Unfortunate exchanges

[Guest guest]

It is indeed unfortunate that we have had recriminations between members

occasioned by the death of Dr. Paul Thieme.

 

No one, including Vishal Agarwal, has spoken disrespectfully of Dr. Thieme.

As Vishal noted, on the IndianCivilization list he relayed news of Dr.

Thieme's death and, when a member there questioned the relevance, pointedly

noted Dr. Thieme's contributions and value.

 

Regrettably, however, Vishal included in his comment on this list a mild

statement of disagreement with one of Dr. Thieme's interpretations. This

gave offense to Dr. Witzel, who is mourning the death of his guru, and to

Dr. Wujastyk. Prof. Witzel's comments have been especially acerbic,

scorning Agarwal as unpublished and a slanderer. Vishal replied to one of

these messages by calling Prof. Witzel a "liar."

 

Please, enough. Vishal, who is too quick to disagree with Profs.

Witzel and Wujastyk due to previous acrimonious exchanges with both, should

not have offered anything but praise for Dr. Thieme on this sensitive

occasion. To do otherwise was to cause offense, as it did. But he did not

mean disrespect to Dr. Thieme. The escalation of words since then has lost

any reasonable or proportionate connection with the original grievance.

 

Prof. Witzel, they also serve who have not published. I understand Mr.

Agarwal to be a postgraduate student. If so, the time he expends collecting

and sharing information is remarkable and stands to his credit, not his

detriment. Moreover, where would those who study and publish be without

libraries, and librarians? Ask Allen W. Thrasher, whose contributions to

the list are similar in some respects to those of Mr. Agarwal. Agarwal is

usefully supplementing other on-line resources and showing exceptional

energy and persistence. Are not these good qualities in a student?

 

I take it you do not think highly of his efforts, regarding them as

uninformed, excessively opinionated, and politically dangerous. Again,

except for the last, qualities to be expected even in a serious student, I

think. What he lacks in training could be remedied. He seems to me to have

the ability to go far, and you have the ability to train him to your

specifications and standards, to everyone's benefit. You ought to arrange

a fellowship for him, not go to war with him. Indeed, if rich Indians in

America want to spend their money usefully, one of them ought to set up a

program for training Indians in Indology at major universities teaching

those subjects, like a reverse-Fulbright program focused on Indology.

 

As for Agarwal's political opinions, they also give me pause and I

sometimes disagree with him. However, I find him to be an honest and

principled person (as are you, Prof. Witzel), and hence not lost to reason.

 

I won't presume to tell Prof. Witzel or Mr. Agarwal how to behave. Prof.

Witzel knows best what makes him tick, and the quality of his work testifies

that his method is productive. He has few peers when he sticks to his

strengths -- his ability to comprehend and analyze a large body of critical

information and to support his conclusions with informed reasons.

 

But the rest of us gain more from Prof. Witzel's expertise and Mr. Agarwal's

contributions, and give them greater credibility, when the message is not

obscured or diverted by provocative personal remarks.

 

We may vehemently disagree, but if we do so in a courteous manner we may

reduce the areas of disagreement and increase mutual knowledge.

 

IMHO.

 

David

 

 

p.s. Bye the bye, regarding the various accusations of libel and slander

directed against Mr. Agarwal, with threats of lawsuits against him by Dr.

Farmer:-- Speaking as a lawyer, both Prof. Witzel and Dr. Farmer have made

themselves into "public figures," at least regarding Indological subjects,

and, accordingly, they could not recover in court unless they could prove

not only that false statements were made but also that the assertedly false

statements were made with "constitutional malice," that is, they must be

able to prove false statements were made with knowledge that they were false

or with reckless disregard of whether or not they were false. Absent this,

the statements are constitutionally protected. Compare, e.g., New York

Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 255 (1964), with, e.g., Gertz v. Robert

Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).