An open letter to BBC Knowledge on an article by Devdutt Pattanaik

I saw an article in BBC Knowledge written by Devdutt Pattanaik and wrote a letter to them. I would like to reproduce the same here.

Dear Ms Monteiro-D'Souza,

I am an avid reader of BBC Knowledge and have been seeing a few articles being written by Devdutt Pattanaik (DP).

While I am happy that he has reintroduced Hindu tales to a wide audience, I would also like to share that

1. his articles are more tuned towards a western audience.
2. He conveniently twists points to suit his narrative.
3. He is often wrong
4. I find it insulting to me personally and to the millions of Hindus worldwide when he refers to the Ramayana, Mahabharata et al as myths. 

I wonder whether he or your magazine would have the audacity to write about stories from the Bible and the Koran and describe them as Christian and Islamic myths respectively.

Let me give you a few examples of what I mean by saying he twists points and is wrong.

1. Kubera's father is Vaishrava - This is wrong and betrays a basic lack of understanding of Sanskrit. I shudder to think of a person who dares to describe Hinduism without understanding Sanskrit. Kubera's father is Vishrava, which is why Kubera is called Vaishravana. Similarly, Krishna (the son of Vasudeva) is called Vaasudeva, Rama (the son of Dasharatha) is called Daasharathi. In the same way, Paarvati is so named as she is the daughter of Himavat Parvata.
2. Kubera is no longer worshipped in India - This is false. My own mother has undertaken a vrat that is specifically performed to propitiate Kubera. Towards the end of every Hindu ceremony, the Mantrapushpam is recited. This has a specific phrase - Kuberaaya vaishravanaaya, mahaaraajaaya namah. Please ask DP to understand Hindu rituals before he makes comments.
3. He talks about scholars deciding things in multiple places in the article. Who are these scholars? Western scholars who have no idea about the layers of meaning inherent in all Hindu scriptures? Those who are arrogant enough to think mere bookish knowledge, interpreted through their western and Christian upbringing is enough to comment on material they do not even understand? He does not even mention who these "scholars" are. Does he think he is one of these scholars?
4. He talks about the Yaksha prasna in the Mahabharata. He conveniently omitted that the "yaksha" turned out to be Dharma (or Yama) at the end of the episode.
5. Yakshas and especially Yakshinis are still mentioned in Tantra. Please ask him to read Robert Svoboda's books.
6. He talks about "tension" between yakshas and rakshasas, tribal practices being picked up by "Brahmanism". These smack of western arrogance that I spoke about earlier.
7. He talks about yakshas and rakshasas being "associated" with Siva rather than with Vishnu. DP, being a Brahmin himself is supposed to do the Sandhyavandana on a daily basis. I am not sure if he has even heard of this practice. Towards the end of the Sandhyavandana comes a verse which talks about the unity of Siva and Vishnu. DP so conveniently sees a dichotomy between the two. I am just curious if he is aware of this unity.

I hope I have made my point. How you want to act further, is up to you.

Regards,
V Chaitanya