Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 I am saddened by the behaviour of "scholars" such as George Thompson and even more by the lack of response to his post from his colleagues. Can Indologists not recognize religious bigotry when they see it? Scholar, study thyself. INDOLOGY, VAgarwalV@c... wrote: > Contrary to what Thompson seems to believe, it DOES NOT take much > courage to brand others as 'Hindu fanatics' because this category of > the 'hated other' is so mild that no retribution can be expected. On > the contrary, it takes REAL courage to restraint one's own hysterical > outbursts, to reprimand one's own influential colleagues and friends > when they cross the line of decency and objectivity. And it takes real > courage to acknowledge and disown those Indologists who had shady > associations. It is very easy to whip up a fear psychosis against the > 'other' to justify their persecution and ostracism, especially when > the other is very docile and mild AND is correct. I hope that GT will > withdraw his remarks, even if with the pretext that the message was > sent inadvertently because of a computer malfunction, just as he has > done some many times in the past. > > The frequent use of phrases like 'Hindu fanatics', 'Hindu fascists' is > offensive to neutral practicing Hindus like me. Such abusive > statements are based on the premise that 'Western' Indology is > inherently objective and unbiased, whereas its ideological > affiliations run deeper than any theory associated with Hindutva. What > business does GT have to call 'others' Hindu fanatics repeatedly? It > only reflects his contempt for Hindus as a category, who can be called > fanatics and fascists at the drop of a pin. So much for his opposition > to racist prejudices and the like! > > In the current atmosphere of 'Western' Indology, the objectivity of > 'Western' scholars is considered self-evident whereas an Indian seems > to require an Agni-Parikshaa. Even veteran Indian scholars have to > clarify again and again that 'I have never supported Hindutva' whereas > if they have any courage, they would not do so. Labels like 'Hindu > fanatic', 'fascist', 'Hindutva fanatic' are freely thrown at people of > Indian origin. This is a symptom of the prejudiced minds of some > 'objective' scholars. And when we see how in the past (and to some > extent even in the present), these 'objective' scholars (or at least > their views) were linked with dangerous ideologies, it makes me pause > and think if this positive correlation also has some degree of > causation in it. > > Enrica is so quick to defend her colleagues. Where was she when some > ill-informed people were lampooning scientists and Engineers in India? > May be she also thinks that all those who oppose the 'standard > paradigms' of Indology (in reality established in an age marked by all > kind of prejudices against the people of the 'colonies') are fanatics > and fascists and that she is truly objective, notwithstanding that the > so called Hindu fanatics have not done 1% of what the Fascists did. To > decide who is more dangerous, may we just look at the historical > record please? > > The AIT/AMT question should have NO BEARING at all with Indian-ness > although you might certainly be aware of the ideological affiliations > of the various theories in CONTEMPORARY India. Contrary to the > writings of Indologists, things are not so simple. AIT in their most > rabid forms are eagerly promoted by some religious fanatics in India > (gave some URL's to Prof Witzel the other day), by Marxists and EVEN > by some Hindutva followers. In fact, the most prominent website on > Hindutva run by a Mr. Bedekar upholds AIT. However, it is > disappointing to note that ill-informed academics sitting in ivory > towers choose to ignore the complexity of the situation and singularly > blame a particular hate category. This amounts to hate mongering, and > putting the blame on a hated 'other', in addition to plain mental > lethargy. I need not dwell on the consequences that this hate > mongering can have. > > An event or a process that supposedly took place 35 centuries ago > should not have any bearing on present state of affairs in India. I > stated precisely that in one of my first posts on the old Indology > list. > > I have no axe to grind against 'Western' Academics when certain Indian > academics are no better. However, it is a democracy and each is free > to air his or her opinions. What is strange is that the so called > scholars resort to the most cheap, low name calling, demonization of > people who oppose their opinions, calling them fanatics, fascists, > crooks and crazies. All this reflects clearly their internalized > prejudices. If AIT skeptics are called fanatics, then there is much in > the views of AMT/AIT upholders to link their opinions to all kinds of > dangerous groups- past and present. > > As an Indian citizen, I also feel concerned that certain academicians > should hob-knob with and promote Communist ideologue 'scholars' like R > S Sharma and K N Panikkar, and write for the publications of these > people. These academicians would not tolerate such third grade and > dangerous ideologies in their own country, but do not think twice > before indirectly supporting these ideologues in a third world country > like India. > > Vishal > > > INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote: > > To the few scholars who may remain on this once scholarly list: > > > > This list has once again been overrun by fanatics, this time by > fanatics who > > wish to characterize all Indologists as neo-Nazi racists. Well, I > know that > > there is no point in responding to these fanatics, since they have > repeatedly > > demonstrated that they do not listen to reason. But I am concerned > about the > > health of this list, in the absence of a rational and truly ethical > response > > to the unscholarly and truly immoral trash that has dominated the > list lately. > > > > In general, I respect the decision of those who have decided to > ignore the > > provocations of these Hindu fanatics. I myself have tried to do so. > But how > > can we. with good conscience. remain silent in the face of such > outrageously > > false and malicious slander? Should we remain silent before these > vicious > > assaults on good people, good people both living and dead, whom we > know are > > not racists at all? > > > > I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone on > this > > list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to remain silent > before > > the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who have repeatedly > shown > > themselves to be racist down to the bitter core. > > > > I know. Scholars are scholars. We are not renowned for our > courage. But it > > is time for us to show some little bit of courage, isn't it? We > shouldn't > > let these thugs dominate what was once a good, respectable, > scholarly > > discussion group. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Thompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 As you can see below, this "scholar" was supposed to have resigned from the list already. Is his departure this time for real? What has American liberal arts education come to? Is this how a junior scholar is expected to carry on the fights for his superiors in order to achieve tenure? The silence of the other Indologists is deafening. INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote: > First, I sincerely apologize to Rajiv Malhotra, and to the list in general, > for my nasty post. I should not have responded to the other poster, nor > should I have associated Malhotra with him. > > For what it's worth: In spite of our disagreements I sense that Mr Malhotra's > motives ultimately are good and decent. > > Second, Dominik, will you please me? > > Thanks for putting up with me for so long. > > George Thompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Wow. As George Thompson himself says in the attached `debate', the best way to understand an author is to study his writings. But happily, the post also shows that George Thompson is not typical of Indology today. It rveals all the more the dire necessity of "cleaning the house of Indology" to adapt a phrase of Fosse. In India, education has always been coupled with ethical training. Is there any equivalent in American liberal education any more? INDOLOGY, kaushal42@n... wrote: > While we are on the subject of definitions let us go the whole hog; > > 1. How does one define a scholar. Is somebody who stereotypes an > entire group of people as racists and fanatics qualify as a scholar ? > What has happened to the vaunted scholarship, the power of > discriminating between what is a scholarly discussion and a street > brawl ? > > 2. I know these terms - racist, fanatic,Hindu apologists (how does a > Hindu apologist differe from apologists in general ?) are bandied > about by Prof Thompson more frequently than he would like to admit in > polite company. I have been reading his postings going back to RISA-L > in 1996 and nothing much has changed. There were very few Hindus on > that list at that time and his protagonists were people like Edwin > Bryant, but that did not stop him from spewing a steady stream of > putdowns and condescending remarks on Indian Nationalists in general - > of course one needs to remind oneself that Gandhi would have been > proud to be called a nationalist. Some examples of Prof Thompson's > postings; > http://www.acusd.edu/~lnelson/risa/d-iaryan.txt > Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:55:00 -0700 > > "That is, nationalism is repulsive. Re > Joanne Waghorne's remarks: pointing out the repulsive colonialism and > nationalism of members of the British Raj does not make Hindu > nationalism any less repulsive. They're both repulsive, just as > American nationalism is also repulsive. [i hope the repetition is > clear: I mean *really* repulsive, as well as racist, etc.]." > > > http://www.acusd.edu/~lnelson/risa/d-iaryan.txt > "I was struck by the "balanced > view" that Flood took of the controversy re theories of the aryan > migration. Frawley,, Kak, Renfrew,et al., are all cited alongside > Allchin, Parpola, Mallory, et al., as if all of these were equally > competent authorities. This surprises me, because Frawley is in my > view a quack, Kak is, I confess, a complete unknown, and Renfrew is a > good archaeologist who has blatantly overstepped his competence > [VERY presumptuous to write a book about "Archaeology & Language" and > NOT know very much about the latter!], whereas the others ARE > authorities in their given fields [who don't go drifting strangely > into exotic fields beyond their control]." > > Sat, 5 Oct 1996 17:34:09 -0700 > "Sri Aurobindo may well have been a profound philosopher and an > enlightened > human being in his own right. I don't wish to challenge that view of > him. But I > do believe that his translations and interpretatations of the RV are > anachronistic. > [if the list doesn't like blunt assertions, then please, > put "I believe" before all of my previous assertions, and before all > of > those to follow]. I believe that you might well study his > translations and > interpretations in order to understand Sri Aurobindo, but I don't > think > that you will get an accurate picture of the RV from him." > > > There are rebuttals n the RISA-L by several people to > the 'assertions' by Prof. Thompson none of whom incidentally are > either 'Indian' or 'nationalist'. > > So here we have a 'scholar' who at the drop of a button, puts down > all Indian Nationalists, calls David Frawley a quack and belittles > Sri Aurobindo , one of the greatest renaissance Indian philosophers > of the 20th century. So much for this scholar's scholarship. > > Kaushal > > > > INDOLOGY, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97> wrote: > > INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote: > > > I will declare once again that I detest racism as much as anyone > on > > this > list. Anyone whatsoever. And that is why I refuse to > remain > > silent before > the blatent racism of these Hindu apologists, who > have > > repeatedly shown > themselves to be racist down to the bitter > core. > > > > How does one recognize 'blatent racism'? And at what does one reach > > the 'bitter core'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 INDOLOGY, aishwaryannamboodiri wrote: > As you can see below, this "scholar" was supposed to have resigned > from the list already. Is his departure this time for real? > > What has American liberal arts education come to? Is this how a > junior scholar is expected to carry on the fights for his superiors in > order to achieve tenure? The silence of the other Indologists is > deafening. I believe you violated point no: 3 of your list when you wrote "scholar" with scare quotes. :-) Also any one can or re at will. Resignation from list may not be permanent. Regards Bhadraiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 INDOLOGY, aishwaryannamboodiri wrote: > As you can see below, this "scholar" was supposed to have resigned > from the list already. Is his departure this time for real? > > What has American liberal arts education come to? Is this how a > junior scholar is expected to carry on the fights for his superiors in > order to achieve tenure? The silence of the other Indologists is > deafening. Did you not violate point 3 of your list when you punctuate with scare quotes ("scholar")? Also any one can re after unsubscribing. Regards Bhadraiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 You are right, I am at fault there. I did that before I had the better idea of the code of conduct. To clarify my position, I will unilaterally adhere to the code for the next ten messages. By then I hope it will have a good effect on the behavior of the others on the list. No code can be eternally unilateral. Thanks for your good humour. INDOLOGY, vaidix@h... wrote: > INDOLOGY, aishwaryannamboodiri wrote: > > As you can see below, this "scholar" was supposed to have resigned > > from the list already. Is his departure this time for real? > > > > What has American liberal arts education come to? Is this how a > > junior scholar is expected to carry on the fights for his superiors > in > > order to achieve tenure? The silence of the other Indologists is > > deafening. > > Did you not violate point 3 of your list when you punctuate with > scare quotes ("scholar")? Also any one can re after > unsubscribing. > > Regards > Bhadraiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.