Total instruments of debate

[Koenraad Elst]

A. Konrad Karp sees a contradiction in my twin observations that "nazi" c.s.
is today's top smear (a verifiable fact of life), and that I remind a few
Indian invasionists about their agreement with Hitler on the AIT (a
historical fact).  On the contrary, in both cases I plead for a strict
separation between political connotations of a theory and its truth or
falseness.  Associating Prof. Rajaram with Nazi blood-and-soil theories (as
Dr. Zydenbos claims not to have done, and on second thought, there is no
reason to disbelieve a man telling us what his own opinion is, the one
question on which every man is the greatest expert)  is baseless, but even
if it were true, it would make no difference to the truth or otherwise of
his theories.  However, a lot of invasionist polemic focuses wholly or to a
far too large extent on the political connotations of the non-invasion
theory ("Hindu communalist"), and silently (sometimes openly) implies that
this political connotation necessarily decides the untruth of the
non-invasion theory.  That is why I remind invasionist polemicists that if
they want to decide on a historical question on the basis of its political
connotations, they ought to remember in what company the AIT puts them.  But
I am not at all implying that just because of Hitler's preferences, the AIT
and its sympathizers are intrinsically Hitlerian, nor that the AIT is
therefore untrue.  I am not associating Profs. Thapar and Ratnagar with
Hitler eventhough all three are juxtaposed in one sentence.  Most of you
seem to feel comfortable enough sharing a platform with Hitler on the AIT,
just as ecologists don't mind demanding the re-enactment of policies of
which Hitler was an unacknowledged pioneer (protection of endangered
species, tree-planting campaigns, industry regulations demanding
environmental-effect reports).  For the truth of a theory, the membership of
its fan club is irrelevant.


sincerely,
Koenraad Elst
http://members.xoom.com/KoenraadElst/