In a web forum for those learning Hindi, I provoked a strong reaction from one committed to what is known as "s(h)uddh" or "pure" Hindi. I was asking a question about the use of a "j" that has a dot under it. This transforms the sound from "j", a sound native to Hindi (or Khari Boli) to "z", a sound imported from Arabic or Persian via Urdu.

In response to my question, one respondent said that he would never use the "dotted" version of any Hindi character (there are several) in spelling any word, and that if he was likely to be forced to, would change the word, replacing it with one of Sanskrit derivation.

He supported this claim by saying that all languages make imports conform to their own orthography. While this is probably largely true, is it not true that English doesn't really care? From what I've seen "elan" and "élan" are about as common as each other. In fact, this retention of foreign orthography seems particularly common with words borrowed from the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, n'est-ce pas?

So how say you? Is English unusual in its tolerance of imported orthography? FWIW, the gentleman who prompted this question has since written words featuring "dotted" characters, so maybe his hindutva ideals aren't quite so cast in stone after all.

cast in stone - do you mean concrete?
But more seriously, the issue of imported orthography is also virulent in the German-speaking area. It has become more so with the spelling reform (see the respective thread). Swiss usage tends to be more conservative of the original spelling than German usage, which shies away e.g. from accents.