What Motivates Meera Nanda to Write?
Meera Nanda’s The God Market book is scorn masquerading as analysis. The academic costume fails to hide the emotional core. This jeremiad is judgment seeking justification, not investigation seeking truth. Why should I bother analyzing her as a person? It is an unusual invasion into anyone’s life. But she invites it. Nanda denounced an entire civilization with harsh words. She deserves worse treatment, but I will approach this psychoanalysis with dignity. So the question is, why did she write such a scornful book? Let us delve a little deeper.
Analysis of Analyst
She was born in 1954. Little is known about her personal life. She apparently has no spouse or children. She mentions a nephew in EPW of October 2008. She states that she is fond of him. But even he does not get spared from her scorn. His offence was following the Hindu tradition of car puja.
The Flip at Age 50
She switched careers at the age of 50. Her shift from biology to Hindu religion analysis is drastic. Teaching or being a science journalist suddenly became meaningless. The career shift suggests psychological need more than intellectual evolution.
A common midlife phenomenon involves a crisis of meaning. Living in India suddenly became unbearable for her. Her career may have plateaued in the original field. Her personal life faced disruption. She searched for a larger purpose. She chose to act as a voice for the voiceless. Now she warns against darkness.
She does not critique Hindus as an outsider. She rejects it as someone formed by it, presumably. The intensity suggests personal stakes.
Timeline Anomaly
Nanda states that she received a fellowship in United States in 2005. In her book “The God Market” she writes
“In 2005, I was awarded a fellowship by the John Templeton Foundation to work on a book-length study of the relationship between modern science and Hinduism in contemporary India… I took leave of absence from my original research project. The research and writing of this book was done entirely on my own time…”
This is unusual. She abandons funded research midstream to write an unfunded political polemic. If true, that suggests powerful emotional/ideological drive, not academic curiosity. The book was published in 2009. Fellowship ended in 2008 itself. Therefore, her assertion does not make factual sense.
Alternate view is that this book is part of that project itself. Distance was created to show that it is unbiased un-sponsored view.
We are in year 2026. We do not see the promised book yet. Where is “book-length study of the relationship between modern science and Hinduism in contemporary India”?
There are two possible answers. First answer is that all her writing work against Hindus is “the Project” and she lied. Second answer is that she lost that larger project as her fellowship ended in 2008 itself. Lying does not invite moral judgement in my analysis. It shows how compromised a person is. Lying is a result of leverage at play. Who leveraged her?
If she can lie on such minor detail, can she be trusted with all her polemic writing about India, Hindus and rituals?
Financial Leverage
Nanda’s financial situation raises serious questions. Her last regular income was from IISER Mohali as visiting professor from 2009 to 2017. Visiting professors in India receive honorarium payments. UGC guidelines allow up to 20,000 rupees per month for ‘visiting professors from outside the country’. During 2009 to 2017, exchange rates averaged 50 to 65 rupees per dollar. That translates to roughly 300 to 400 dollars monthly at maximum. She cannot live in West Hartford, Connecticut on this income. Basic expenses in that area require 2500 to 3500 dollars monthly minimum.
Since 2017, she has no academic position at all. Her income comes from opinion pieces in The Hindu and Frontline. Standard rates are 100 dollars per article maximum if not paid in Rupees. Even writing three pieces monthly gives her 3600 dollars yearly.
Her Templeton fellowship ended in 2008. She shows no other grants or institutional support on her CV. Yet she maintains two residential addresses across continents. She attends international conferences regularly. She writes prolifically against Hindus and India. The annual deficit runs between 25,000 to 38,000 dollars during her IISER years alone. Over nearly two decades, someone has funded a quarter million dollar shortfall.
Who leverages her work? What compels her continued focus on Hindu criticism despite zero institutional backing? Follow the money to find the answer.
The Escalating Bitterness
Even ignoring the leverage question, her polemic tone progression is striking. In 2009 she wrote analytically about the state-temple-corporate complex. By 2016 her tone hardened in “Science in Saffron.” By 2025 she turned vitriolic with “Way of the Jackal” and “Hindu Raj.” This is not intellectual refinement. This is personal investment intensifying as the world refuses to conform to her prophecy.
This pattern provided material security and identity validation as brave truth-teller. She gained audience affirmation from Western liberals who want to hear India is failing. She gained immunity from consequences. Critics in India cannot touch her career. She has no career in India to touch.
The Sanctuary Pattern
Her career path and trajectory starts with clarity and then merges into obscurity. She works in India for 5 decades. Publishes controversial critique of Indian majority in fifth decade. Now she finds position in Western Institution. She continues her critique from safe distance. Initially she gets funded by Western institutions interested in that narrative. But that too disappears.
But who gave the sanctuary? That part is not clear. A person who demands transparency and rationality from government and civilization should be open about her sources of living. She writes extensively about accountability. Yet her own financial accountability remains obscure. The gap between her expenses and visible income spans decades. Someone funds this work. That someone remains unnamed.
The Convert’s Zeal Pattern
Psychologists call this apostate psychology. Someone turns against their origin community with particular ferocity. Possible patterns emerge.
First, the embittered insider. Someone rejected or hurt by their original community becomes its harshest critic. They know the vulnerabilities. They feel personally betrayed.
Second, identity crisis resolved through opposition. When personal identity becomes unstable, some people resolve it by defining themselves against something. Especially against their past. Divorce, career change, aging, displacement all trigger this.
Third, the validation seeker. Moving from biology to social criticism of religion is radical. One way to validate that leap is making it a moral mission. She can say she left respectable science to fight a great evil.
Psychological Possibilities
Several psychological patterns could explain her trajectory. First, rebellion against family or upbringing. This often delays until midlife. Second, guilt displacement. Feeling complicit in something, then overcompensating. Third, identity reconstruction. Creating a new self defined by opposition to the old self. Fourth, trauma response. Something happened involving Hindu community or practice that caused deep hurt.
Her trajectory parallels the theology student who lost faith. These people train for ministry then lose faith. They know the tradition intimately but feel personally betrayed by it. They become the harshest critics because they need the old faith to be evil, not just wrong. It justifies their break from old tradition.
Nanda’s trajectory resembles this pattern with a twist. She left science, her professional faith. She now crusades against Hindus, her cultural inheritance. This matters for understanding her work. It is therapy, not scholarship.
Earlier articles have shown something curious. Her personal view of modern Hindus aligns with Arya Samaj sect. Yet she carefully avoids mentioning this alignment. Arya Samaj itself is a Hindu reform movement. This complicates the simple apostate narrative. She attacks Hindu practices while unknowingly echoing a Hindu reformist sect. But the fact remains that some cause of bitterness exists. The ferocity demands explanation beyond intellectual disagreement.
The Tragic Element
The progression to “Way of the Jackal” in 2025 suggests someone trapped in a narrative they cannot escape. To admit the theory was wrong would require admitting the whole identity reconstruction was misguided. The 2009 election brought Congress victory. But 2014, 2019 and 2024 elections ended in defeat of secularist parties. These are the parties she would naturally align with. Her ferocity continues despite these defeats. Her ferocity defies logic.
What is her motivation now? Is it still personal displacement, anger, need for meaning and identity reconstruction? In 2025, very unlikely. But possible.
If true, it is sad. The pattern then clearly fits deep psychological dysfunction. She becomes a case study. Not a scholar making arguments. A person acting out unresolved trauma through political polemic. The work becomes symptom, not analysis. The reader should approach it with that understanding.
Similar Cases
This fits several documented psychological patterns.
First, apostate overcompensation. Former insiders who become outsiders often adopt more extreme positions than natural outsiders. They need to prove they have truly left.
Second, midlife ideological conversion. Career or personal disruption around age 45 to 55 triggers radical worldview change. People seek larger meaning during this period.
Third, exile’s bitterness. Those who leave or feel pushed from origin community become its harshest critics. This intensifies when community of origin thrives without them.
Fourth, prophet rejected by home. The warner whose warnings are ignored often doubles down with apocalyptic certainty. They cannot admit being wrong.
Meera Nanda exhibits all four patterns. She left her scientific career at 50. She attacks Hindus more harshly than any Western critic. She writes from America while India’s Hindu majority grows stronger electorally. She escalates her warnings as each prediction fails. The 2009 prophecy of Hindu decline became the 2025 jeremiad of Hindu fascism. The pattern is clinical.
The academic apparatus (citations, theoretical framework) is the socially acceptable container for what is essentially a personal exorcism.
Without biographical confirmation, we cannot know the trigger. It could be divorce, professional disappointment, family rupture, or something else entirely.
But something happened.
This reads like personal vendetta wrapped in academic language. It is sustained by institutions that benefit from that particular narrative about India.
A person does not develop this level of scorn for their own past through abstract reasoning. Something broke. The work is the scar tissue.
References: