some remarks

[anil k gupta]

sorry, I am at IIM ahmedabad

but happy to know you nevertheless

good luck with your interviews

anil

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cronk <george9252 at EMAIL.MSN.COM>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: some remarks


>Are you Professor Gupta of Indiana University?  I am Dr. George Cronk,
Chair
>of the Dept. of Philosophy & Religion, at Bergen Community College in New
>Jersey.  We are scheduled to interview Byeong D. Lee on May 4 for a
teaching
>position in Philosophy here.  Dr. Lee was your student, right?
>
>Just thought I'd say hello.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: anil k gupta <sristi at AD1.VSNL.NET.IN>
>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 8:59 AM
>Subject: Re: some remarks
>
>
>>excellent note after a long time shorn of extremist notions, lucid and
>>likeable
>>
>>anil
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dominique.Thillaud <thillaud at UNICE.FR>
>>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>>Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 3:13 PM
>>Subject: some remarks
>>
>>
>>>Dear Indologists,
>>>        Despite my intention don't to touch my keyboard in dubious
>debates,
>>>I can't restrain to write few words ;)
>>>
>>>1) can we stop to playing with words ?
>>>
>>>Bhadraiah Mallampalli wrote: "can not grasp and remember simple words
like
>>>"Scheduled castes" of Indian society, and continue to use the incorrect
>>>"untouchables" (a word banished from official Indian media long ago)"
>>>        1) I suppose English and American peoples are better judges about
>>>the use of their own mother tongue ;)
>>>        2) Changing names don't change the reality. I find ridiculous the
>>>new tendancy of "banishing words". In France, it's today incorrect to say
>>>"aveugle" (blind) or "sourd" (deaf), they must be replaced by
"non-voyant"
>>>(not seeing) and "mal-entendant" (badly hearing): what is changing for
>>>them? I agree with a french humorist who suggested to replace "con"
>>>(bloody) by "mal-comprenant" (badly undrstanding). I'm afraid that
>>>rejecting "untouchables" is nothing but a poor essay to close the eyes
>over
>>>a real problem; "scheduled castes" seems to me an insulting euphemism
and,
>>>speaking French, I'll continue to use the words "intouchables" or
>"parias".
>>>
>>>George Thompson wrote: "we're supposed to be talking about a *migration
>>>theory*. If you keep on insisting on an *invasion theory*, where there is
>>>none ..."
>>>        I don't understand clearly the difference between the two words.
>>>Was the coming of Europeans in East America a migration or an invasion?
>Was
>>>the coming of East Americans in West America a migration or an invasion?
>>>        From the American point of view they were peaceful farmers going
>>>toward free lands, undoubtly a migration. Alas, Amerindians knew well the
>>>land was not "free", the peaceful farmers were armed with guns and
>>>travelling with a powerful army, undoubtly an invasion (some
>>>ill-intentioned people say a genocid)!
>>>        Once again, debating about words is not debating about reality
but
>>>about ideological point of view ;)
>>>
>>>2) colonialist scholars ?
>>>
>>>        I, personnally, reject firmly any accusation of colonialism or
>>>neo-colonialism. I know perfectly that India was colonized by England, a
>>>big part of Africa by France, Greece and Gaul by Roma, &c. I know
>perfectly
>>>that few scholars gave an ideological support to all conquests and
>>>slaveries, eurindianist Germans to the nazi power, Russian biologists to
>>>the stalinian one, &c. But they were very few!
>>>        In a large majority, scholars are honest and honourable* peoples,
>>>rarely supporting the politic of their government, rarely involved in
>>>military or economical war. To reject the point of view of westerner
>>>scholars with an accusation of colonialism is not only insulting, but
also
>>>stupid.
>>>        When I consider the Indian civilization as an Eurindian one,
>that's
>>>based on many serious and published studies. I have nothing to do with
the
>>>eventual "greatness" of any land! I'm studying them but I don't like
>>>Eurindians nor their ideology. They were war fans and the extension of
>>>Eurindian languages all over the world shows perfectly they had no
>problems
>>>in destroying civilizations. It's true that some of them, by a later
>>>evolution, attained a wonderful state of spiritual development, but just
>>>few of them (I know only Greece and India in this way). I suppose (just
my
>>>religious opinion: no debate, please) that other ones were "perverted" in
>>>their evolution by bellicist monotheistic ideologies ("Dieu reconnaitra
>les
>>>siens", "Gott mit uns", "the Holy Bible in each GI's pocket", &c.).
>>>        I hope to be a religious, peaceful and honnest man, but I'm not
>>>sure that all my pitaras were good guys and I don't intend to defend them
>>>blindly. Hence, I don't intend to be judged for their faults and, in the
>>>actual case, for the English conquest of India! ...
>>>
>>>        Regards,
>>>Dominique
>>>
>>>* not in Antonius' sense ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dominique THILLAUD
>>>Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France
>>>
>