No evidence is presented for the purported mistranslations (of pretty subjective things to start with) as deliberate. You’d have to show that Wendy Doniger knew what e.g. the painting actually represented, for a fact, and still published information differing from this position in some way. It’s possible to be sincere but misinformed.

Maybe she was sincere and misinformed but the article points out how this might be misinformed, I don’t see any disagreement?