Nirad Chaudhuri (Was Re: Greek and Latin in India)

[S Krishna]

>From:         Gregory {Greg} Downing <downingg at IS2.NYU.EDU> asks:


> Is that because Chaudhuri is unusual among Indian scholars in
>knowingGreek and Latin,  or because he is a particularly prominent
>Indologist,

nyet! He is a prominent *anti-Indologist*( A person who writes only
on the negative aspects of India and tells a few tales in the process
is an *anti-Indologist*)

I'm not sure of his writings about Mueller, but I've read about his
rants against Vaishnavism and can only say
1. He seems to be one of  the most provincial and parochial people you
can ever meet( His knowledge is restricted to Bengal and Bengal alone,
he also seems to labor under the illusion that Bengal is representative
/spokesman for the rest of India)...
2. His main penchant is for being trenchant;  this results in a style
that is far too belligerent and inelegant...
3. His favorite technique seems to be picking up on practice and then
passing it off as theory/theology...using this technique, any religion
can be proved to be meaningless, phony( use your favorite adjective
here; BTW I am no supporter of Hinduttvavaada)....If you show him the
archives of INDOLOGY net, it is a safe bet that he will condemn the
whole thing as false since we are discussing "Latin and Greek in India
" under the guise of "Indology".

 His autobiography reads "The autobiography of an unknown Indian!"
After the publishing of this tome, he has indeed become known, but
for all the wrong reasons...I find his works a more academic version
of Katherine MAyo's "Mother India" or Salman Rushdie's "Satanic
Verses", people whose main incentive for writing seems to be indulging
in invective...

REgards,
Krishna

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com