Qualifications for entering into a debate

[madhav.deshpande at um.cc.umich.edu]

     I was struck by the following sentence in Mr. Dileep Karanth's recent
note:  "I have myself not read any book on this subject -- only articles by
writers of various pursuasions.  I am apt to be convinced by each article I
read."  While I cannot speak for others on Indology, I can speak for myself
that I have not only read a lot of books on this subject, but have written
a few hundred pages on it in books and articles, and I cannot say that I am
convinced by each article I read.  This situation only brings out the 
imbalances in the current dialogue going on Indology.  Mr. Karanth's
above quoted statement is clear enough.  Unless, for example, he reads
intelligently the few thousand pages worth quality research which is out
there in the libraries, I am not sure who can have a meaningful dialogue
with him.  If a student in my class comes to me to discuss a topic without
having read any of the required assignments, I normally ask him to go back
and read those assignments first.  Here, somehow, there is an expectation
on the part of some at least, that one would enter into a worthwhile 
discussion to convince someone who has"not read any book on this subject."
I hope that we agree to think realistically that meaningful debate is
possible only when both parties have prepared well for it.  However, when
I read comments like "the publications in America are too academic", I
am really offended.  Indology is supposed to be a network of people who are
dedicated to being "academic" in the best ways known to us.  However, a
person, who tells us with all honesty that he/she has "not read any book
on this subject", has to do a good deal of the required reading of a few
thousand pages before being vocal on this network.
     Madhav Deshpande