SV: [Y-Indology] an appeal to scholars

[Guest guest]

Since Mr. Thompson seems to uphold me as an example of a Hindu fanatic

(strange that he does not have the courage to say so openly in

public and court), let us see an application of Dr. Fosse's remarks to

Indology and GT:

 

INDOLOGY, Lars Martin Fosse <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

 

 

> its emphasis on discipline, in its refusal to recognise the specific

> character of minorities

VA: GT and other 'mainstream' Indologists do not want to give the

minority non-mainstreamers any breathing space. Calling them names,

harassing them, and dismissing their work on grounds like 'no Univ

outside India recognizes that...', or 'this view will not make it to

the mainstream....' is an example of the mentality of the Indologists

Lynch Mob. Although I wonder that if Indology itself is not mainstream

in Academia, is it not illogical to talk of 'mainstream Indology'.

Does anyone ever speak of the 'main torrent of a trickle from the

tap'?

______________________

 

> definition, some of its policies (also adopted by the Hindu

nationalist

> movement in general) have clear parallels in Fascist states.

VA: Many of Indologicy dogmas have CLEAR parallels in Nazi and

Neo-Nazi literature. Not to mention that some Indologists did

collaborate with hate mongering ideologues. That cannot be a reason to

call Indologists as members of these categories in my considered

opinion.

_________________________

>The

>most

> important factor here is the victimisation of certain social groups,

in the

> case of India Muslims and Christians who are treated with active

> intolerance and used as an "inner enemy" to rally the majority

population.

VA: Likewise, 'mainstream' Indologists gang up against 'upstarts' and

'revisionists' to maintain their dominance. Such minority members are

disinvited from conferences, their papers are rejected in closely

controlled 'peer reviewed' journals, they are called 'lunatic fringe',

'crooks and crazies', 'Hindu fanatics', 'Fascists', 'Racists', 'Hindu

nationalists' and all kinds of names that occur in the frustrated

minds of the 'mainstream' Indologists.

________________

 

> (But so far, no concentration camps have been built, which is an

important

> difference between India and Nazi Germany!) It should be noted,

however,

> that the definition of "Fascism" among scholars is unclear, there

are in

> fact several definitions, and it is possible that organisations such

as the

> RSS or the Shiv Sena might fall within some such definition.

 

VA: That is the difference between Indology and Nazism as well - that

no concentration camps with gas chambers have been built. Of course,

the lives of non-conforming 'revisionists' is made miserable if they

stay in academia and eventually they suffer great mental harassment.

_____________________

> 2. Fanaticism

>

> A fanatic is a person who a) does not brook any opposition to his or

her

> views ("I am absolutely right always"), b) acts aggressively and

invasively

> to spread his or her conviction, and c) is intolerant of other

convictions

> ("they have no right to be here").

VA: I agree. This includes verbal violence, attacks and accusations,

abusive remarks, name-calling, expulsion from moderated lists,

parading of prejudiced opinions as objective research, condescending

remarks, free for all opinions on matters pertaining to India beyond

one's competence - behavior that is so common in mainstream

Indologists.

_________________

 

>Fanatics are obsessive and often

> violent, or they readily accept violence performed by others in the

name of

> the "cause".

VA: The cause of 'standard paradgims of Indology' myst be upheld.

Anyone who does not do so will be harassed, labelled a crook and crazy

and subjected to a lot of verbal violence. If someone else does that

violence, then the other birds of the same tree will sit quiet. Words

like fraud, fantasy will be used very often.

_______________

>

> Outside these groups, you have people who share some of the views of

the

> groups mentioned above, but not all of them. Whether they should be

termed

> fanatics would depend upon the way they propagate their views as

well as

> the character of their view.

VA: Outside Indology, Racists may to the same opinions. But

that does not make the latter Indologists.

_____________

>Honestly believing in the Out-of-India

theory

> does not automatically make you a fanatic.

 

VA: Oh these little mercies! BTW, what if someone like me does not

believe in OIT or AIT? Anyways, Professor Witzel will not agree with

you if you look at his hit list in the Frontline article or his

tolerant remarks against believers in OIT.

____

>

> The remarks stated above also apply to Christian, Muslim, and

Buddhist

> fanatics. A fanatic is a fanatic, no matter what his or her creed

>is.

VA: It applies also to 'mainstream' Indologists.

_________

> Yes, up to a point. All religious and political movements have a

right to

> regard themselves as "better" than others.

VA: Likewise, all schools of thought in Academia are also prone to

fall prey to this tendency. Even if the field is non-mainstream

Academia like Indology.

___

 

> This is self-evident. However, in a democratic society, everything,

> including religious views, may be open to criticism. Nothing is

above

> public debate.

VA: You mean even mainstream Indology??

 

Anyways, it should be noted that Mr. Thompson has misconstrued my

statement. While we are yet to see who the Hindu fanatics in this list

are, we do have some information on who the members of the Eurocentric

Indologist Lynch Mob are. I did not mean to say that he launched a

crusade against Hindu fanatics at the conference in question.

 

Regards

 

Vishal Agarwal