First, let me state unambiguously that I am not a scholar of comparative religion, nor am I an expert on Doniger’s work. Acquainted with both the field and Doniger; not an expert.
I’ve never been partial to Doniger’s theories of Hindusim; they seem to draw more heavily than I approve of on a psychological foundation for religion. That’s not to banish psychological elements from the study of religions; that would be foolish. But (without invoking the boogie-word “reductionism”), I sensed her to account for religious phenomena more resolutely in terms of psychology than I would.
So as far as dissenting from her scholarly position, I would sympathize. And I am not unsympathetic to complaints that she represents a Hinduism that Hindus wouldn’t recognize. Arguments that she “loves Hinduism” miss the point; I’ve known people to love Buddhism, for instance, on the basis of a tendentious and (to my mind) very misguided construal of what Buddhism is all about. Prof. Doniger — a very brilliant scholar — may well have fallen in love with her own sense of what Hinduism must be about, which Hinduism may well not gibe with the real devotion of real Hindus. I understand; I often feel that way about people’s representations of Christian faith.
As far as attacking her or Prof. Courtright of Emory, of course, that’s intolerable. If Doniger and Courtright are wrong, they should be rebutted, not attacked.