Closing remarks to Dr. Vassilkov (& Mr. Agarwal) (II)

[Robert Zydenbos]

<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>(continuation)<italic>


</italic></color>On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 11:13:35 +0200 Koenraad Elst wrote:<bigger>


<italic><color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param><smaller>>  I have discussed the debate between you and Rajaram in a

> chapter of my book Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate
(Aditya

> Prakashan 1999), also available as a separate article on my

> website.


</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>A debate? Did he ever respond to what I had written? At the time, I
 was a subscriber to the Indian Express, and it must have slipped
  my attention if he attempted anything like a debate.


<italic><color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> What is not discussed there is why Rajaram mentions
"Zydenbos (or

> his  ghostwriter)". Since you see ghostwriters even on this

> weblist, this point deserves explanation. [...]


</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Shabby, if what you state is so. But not surprising. E.g., for
somebody who fulminates against linguistics, it is bizarre that
Rajaram wrote that comparative linguistics did not exist in Max
Müller's time; he even uses the term "Indo-European" incorrectly in
col. 2 of his article (see the above URL). Evidently he did no
research about me either, and so he goofed again when bringing up
my name, six years down the road. (If he already becomes noisy
while getting these simple things wrong, we may wonder about the
rest of his writing.) And you choose to defend this nonsense?


<italic><color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> Moreover, the use of Indian English and the reference to the

> non-historian J. Nehru as an argument of authority also  indicate

> that the author was Indian (though, speaking from  experience, I

> am  aware that foreign residents easily adopt the Indian

> style).


</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>My Indian Express article was in fact edited and reduced from 1800
 words to  under 1100 without my prior knowledge. The editor
probably thought my point was sufficiently well made in just that
much. And that is correct: more was not needed.


As for Nehru: the issue in Rajaram's article is not ancient Indian
history at all, even if the agitprop presents itself as such. People
who are familiar with, e.g., European history in the earlier half of
our century are familiar with this kind of phenomenon.


What is amazing is that there are authors who insist that earlier
views of ancient Indian history are political constructs, while at the
same time they are, or pretend to be, blind to the possibility that
the rewriting of that history today is at least equally politically
motivated. Romila Thapar is a prominent person who pointed this
out. In his IE article, Rajaram attempts a noisy dismissal of this.


Yet by Rajaram's own admission (cf. the closing words of  his
article, if it is not clear already long before you  reach them), this    
rewriting of history is a political matter. In your own convoluted 13-
page item which you named after me you too say (in the final
paragraph) that the AIT is a threat to India's unity and integrity. If
this is so clear as you and Rajaram pretend it is, then why did not
a leading politician and patriot like Nehru see it? (Behold my point,
which you miraculously missed. I was quite explicit! And anyone
can go check.The URL is there.) The answer is, of course, that
nobody among the common folk in India, who are to be divided and
ruled, really cares. It is a non-issue. Real issues include
communalism: there are many people who despise Rajaram's
insistence that the Vedas "are the wellsprings of our existence"
and that this determines an Indian's identity. Ask around in
Gujarat, where latter-day 'Aryans' torched churches not so long ago
because Christians (how many are there?) are supposedly a threat
to Indian culture and what not. Ask the people who were briefly
listed in Namrata Bose's recent message. Not your "traditionalist
upper-caste Hindus, who pride themselves on being [...] Arya, or
Indian par excellence" (your p. 13). These words of yours make the
main point of my reply to Rajaram. But maybe you haven't noticed.


<italic><color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> However, you yourself told me in Madison 1996 that the article

> was  indeed authored by you, and you seemed an honest man to
  me.


</italic><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Since you seem to know him well, you could have told him about
my authorship, and thereby saved him the embarrassment.


I have a few more difficulties with that article of yours, but they are
a bit more complicated than basic questions of chronological order
or precise quotations. Probably I have also reached my quota on
the list for this week, so I will now turn my attention to more
important matters while you reconsider whether 3 precedes 2, etc.


For the time being, in view of the way in which you interpret modern
English-language journalism, I fear that I have not much faith in
your interpretation of Vedic passages, other data concerning
ancient Indian history, and their relevance for contemporary India.


Sincerely,


RZ
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attachment.bin
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/19990908/39d2787e/attachment.bin>