The mother of all debates

[Hans Henrich Hock]

I sympathize with your concerns, and I hope you will sympathize similarly
with my concerns about the nasty turn which some of the debate has taken
recently, especially from some of the "indigenists".

What is important to note is that much of the "indigenist" argumentation
addresses antiquated western models concerning the AIT question and that
western and Indian scholars who still find the AI theory better established
do not do so for racist, nationalist, or imperialist motives.  As one of
the recent members of the debate correctly pointed out, western scholars
have nothing to lose or to gain politically by adopting any of the rival
theories, since for better or worse, most ordinary western people,
including the politicians, don't give a hoot.  The concern of these
scholars, therefore, is not whether their findings support or damage
particular political ideologies, but rather a search for the admittedly
quite elusive truth.

To set the record straight as far as I am concerned, and I'm sure many of
my colleagues as well:  19th- and early 20th-century Indology is full of
racist and imperialist assumptions that reflect the spirit of its time and
which is painfully embarrassing to most of us.  Current approaches to the
AIT controversy, in most cases, do not subscribe to these assumptions.  It
is therefore not particularly helpful when AIT opponents attempt to
discredit current AIT proponents by associating them, directly or
indirectly, with these earlier and now thoroughly discredited assumptions.


I concede that it is similarly unhelpful when AIT proponents associate
their opponents with the militant, communalist elements in the Sangh
Parivar.

A number of recent participants in the debate, including Zydenbos and Elst,
have correctly pointed out that, to use my own words, even racists and
communalists may have important contributions to make to scholarship,
however much we may disagree with their political views.  In scholarship it
doesn't matter that Hitler may have been pro-AIT and that communalists may
be anti-AIT.  What should matter is the evidence -- which unfortunately
tends to be much less clear and unambiguous than we would like it to be --
and the strength of the arguments based on that evidence.

I would very much hope that those participating in the discussion on this
list will find it possible in their hearts to focus on this scholarly side
of the debate and to cease from innuendo, slander, and downright nastiness.
If we can do this, I would hope that Fosse will return to the list; if we
can't, I'm afraid many others will follow his example.

Satyam eva jayatAm,

Hans Henrich Hock


>I am sure that most people on this list will agree that the question
>of the origins of the Vedic civilization, the issues surrounding the
>Aryan homeland, and the geographical/linguistic birthplace of Sanskrit
>are some of the most important unanswered questions in Indology.
>
>All the scholars on this list that are participating in this debate
>are doing a great service to Indology. And however frustrating and
>heated that debate might seem, surely it is a debate that needs to be
>debated, not to be supressed.
>
>I then fail to understand why Dr. Elst, Vishal Agarwal, and the other
>"indegenists" are being treated as rebels, untouchables and treated
>with suspicion. Every rebutal mail I read attempts to cast some shadow
>on their motives, identity, education, morals, and yes, even suggests
>violent intents!
>
>It is precisely due to the presence of many of these people that much
>of the "original" AIT has been shown to be incorrect, as even AIT
>proponents will admit. Then why this attempt to silence the kinds of
>voices that have exposed lies in the past ? Would the scholars on this
>list rather have Dr. Koenrad Elst et al unsubscribe from this list,
>and "leave them alone" ?  The words on this list certainly seem to
>belie such desires. Are we a group that ridicules those who differ,
>instead of using their energy and their contributions ?
>
>Let me make clear that I am not affiliated to Dr. Elst or any other
>"indegenist" in any way. Just an average computer engineer struggling
>to build the software and the Internet to enable great debates such as
>these to be possible. In my individual capacity, I want to appeal to
>all members on this great list to offer Dr. Elst courtesy at the very
>least, and a wide latitude ideally to express himself and not get him
>constantly mired in accusations and cross-accusations.
>
>I hope that my humble words will serve to further the cause of open
>debate, and lessen the personal verbiage that seems to seek to supress
>this, the "mother of all debates" on Indology.
>
>~sumedh


Hans Henrich Hock
Professor of Linguistics and Sanskrit
Linguistics, 4088 FLB MC-168, University of Illinois
707 S. Mathews, Urbana IL 61801-3652
telephone: (217) 333-0357 or 333-3563 (messages)
e-mail: hhhock at staff.uiuc.edu
fax: (217) 333-3466