[world-vedic] Well Documented Expose on Thapar

[Guest guest]

Dear Virin Parker ,

Please send your e-mail to President of USA ,his e-mail is as follows. I did not

foward this email to president . I want youi to know therefore , I am sending

the e-mail address as follows.

president (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov

Thanks. Sincerely ,

Deen B. Chandora

>"vrnparker"

>vediculture >vediculture

>[world-vedic] Well Documented Expose on Thapar >Thu, 01 May

2003 02:29:56 -0000 > >Appointment of Professor Romila Thapar to the Kluge

Chair at the >Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. >By Malhotra >An Open

Letter of Protest > > >29 April 2003 > >Prosser Gifford, Director of

Academic Programs, LOC. > > > >Dear Dr. Gifford, > > > >I am writing this open

letter to protest the appointment of Dr. >Romila Thapar to the Kluge Chair at

the Library of Congress. At the >very outset, I want to emphasize two things –

> > > >· First, my complaint should not be construed as an attack on >academic

freedom. On the contrary, as a member of an American >minority community, my

concern is about due process and that it give >an equal voice to the minority

community on par with other Americans. >As you can judge from the tremendous

response to an on-line petition, >the community is voicing its distress and

sadness at the appointment >of Professor Thapar to the Kluge Chair. > > > >·

Second, I do not suspect the intentions or motivations of >the committee that

seeks to appoint Professor Thapar to the Kluge >Chair. However, as an informed

member of the Indian diaspora, I >sincerely urge you to reconsider the

appointment. > > > >My objections have been organized as follows – > > > >A.

Prof. Thapar's Lack of Required Skills > >B. Her Political Affiliations with

Indian Communists > >C. Perceptions and Fears of the Indian American Community

> >D. The Objectives of the Kluge Chair Center and the Library Of >Congress > >

> >I can provide you detailed documentary evidence for all my claims if >you so

desire. This is merely a brief letter. > > > >A. Prof. THAPAR's LACK OF

REQUIRED SKILLS - > > >The appointment of an applicant to the Kluge requires

that the person >be familiar with the literary, epigraphic, linguistic and

>archaeological sources which provide the primary data for this >research.

Unfortunately, Prof. Thapar does not come equipped with >those skills and

knowledge. > > > >1. Linguistic Skills: From her own public admissions, we know

that >Prof. Thapar is ignorant of classical languages of India – >Pali/Prakrit,

Tamil.[1] Her knowledge of Sanskrit, the lingua franca >of literate communities

in ancient India, is quite rudimentary. Of >the four linguistic groups of India

viz., Tibeto-Burman, Dravidian, >Austro-Asiatic and Indo-Aryan,[2] she has

little or no familiarity >with the first three, and a fragmentary knowledge of

the last. As a >result, she is unable to do any reasonable linguistic analysis

in her >writings. > >The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), with which she has

been >affiliated with for most of her career, had actually scuttled efforts >to

teach the classical languages of India within their premises, on >the grounds

that teaching Sanskrit will promote Hindu revivalism! Her >own aversion towards

Sanskrit is well known and documented. > >Next to English, considerable

core/fundamental research on ancient >India has been written and published in

German, citations of which >are largely conspicuous by their absence in her

writings.[3] > >It may be noted that Prof. Thapar has not translated even one

ancient >Indian text ab initio, she has merely `translated' some passages from

>texts such as Bhagavata Purana,[4] which already have dozens of >existing

translations. > > > >2. Insufficient Knowledge of Literary Records: Several

major Indian >texts from the ancient period still lie untranslated, and most

>existing translations were done as much as a century ago. Much >philological

data has emerged in the last century, and fresh >translations are needed to

provide students with a more modern and >robust perspective. Prof. Thapar's own

lack of the required >linguistic skills forces her to ignore the non-translated

texts. >Instead, she is known to rely on the available outdated translations

>of ancient Indian texts and inscriptions – a fact noted by many >friendly

scholars.[5] > >For non-translated texts, she tends to rely on old `Indices'

such as >the Vedic Index from 1912. These indices and concordances are quite

>outdated and considered unsatisfactory by scholars doing state of the >art

research. In fact, a recent review[6] of one of her writings >(`From Lineage to

State' to be specific) alludes that her `analyses' >are akin to `theoricising in

empirical vacuity', precisely because of >her non-familiarity with the primary

literary sources from ancient >India. > >Her own lack of familiarity with these

sources is compounded by her >total disdain for the utility of such studies. A

recent review of her >writings quotes her as saying – "there is nothing to be

learnt from >the ancient literature of India that has not already been

learned'. >[7] I wonder if a scholar with such an attitude, coupled with

>incompetence in the required area can do serious research on >historical

consciousness in ancient India. It may be noted that Mrs. >Thapar has not

translated a single ancient Indian text from scratch. > > > >3. Lack of skills

in Paleography, Epigraphy and Related Fields: >Inscriptions from ancient India

are encountered in a myriad scripts. >Mrs. Thapar cannot read more than 1 or 2

of these scripts. There do >exist sources such as Epigraphia Indica, which give

the text of these >inscriptions. However, it is well known that the volumes are

not >updated regularly. Moreover, serious scholars often prefer to visit >the

sites of these and examine the evidence afresh.[8] Her critics >have shown that

Prof. Thapar has actually managed to distort even the >evidence available from

the Epigraphia Indica.[9] > >Many Indian texts are still in manuscript – there

are an estimated >four million manuscripts in Indian libraries. These texts are

often >written in scripts that are no longer used. Prof. Thapar cannot read

>these manuscripts, and especially where the texts have not been

>published/translated yet, this is a serious lacuna. It may be noted >that

Prof. Thapar has not published a single Indic text directly from >manuscripts.

> > > >4. Incompetence in Archaeology: Prof. Thapar participated in two >small

archaeological excavations about 35 years ago, but thereafter, >she has not

benefited from the immense amounts of archaeological data >being unearthed by

professionals in India year after year, especially >in recent years. In fact,

she and a few other fellow Marxist >historians have been at constant

loggerheads with the archaeological >survey of India for almost a decade now,

because newly emerging data >tends to be at variance with Marxist paradigms of

Indian history. >Recently, she, along with a few other Marxist historians even

>advocated a total moratorium on archaeological excavations in India >for the

next couple of years because the Indian archaeology >establishment is allegedly

`saffronized'[10] and their work can boost >sectarian tensions. In fact, it is

these same set of historians who >have thoroughly `communalized' (the use of

this word in Indian >English approximates the meaning `enhance sectarianism')!

Needless to >say, such an attitude is not conducive to enhancing our

understanding >of ancient India. > > > >One could argue that the craft of a

historian goes beyond the above >four skills, and also consists in interpreting

all these primary >data. However, a lack of skills required to collect the

primary data >can never be substituted by finesse in interpretations. What is

the >use of parading ones skills in armchair twisting of fashionable socio-

>anthropological theories[11] if one is incapable of generating, >collecting

and comprehending primary data? Scholarly differences of >opinion are to be

expected in a field like history, especially when >it pertains to ancient

India. However, what cannot be disputed is >that a competency in the

above-mentioned fields is an absolute >requirement for a historian of ancient

India. > > > >It may be noted that Prof. Thapar's publications are all

secondary >interpretations of selective and inadequate primary data. Her

>personal contribution in generating primary data of use to historians >is

practically nil. > > > >Her disdain for traditional scholars of India, for

archaeologists in >India, and for the utility of learning Sanskrit and other

classical >languages and so on reflect an attitude which is not very suitable

>for a candidate aspiring to occupy the Kluge Chair. > > > >B. POLITICAL

AFFILIATIONS OF Prof. THAPAR - History as Political >Propaganda: > > > >The

interpretations that Prof. Thapar gives to whatever primary data >that can be

handled by her, depends a lot on her own world view, and >her resulting

paradigms with regard to ancient India. This is where >my second set of

objections lies. > > > >Prof. Thapar is a Marxist historian, and is

acknowledged as such even >by scholars of Marxism outside India.[12]

Consequently, she has a >very reductionist/narrow view of India's past. For

instance, she >tends to exclude or diminish the importance of non-materialistic

>aspects of our culture and civilization. But more than that, she has >a very

negative opinion of the Hindu religious beliefs and >spirituality. Her disdain

for the intellectual and spiritual >contributions of ancient India is reflected

in her vehement public >opposition to the teaching of Yoga in Indian

schools.[13] > > > >A subtle hate-mongering against Hindus and Hinduism seems

to be an >underlying theme in her writings. Even the school textbooks (I read

>them as a Grade VI student because they were required reading, >mandated by

the State) are not free from this bias.[14] The bias is >manifested in many

ways, to the extent that other scholars have >alleged that Prof. Thapar has

distorted primary historical evidence >to suit political expediency. For

instance, it is alleged that she >has white-washed history when it comes to the

rule of Muslim rulers >in stamping out expressions of indigenous religious

beliefs of >Indians.[15] While one can certainly appreciate her social concerns

>that cause her to do all this, a professional historian is expected >to draw a

line before historiography becomes fiction dictated by >ephemeral political

ideologies. But anyone who has drawn attention to >these deficiencies is

immediately abused as a Brahminist and what >not, by her and her supporters. >

> > >`Nationalism' is a dirty word for Indian Marxism, and anything that >could

inspire Indians to feel pride in their culture is deprecated. >Consistent with

Indian Marxist ideology, she has tended to promote >the antiquated

colonial-missionary-racist paradigm of ancient India, >even though she

professes to do just the opposite. Scholars have >noticed how her writings

merely excerpt works from the colonial era >peppered with politically correct

jargon. Some scholars have even >seen a strong parallel between her views and

the Aryanist writings of >the early 20th century.[16] > > > >If the study of

history in India is so thoroughly politicized these >days, Mrs. Thapar must

share a lot of the credit for the same. Born >into aristocracy, she has been

accused of leveraging her connections, >and for promoting the hegemony of a

small group of >Marxist/Communist/Leftist scholars who have been thrusting >the

`official' history of India on several generations since 1970's. >[17] For

instance, her textbook for school children was mandatory >reading for millions

of students from 1966 to 2001! Consistent with >the Indian Marxist political

ideology, she has privileged one >religion over the other. For instance, it

suits Indian Marxists to >glorify Islam, Christianity and Marxism and criticize

Hinduism. Such >tendencies are both clear and subtle in her writings. Her

writings >also tend to create an alarmist tendency amongst certain sections of

>Indian society, and give a boost to sectarianism, which ironically >she

derides.[18] > > > >Prof. Thapar herself has been an advisor to the Leader of

the >Opposition Political Party if India, namely Mrs. Sonia Gandhi >(President

of the Congress Party), and is considered very close to >her. She has

repeatedly shared the dais with Communist leaders. Her >alma mater is

considered the Mecca of Indian Marxism, and leading >lights of Communist

terrorist movements of India and Nepal openly >acknowledge their debt to that

institute.[19] Prof. Thapar has >frequently made pointed attacks, in her public

writings and in her >speeches, against certain political parties and their

leaders, >particularly those belonging to the present ruling coalition in New

>Delhi. She has doggedly refused to condemn the large scale doctoring >of

history textbooks by the Communist ruled state governments of >India,[20] and

has in fact sided with the ideologues of these >political parties. > > > >Worst

yet, she has constantly associated herself with an Indian >organization called

SAHMAT, whose office has been located right >within the New Delhi branch of the

Communist Party of India (Marxist). >[21] SAHMAT is well-known for its

anti-Americanism, and is at the >forefront of anti-US demonstrations

periodically. Mrs. Thapar >frequently uses their platforms for making attacks

on certain Indian >politicians, contributes to their publications and has her

own >pamphlets sponsored by them. > > > >Prof. Thapar is most welcome to

to a particular political >or religions ideology. The problem arises

when her scholarly work >becomes merely a subterfuge for political propaganda.

It is >impossible, in the eyes of the average Indian, to separate `Thapar –

>the Historian', from `Thapar- the Politician'.[22] > > > >In recent years,

there has been an upsurge in the interest in ancient >Indian culture and

religion amongst all sections of the Indian >society. Newer technologies that

have democratized education and >dissemination of knowledge, have promoted this

trend. Prof. Thapar >has, however, expressed negative views on these trends

quite often. >In a publication ten years ago, she notes with disdain that

Indian >scholars in the west use `the computer' to facilitate their research.

>In a recent publication, she wonders if there should be state control >on the

Internet and media in India.[23] And in interviews, she has >lamented often

that the `barrier to entry' for professional >historiography has gotten lowered

in recent years. Such an elitist >mindset for a scholar wedded to Marxist

historiography is somewhat >paradoxical, and disturbing to me. > > > >C.

PERCEPTIONS OF THE INDIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY >Prof. Thapar's writings have also

unfairly tarnished the illustrious >Indian community in the United States. She

has suggested often, >without much provocation, that members of the community

promote >fundamentalism in India, and that they fund cranks and support fringe

>scholars rather than promote genuine scholarship. > > > >All this perhaps

explains why the on-line petition[24] protesting her >appointment has drawn

such a massive response. In a matter of 4 days, >the petition gathered 1400+

signatures. It would be reasonable to >assume that most of the supporters of

this petition are from the US, >given the low depth of penetration of the

Internet in India. Some of >the recurring themes in the protest notes of the

signatories of the >petition are: `She is anti-Hindu', `She is anti-India',

`her >historiography is flawed', `She is a Communist', `She would be a >strain

in US Tax $', `She represents colonial historiography', `She >is a CIA plant to

ensure Western hegemony over India', `She has >promoted various forms of

terrorism in India (directly or >indirectly)', `She is anti-USA'. Clearly, some

of the above >allegations are outlandish, to say the least. For instance, I am

>aware that the Kluge Chair has been endowed with private funds, and >so her

employment would not draw my tax dollars. Nevertheless, the >extreme display of

emotions by many of the protestors is disturbing, >even to me, who would have

preferred a totally academic mode of >objecting to her appointment. I would

have hoped that the Library Of >Congress had appointed a less controversial,

and more accomplished >scholar to the Kluge Chair. > > > >As a response to this

petition, Marxist and Communist groups >immediately swung into action, and must

have faxed you letters in >support of Prof. Thapar's appointment. That merely

vindicates my >assessment of her as a largely `political' scholar. I hope the

>Library Of Congress does not seek to promote particular Indian >political

parties and ideologies by appointing a person like her. The >petitioners are

being labeled as `Right Wing Hindus' and what not – a >total mockery of our

Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech. >Unfortunately, some well-meaning

but ill-informed American >academicians, swayed by their commitment to

`Academic Freedom' have >also chimed in. > > > >As is the case with immigrants

from all the countries of the South, >there is an undercurrent of opinion in

the Indian community that the >US tends to plant its "stooges" on Third World

countries to further >its own interests. I believe that Prof. Thapar's

appointment to the >Kluge Chair will precisely promote such perceptions, at

least in a >large section of the Indian American community. Given Prof.

Thapar's >frequent political activities, Indian Americans might even feel that

>the Library of Congress is trying to promote particular political >parties in

India at the cost of others by appointing her to the Kluge >Chair. > > > >Since

Prof. Thapar and some of her colleagues in India are well known >to have been

thrust from the top by Left and Left-of-Center >governments, her appointment to

a prestigious chair in the United >States is bound to provoke some amusement, if

not outright derision. > > > >One cannot also overlook the constant charge of

the people of Third >World Countries that the West patronizes the new

`informers' from the >developing nations to promote their own interests. Prof.

Thapar's >appointment to the Kluge Chair is again being perceived in the same

>manner by the petitioners, as I have elaborated above. > > > >Coupled with all

these factors is the sense of insecurity of a >typical minority community in the

United States. Post 9-11, it is >being urged that we should try to understand

our neighbors better. We >ought to learn more about non-western cultures so

that such >unfortunate incidents are not repeated. Since Prof. Thapar has

>portrayed Hindus in particular and India in general in a negative >light, it

is feared that her presence in the US will only serve to >strengthen the

negative prejudices against India, Indians and >Hinduism in the minds of the

general American public. > > > >We are a peace loving minority community

contributing a lot to the >realization and enrichment of the American dream.

Therefore, we are >very concerned that the Library Of Congress has appointed a

person >who will distort the general American perception of who we are or who

>we were. > > > >D. THE KLUGE CHAIR AND THE Library Of Congress: > >Please

permit me to comment on the objectives for the establishment >of the Kluge

Chair. > > > >It has been stated by the LOC in its appointment announcement

(dt. 17 >April 2003) that – > > > >"Through a generous endowment from its

namesake, the Library of >Congress established the John W. Kluge Center in 2000

to bring >together the world's best thinkers to stimulate, energize, and

>distill wisdom from the Library's rich resources and to interact with

>policymakers in Washington, D.C. The Kluge Center houses five senior >Kluge

Chairs (American Law and Governance, Countries and Cultures of >the North

Countries and Cultures of the South, Technology and >Society, and

ModernCulture); other senior-level chairs (Henry A. >Kissinger Chair, Cary and

Ann Maguire Chair in American History and >Ethics, and the Harissios Papamarkou

Chair in Education); and nearly >25 post-doctoral fellows." > > > >I believe

that an occupant of the Kluge Chair named `Countries and >Cultures of the

South' ought to possess good skills in the areas >mentioned by me in Section A

above. Moreover, he/she is expected to >promote a genuine knowledge and

understanding of the `countries of >the South' that is free of western

hegemonistic discourse, and is >rooted in indigenous traditions. Otherwise, the

activity of >that `thinker' occupying this chair would be a mere arm-chair

>theoretical exercise, not rooted in the ethos of his/her own country, >and

having no basis in the thinking of the Indian masses. I fail to >understand how

Prof. Thapar meets these requirements. > > > >The announcement on the

appointment of Prof. Thapar states – > > > >"Through a generous endowment from

its namesake, the Library of >Congress established the John W. Kluge Center in

2000 to bring >together the world's best thinkers to stimulate, energize, and

>distill wisdom from the Library's rich resources and to interact with

>policymakers in Washington, D.C." > > > > > >Further, the information web-page

on Kluge Chairs says – > > > >"…the only obligations during their residency will

be to help craft >and participate in some meetings or conversations open to

Members of >Congress and congressional staff, and to offer at least one public

>presentation for the broader public policy community in Washington." > > >

>Given Prof. Thapar's left-of-center political affiliations, and her >skewed

understanding of ancient and modern India, is it desirable >that she should

guide US policy-makers on India? Many in the Indian >American community believe

her to be an anti-Indian (!), and >therefore she does not seem to be a good

choice for the chair. How >can a scholar, closely associated with anti-American

movements in >India, be trusted to guide US policy-makers correctly? > > > >The

announcement refers to her credentials in the following words – > > > >"The

author of many seminal works on the history of ancient India, >her volume of

the Penguin History of India has been continuously in >print since 1966. Her

latest publication is "Early India: From the >Origins to AD 1300." Other recent

works are "History and >Beyond,Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian

History," >and "History and Beyond." In her published works, Thapar has

>pioneered both the study of early Indian texts as history and the >integration

of the critical use of archaeology with written sources." > > > > > >I want to

point out that two of the three books mentioned above are >merely collections

of her old essays, which suffer from the faults >that I have alluded to in

Section A and B above. In recent years, one >has not seen any significant

genuine original academic output from >her (other than `Early India'[25], a

revision of an older book of >hers after almost four decades) and much of her

fresh publications >have been political pamphlets, and politically loaded

articles in >elite-read English newspapers and brochures of SAHMAT. The claim

that >she `pioneered' the integration of archaeology with written sources >is

often repeated, but does not stand to scrutiny. It is not out of >place here to

mention that Prof. Thapar is quite resourceful when it >comes to publishing the

same article of hers in 4-5 different books! >As an example, her tribute to the

father of Indian Marxist >Historiography, titled `The Contribution of D. D.

Kosambi to >Indology', has been published in three of her books (`Interpreting

>Early India', `History and Beyond', and `Cultural Pasts') and in a

>journal.[26] And a recent article of hers on Aryans has already >appeared in

four volumes with little or no variation. > > > >The announcement further lists

her several achievements- > > > >"During her illustrious career, Thapar has held

many visiting posts >in Europe, the United States and Japan. She is an Honorary

Fellow at >Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and at the School of Oriental and

African >Studies (SOAS), University of London. She has honorary doctorates

>from the University of Chicago, the Institut National des Langues et

>Civilisations Orientales in Paris, the University of Oxford and the

>University of Calcutta." > > > >I do not wish to counter this claim, because

objections to the same >will necessarily be subjective in a large measure.

Suffice it to say >that according to her critics, this has a lot to do with the

hegemony >established in the writing of history in her own home (India) through

>means, fair and foul. It has been alleged that an intricate power >play has

ensured that students from the Center for Historical Studies >(of which Prof.

Thapar is a founding member) in New Delhi and other >similar institutions

patronized by her and her colleagues (who have >been permanent fixtures in

their governing committees) are able to >get into institutions in the West,

from where they are able to invite >their erstwhile mentors. I am sure you will

agree that such tactics >are detrimental to academic freedom, and to a free

blossoming of >academic enquiry. The support for her in a section of the

American >academia has complex reasons, but in any case it is at total variance

>with the wishes and aspirations of a large section of Indians and >Indian

Americans. > > > >The current collaboration between certain scholars in South

Asian >studies, who are based in the USA and in Europe, with Marxist

>historians in India is a matter for further study and is better left >out

here. I can do not better than citing an excellent on-line essay >named `The

Axis of Neo-Colonialism'.[27] In Nazi Germany, all >inconvenient views were

eliminated from public and academic discourse >after being branded as `Jewish'.

In current `academic' discourse on >Indology and South Asian Studies, all

dissenting voices are similarly >being stigmatized by attaching labels such as

`Hindu >fundamentalists', `Hindu right wing' and `Indian nationalist'. We >know

what happened in Nazi Germany. An open discussion of issues is >often preferable

to the `tyranny of labels'. > > > >I am not claiming that all of Professor

Thapar's publications are sub- >standard. In fact, some of them have been quite

good and ground >breaking. However, given her four decade long academic career,

they >are quite few and far in between. > > > >I want to emphasize once again

that I am speaking as a member of the >Indian American Community, who was

forced to study Prof. Thapar's >textbooks as a child, and who grew up to

realize, as many others, how >we had been subjected to a biased and prejudiced

presentation of our >own culture and civilization as children. I have the

utmost respect >for freedom of American academe, and wish that Indian academe

was >similarly free and productive. Please do not permit a renowned and >fair

organization such as the Library of Congress to be a party to >this travesty.

The Kluge Chair was better left vacant. > > > >Unfortunately, in your

announcement today, you have endorsed her >appointment with the following words

– > > > >"In brief, our response is that we are most pleased to have an Indian

>historian of Professor Thapar's distinction with us at the Library of

>Congress. Her many books already in the collections of the Library of

>Congress testify that her work is sympathetic to the ancient Indian >and Hindu

historical and cultural traditions in highlighting their >variegated and

undogmatic quality, and in making clear the complexity >of Indian

civilization." > > > >The first part of your response is of course along

predictable lines. >You are entitled to your estimation of her work. However, I

do >question your last claim. How did you decide that her work >is "sympathetic

to the ancient Indian and Hindu historical and >cultural traditions...."? I see

no objective evidence that the >affected parties, namely (representatives of)

the Indian American, >Indian or Hindu communities have endorsed her

appointment. > > > >Let me leave it at that, and move on. I have read

practically all of >her existing publications. And now I look forward to

reading the >fruit of her 'cutting-edge' research on 'historical consciousness

in >Ancient India' at the Library of Congress. > > > >Sincerely yours, > > > >

> >Vishal Agarwal > > >

>----

>---------- > >[1] She has written some articles that involve Classical Tamil

>Poetry. However, she has completely relied on fragmentary >translations in

these articles. In her recent book "Early India" >(OUP, 2002), RomilaThapar has

incorrectly claimed that the caste >system was introduced into the Tamil country

(that is the southern >part of peninsular India) in the 7th century A.D. during

the Pallava >rule. If she had had any detailed knowledge of Tamil language and

>Sangam literature or if she had read seminal research works that have >been

published over the past 100 years on this subject matter by >eminent scholars

like U.V.S.Aiyar and K.A.N.Sastri, she would have >known otherwise. She would

have known that the Sangam literature >itself portrays a Tamil society that had

the varna (popularly known >as the caste) system well integrated into its social

structure. Not >only this corpus, but even some anthologies and commentaries on

them >had been put together by the 7th century A.D. Also, by the 6th >century

A.D. a new genre of bhakti (devotional) works had been >compiled in Tamil and

the poets of these compositions were patronized >by the Pallava kings. It is my

concern that Thapar would propagate >very false notions about Early India in

general, and the South in >particular, because she doesn't possess the

requisite skills needed >to pursue any research in this area. The primary of

those skills >being a knowledge of Tamil language and an intimate familiarity

with >its literary and epigraphic tradition. A respectable position as the

>Kluge chair should rather utilize the services of a competent scholar. > >[2]

There are also other languages such as Nahali, which do not fall >into any of

these categories. It may be assumed safely that Prof. >Thapar has no clue about

these `isolates'. Obviously, she cannot use >the field of historical linguistics

for her research in any >meaningful manner. This is big drawback especially when

she writes on >the Vedic period. > >[3] In recent years, she has started

dropping names such as "Der >Rgveda, K. F. Geldner" and so on, but the mode of

referencing leaves >the reader clueless as to what sentences in the referenced

book are >meant. > >[4] Contained in her book Sakuntala: Texts, Readings,

Histories. Kali >for Women, New Delhi [2002] > >[5] For instance, even her

recent admirer, Professor Michael Witzel >has noted that in her History of

India [1966], she has merely >excerpted data from the Cambridge Ancient History

and Rhys David's >Buddhist India, both of which were written around the

beginning of >the 20th century (See page 86 of Michael Witzel. 1995. `Early

Indian >History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters', in George Erdosy (ed.),

>The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: 85-125. Walter de Gryuter: >Berlin.

Elsewhere, he has suggested that Thapar has used the Puranic >data uncritically

in her writings. > >[6] R. N. Nandi's Aryans Revisited, Munshiram Manoharal, New

Delhi >[2002], page 10, fn. 20. On page 20, Nandi shows how excessive >reliance

on piecemeal indexing by the Vedic Index has lead Thapar to >draw false

conclusions in her `From Lineage to State' – a text that >is recommended

reading at the JNU history courses, and is often held >by her as an exemplary

publication, to be reprinted in all her later >anthologies. > >[7] See

Sudhanshu Ranade's `History – Make it or Break it' in The >Hindu, 22 April

2003. It was available at

>http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/br/stories/2003042200030300.htm > >[8] One

could give here the example of Harry Falk, who walked to the >Asokan

inscriptions in situ before writing his book Schrift im alten >Indien [1993] >

>[9] See http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm for an >example. >

>[10] Saffron is a sacred color for Indic religious traditions. For >Prof.

Thapar and her colleagues however, `saffronization' means >imposition of Hindu

right wing agenda on secular institutions. In my >opinion, the way in which

Prof. Thapar et al use Hindu symbols and >sacred objects in a derogatory

fashion reflects their aversion >towards the manifestation of Indic religions

and cultures in our >daily lives. To help you understand this issue better,

consider the >historical fact that the Nazis gave such a bad meaning to

`Swastika' >a sacred Indian religious and cultural symbol, that Indian

Americans >are often hesitant to display the Swastika during their religious

>functions in the United States because it might invite charges of neo- >Nazi

sympathies. > >[11] Dilip Chakrabarti has also this point passim, in his

Colonial >Indology, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi [1997]. > >[12] Thapar is

quoted as one of the Marxist historians in the >entry 'Hinduism' of 'A

Dictionary of The Marxist Thought' (Tom >Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard

University Press, p. 204). Ronald >Inden, in his Imagining India [1990:pp.

154-156, 197] clearly refers >to Thapar as a Marxist historian. > >[13]

Addressing the "National Convention against Saffronization of >Education"

organized by SAHMAT on 4-6 August 2001 in New Delhi, >Thapar argues that

"Instead of further professionalising the subjects >taught at school and

college, they are being replaced with subjects >that have virtually no

pedagogical rigour, such as Yoga and >Consciousness or cultivating a

Spirituality Quotient. These cannot >form the core of knowledge and replace

subjects with a pedagogical >foundation, although yoga can be an additional

activity." The >argument is spurious, because Yoga is being taught successfully

in >thousands of schools and other public and private institutions all >over the

world. The only opposition to the teaching of Yoga in >European and N. American

countries comes from close-minded Christian >priests. The text of her talk at

the SAHMAT sponsored Seminar is >available on-line at

>http://www.ercwilcom.net/~indowindow/sad/godown/edu/rtsefp.htm > >[14] See my

review of her NCERT textbook for Std. VI at

>http://vishalagarwal.bharatvani.org/RomilaNCERTVI.doc > >[15] As an example,

see >http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm and

>http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/harshakashmir.html > >[16] This

back-door revival of the Aryan Invasion Theory by Thapar et >al even in her

earlier publications has not fooled many people. >Speaking of an old

publication of hers, for instance, Edmund LEACH >[LEACH, Edmund. 1990. Aryan

Invasions Over Four Millennia. in E. >Ohnuki-Tierney (ed.), Culture Through

Time, Anthropological >Approaches. Stanford University Press: Stanford] remarks

– "Why is >this sort of thing so attractive? Who finds it attractive? Why has

>the development of early Sanskrit come to be so dogmatically >associated with

an Aryan invasion? In some cases, the association >seems to be matter of

intellectual inertia. Thus, Thapar (1969), who >provides a valuable survey of

the evidence then available, clearly >finds the whole `movement of peoples'

argument a nuisance, but at the >end of the day she falls into line." > >[17]

Dr. Nurul Hasan was a politician, the Education Minister >appointed by Prime

Minister Indira Gandhi. Concerning him and his >protégés, archaeologist Dilip

Chakrabarti remarks (on page 13 of >Colonial Indology. Munshiram Manoharlal:

New Delhi, 1997) – "To >thwart the strength of the old Congress party

stalwarts, the then >Prime Minister of the country, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, came to

depend >significantly on the support of the `left' political parties, and

>recruited in the process to her cabinet a History professor, putting >him in

charge of education. This professor, an Oxford D.Phil with a >firm belief in

the `progressive', i.e., `left' ideas, was also the >son of an important

government functionary of British India and >related by marriage to one of the

powerful `native' princely houses >of the north. Till his date in harness as

the governor of a left- >controlled Indian state, he acted as the patron saint

of a wide >variety of historians claiming `progressive' political beliefs and

>hoping for a slice of the establishment cake." > >[18] See the relevant

remarks at >http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/millennium.html . A constant

>refrain in her writings is that the `Upper-Caste Hindus' are somehow

>conspiring to oppress everyone else. While such a fantasy converges >with the

frequent outpourings of Islamists, Christian Missionaries >and Communists in

India, it may be pointed out that the leading >lights if Indian Marxism (Thapar

included) are themselves all >of `Upper-Caste' Hindu origins. In fact, a section

of the Dalit >movement in India today rejects this Marxist sponsored version >of

`secularism' and `Social Engineering' precisely because of the >suspicion that

Indian Marxists are prolonging `upper-caste hegemony'. >A detailed discussion

of this facet of Indian politics is beyond the >scope of the present letter. >

>[19] See `I learnt the ABC or Marxism at the JNU' in The Statesman, 4 >April

2003. > >[20] Examples of these can be seen at

>http://www.bharatvani.org/shourie/eminenthistorians1.html in the >article `Not

just Whitewash, Hogwash too'. Thapar has NEVER condemned >the distortions of

history textbooks in Communist ruled states of >India. > >[21] See the on-line

article `CPI(M), SAHMAT left Homeless', in The >Hindu, 06 February 2002,

>http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/02/06/stories/2002020606000100 >.htm >

>[22] The association of Thapar with Marxist historiography is an open >secret

in India. An article in the Times of India (New Delhi edn.) >dt. 24 February

2002, calls her a `hardcore Marxist'. Her >interpretations of ancient India are

treated in the sections on >Marxist historiography by Shankar Goyal in his

`Recent Historiography >of Ancient India', Kusumanjali Prakashan: Jodhpur

(1997). Ravi >Shanker Kapoor, in his More Equal than Others – A Study of the

Indian >Left, Vision Books: New Delhi (2000), which discusses the tyrannical

>Marxist intellectual hegemony in independent India, also classifies >Romila

Thapar as a Leftist historian (p. 140). > >[23] "In theory, if Internet and

information technology are not >controlled by the state then those with access

to them will claim to >be free of the fear of becoming closed minds. They will

be however, >only a fraction of the population. Will the kind of knowledge

pursued >by this fraction ensure a society committed to the freedom of the

>individual and humanist values? Technological proficiency by itself >is no a

sufficient safeguard against the increasing tendency in India >to be

comfortable with the soft underbelly of fascism and not >recognize it for what

it is…" pp. xxvii-xxviii in INDIA, Another >Millennium? Ed. By Romila Thapar.

(Viking: New Delhi, 2000). And >pray, how could one safeguard media from

fascism? By appointing >Romila Thapar to the board of Prasar Bharati (as was

actually done by >sympathetic politicians in the past), an apex government body

>controlling and guiding the government communication media! > >[24] Available

at >http://www.petitiononline.com/108india/petition.html > >[25] A critical

review of her recent book by Dr. Sanjay Subrahmanyam >is available on-line at

>http://www.hinduonnet.com/lr/stories/2003040600110200.htm > >[26] Journal of

the Asiatic Society of Bombay, 1977-78, Nos. 52-53 > >[27] The Axis of

Neo-Colonialism, by Rajiv Malhotra [2002], available >at

http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=218625 > > > >THE END > > > Add photos to

your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.