Qualifications for entering into a debate

[Dileep Karanth]

On Wed, 21 Sep 1994, Frank Conlon wrote:

> With full respect to the likelihood that Mr. Karanth, in his own innocent 
> virtue, really believes that an offhand characterization of the arguments 
> of J. B. Sharma somehow do a great wrong to Sharmaji, let me say that 
> from my perspective, "why not give it a rest?"  I have refrained from 
> entering into the slanging around this issue, but Mr. Karanth, whom I 
> believe to be an honorable, but substantially unqualified commentator on 
> the history of India, persists.

	First of all, let me point out that Sharmaji has in a private 
message to me disapproved of my emotionalism. He does not want me to 
defend him. 
	I only wish to point out that Dominik's original message was a reply 
to a private conversation with Sharmaji. He need not have made it a 
public matter at all. His criticism was not based on any idea of 
Sharmaji's. He dismisses all the work of Kak/Frawley, and says that they 
have nothing to say other they (Kak/Frawley) dismiss the "established 
scholarship" as the product of missionary motives. This is a plain lie. 
	Dr. Navaratna Rajaram (of the kak/Frawley school) has clearly said 
that all Western scholarship cannot be wished away. He does counsel us 
that we must not dismiss sincere scholarship; as examples, he quotes the 
names of some Jewsih Indologists who could neither be accused of ideas of 
Aryan superiority nor of Christian missionary motives. Kak and Frawley in 
their work only say that Westerners had an opinionated way of approaching 
the problem -- not that they are liars. 
	I met Shrikant Talageri (author of the book "Aryan Invasion 
Theory and Indian Nationalism") personally, and asked him to outline hsi 
work for me. That, I hope, partly compensates for my not having read the 
whole book myself. Dr. Talageri points out that the word "Arya" has been 
used in the Rig Veda 33 times. on 32 occasions, the word is used simply 
in the sense of "noble, good". (I regret to say I did not ask him "What 
about the 33rd occasion?"). His point is that the very reason Aryans have 
been postulated to be outsiders was the misreading of the word "Aryas" to 
mean a people (either a linguistic group, or a racial group -- both are 
wrong). 
	The Kak school believes the chronology of the Indus Valley 
civization, as accepted by many Western scholars is wrong (not because 
they were bad guys, but because they were wrong). They say that many of 
the artefacts of the Indus Valley which are credited to the pre-Aryans on 
the basis of this chronology can be credited to the Aryans on the basis 
of their own chronology, if the Aryans are postulated to be the Indus 
Valley-wallahs. There is no need to import Aryans from the outside. The 
Kak/Frawley school calls upon other schools to make clear why Aryans have 
to be imported at all.
	Now Frawley, Feurstein and other scholars are not Hindus --  yet 
they have reached some conclusions which would gladden the hearts of some 
Hindus, notablr RSS men. But that is not reason enough to smell an 
RSS-VHP controversy as some people have done. By the same token, all 
Western scholarship could be dismissed as "missionary tactics".
	Dominik has not taken note of caveats by the Kak/Frawley school that 
their work should not be misunderstood as an attack on so-called 
missionary motives. 


> 
> Why not leave it alone?  Probably  because, like a whole cohort of 
> Indo-North American science types, he feels that he is perfectly 
> qualified to discuss Indian history on the basis of his Indianness, 

	Your diagnosis is indeed partly correct. My Indianness, and 
experience with some Indians leaves me with no doubt that there are many 
Indians who cannot think independently and will blindly applaud any 
Western criticism of Indian scholarship. I thought I should point it out. 
The learned Professor Deshpande sent Dominik a note congratulating him 
over his content-free message. (to borrow a friend's terminology).
	Please note that when the discussion was really serious, that is 
when people like Rob Mayer, Jon Silk, and others were trading ideas, I 
was merely reading with interest. I decided to speak only when I saw that 
Big Brother was killing the debate. Sharmaji is too decent to say unkind 
things, but I am convinced that with a bunch of "Shathas" we need some 
"Shaathya". 

> Don't misunderstand me, he's entitled to 
> his opinion, as for that matter are those scoundrels LaRiviere and 
> Rocher, but the posturings of the "interested parties", and the 
> expectation that we are all supposed to fall down and ignore one hundred 
> years of scholarship just because one or two new dudes have had an 
> inspiration strikes me as pushing the envelope just a tad beyond the  
> believable.
> 
	I do not contest 100 years of scholarship. I am merely contesting 
the right of some people who will criticise people for private messages 
in public; who believe that merely imputing motives and making allusions 
to von Daniken's work are acceptable. 
	I am surprised nobody even noticed the sheer stupidity of the 
allusion to von Daniken's work. If Sharmaji's comments were so stupid, 
they could be visibly and instatnly punctured with the help of a few 
precise arguments. But no, Dominik does not even quote Sharmaji's words 
-- he merely criticises them , knowing fully well that there are people 
who will not mind his highhandedness. Surely enough, ther are people who 
will call him a gentleman. Chivalry must really be dead.

	The other reason I am making a mountain out of this molehill is that 
I want to point out only a pain-in-the-neck like me can get a response 
from members of the Indology network. Sharmaji's precise and politely 
asked questions have been met only with supercilious silence. 

	Of course, all this could have been said simply without making a 
fuss. But then, perhaps it is all for the better. For, now that we have 
a few thousand words on this matter, even the learned Professor Deshpande 
will agree that a point has been made.

Dileep Karanth