Code of Ethics for the Indology List

[Guest guest]

In view of the recent unpleasantness ( see earlier posts from George

Thompson in this list as well as its predecessors), I hope the need

for a code of ethical behaviour for this list is clear to everyone. I

would like to see Indology in general adopt a code of ethics, but

perhaps we can be a model for this field right here on this forum.

 

No one person can create such a code. It has to be debated (

politely!) and arrived at by common consensus. I will raise the points

that I find important but others can contribute ( in separate threads

if needed). Indian `Sabhas' had similar rules of debate, so let us

learn from the great culture we are all studying.

 

 

It is my understanding that other groups of scholars have a code of

ethics ( e.g., doctors, engineers, denitists) which is a part of their

training that have similarly evolved by debate.

 

1. Definition of Scholar: Anyone who adheres to this code of conduct

and has a sincere interest in the study of ancient India is a

`scholar': even if their academic training is not in a Western

Institution or even if their degree is another discipline ( eg.

medicine).

 

2. Labelling: There will be no labelling of people as "Cultural

Racist", "Hindu fanatic", "thug", "Eurocentrist"- not because

(according to any individual) these terms are appropriate, but because

to indulge in this sort of labelling is simply `unscholarly'.

 

3. Sarcasm: The use of sarcasm ( as in "I await with bated breath your

inestimable contribution") should be avoided, even if the author

merely thinks this lightens the atmosphere. Similarly comments about

grammatical style or punctuation should be made with respect and only

when relevant to the discussion. Violators to this rule should be

called to task no matter how eminent.

 

4. Whenever a hard to reach work is referenced ( i.e., not a journal

article but a conference proceeding or rare manuscript) a quote of the

relevant passage should be given. It is the author's ethical

responsibility to give a full quote and not twist the context.

 

5. There should be no presumption that any one world view is dominant-

whether it is that of a Western Academic or a Hindu Pandit or Swami.

There will be no comments such as " typical of the Pandita class"

or " as only a professor can beieve".

 

 

6. There will be a serious discussion of the ethical lapses of

Indology in the past- to remove the shadow of suspicion with which

this entire field is now viewed by the larger community of

scientists.

 

 

7. The text produced by Indologists should be held to the same

standards of scrutiny as that in any other field. If an exclusive

source is cited (eg., a personal webpage or a journal under the direct

editorial control of the author) is cited, it should be understood

that the conslusions therein are subject to challenge by other

scholars ( see definition of scholar above).

 

 

8. Academic Indologists who claim special knowledge ( or are in

possession of manuscripts not found in a typical library) have a

responsibility to be aware of the uses to which their conclusions

will be put by the lay public. They are not to be held responsible for

such abuses, but must make an honest attempt to correct the record-for

example by a note in their personal web page. No political action is

expected, nor is it by any means forbidden.

 

Let us see what the best minds of the East and the West can create

here!.