ashram, July 26, 2026

Thanks, Pavan, for your long and kind response. However, I’m not going to read it. In fact, I haven’t read it. I only skimmed through it briefly to get a sense of what you were trying to say. [see in Appendix]

Consider the broader context. A simple request was made for a legal opinion on a specific point of the Hindu Marriage Act to clarify a footnote in a book. Instead of addressing that limited legal question, the response expanded into a lengthy public article containing personal criticism and broad conclusions about the questioner’s motives, integrity, and intentions.

The central issue is not whether disagreement is permissible. It certainly is. The real issue is whether it is just to make public allegations and personal judgments without first giving the other person an opportunity to explain or clarify the matter privately.

One of the most fundamental principles of justice is that a person should be heard before being judged. As the well-known legal maxim reminds us, it is better that even a guilty person escape than that an innocent person be condemned. The Old Testament reflects the same concern for justice by limiting punishment to no more than forty lashes; in practice, only thirty-nine were administered so that, even through a mistake in counting, the prescribed limit would not be exceeded. The underlying principle is clear: every possible precaution should be taken to prevent even a single act of injustice.

It is therefore ironic when those who advocate truth and justice publish public judgments before hearing the other side. Such an approach risks assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner, contrary to the very principles of fairness that justice demands.

Even now, the most constructive course would be to revise the article by removing all personal references and retaining only objective legal or factual observations. That would allow the discussion to remain focused on principles rather than personalities and would better reflect the ideals of truth, justice, and fairness that any public discourse ought to uphold.

Frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in a prolonged debate, whether within our group or in a public forum. I am already behind schedule with the revision of my book, and that work must remain my priority.

However, remaining silent could easily be interpreted as an admission that I accept your conclusions or have no response to them. That is the only reason I have taken the time to present a brief reply—to place my side of the matter on record. Beyond this clarification, I do not intend to be drawn into an extended controversy.

Finally, I have one humble request to all the members of the Mandali. If I share any personal or private communication with an individual member, I respectfully request that it not be brought into the group or any public forum without the mutual consent of both parties.

If the discussion is presented only as a general principle or a hypothetical case, without referring to any individual by name or to the specific circumstances of the incident, I have no objection. However, if my name—or the names of both parties—and the context of the incident are to be mentioned, I believe it is better that the matter remain a private communication rather than be discussed in a public forum.

If, despite these precautions, someone within the Mandali or a member of the public happens to speculate about or infer the identities of the individuals involved, neither party should be held responsible for such inferences, since no names, identifying details, or contextual clues have been intentionally disclosed.

Let us respect the confidentiality of personal conversations and preserve mutual trust by sharing such communications publicly only when both parties agree that it is necessary and appropriate.

July 27, 2026. Ashram