INDOLOGY Digest - 11 Sep 1999 to 12 Sep 1999 (#1999-174)
Soar Adrian
A.Soar at MACMILLAN.CO.UK
Wed Sep 15 08:22:54 UTC 1999
How do I desubscribe?
-----Original Message-----
From: Automatic digest processor
[mailto:LISTSERV at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK]
Sent: 13 September 1999 00:00
To: Recipients of INDOLOGY digests
Subject: INDOLOGY Digest - 11 Sep 1999 to 12 Sep 1999
(#1999-174)
There are 7 messages totalling 401 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Is ananda an emotion?
2. (Fwd) Banning Foreign Scholars in India. (3)
3. Continuing the review of Passions of the Tongue
4. Bibliographic information wanted
5. Godse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 16:54:35 PDT
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Is ananda an emotion?
"Harsha V. Dehejia" <hdehejia at CCS.CARLETON.CA> wrote:
>Fellow Indologoists:
>
>In a recent seminar there was heated discussion whether
ananda (bliss) is a
>state of being or is it an exalted human emotion? The
speaker argued that
>ananda is not an emotion. Any thoughts?
>
Perhaps the most extensive discussions of Ananda are found
in the vedAnta
schools. Check the commentaries of various authors on
brahmasUtra 1. 1.
12-19, bRhadAraNyaka upanishad 3. 9. 28 and taittirIya
upanishad 2. 1-5.
Also see maNDana miSra's brahmasiddhi 1. 2-6, where Ananda
as an experience
(na saMvedyaH karmatva abhAvAt) is distinguished from Ananda
as a state of
being that is self-luminous (na ca asaMvedyaH
svaprakASatvAt). For a
nyAya-vaiSeshika perspective, see vAtsyAyana's
nyAyabhUshaNa, which
criticizes an equation of the state of liberation with an
experience of
Ananda.
Vidyasankar
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:43:35 PDT
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Banning Foreign Scholars in India.
I thought contemporary politics and government policies were
to be avoided
on this list, but as it has already been raised, here goes.
Following the recent nuclear tests, Indian scientists were
denied visas to
visit Europe and the USA. Many of those already working in
foreign lands
were told to return to India, leaving their equipment and
notes behind. And
it is an open secret where most of the funds of the better
funded
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) come from. Obviously,
the Indian
government is retaliating, in its own clumsy way.
I have long since given up expecting any long range
perspective from Indian
journalists, whether they are in Arun Shourie's camp or A.
G. Noorani's camp
or somewhere else. I would, however, expect those in
academia to be better
in this regard. Do not lose sight of the fact that for all
its ancientness,
India is still only 52 years old as a democracy.
Vidyasankar
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:20:01 +0000
From: Bharat Gupt <abhinav at DEL3.VSNL.NET.IN>
Subject: Re: Continuing the review of Passions of the Tongue
Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan wrote:
>
> raja at IFA.HAWAII.EDU asked:
>
> > Could he just have been stating a simple fact,
> > i.e., that ceGkuTTuvan2 was mATalan2's king,
> > rather than "articulating a case of linguistic
> > nationalism"?
>
> No, because mATalan2's king is a Chola while ceGkuTTuvan2
is a Chera king.
> The conversation takes place on the bank of the river
gaGgA.
Does standing and speaking on the bank of Ganga make it
Tamil nationalism ?
Is taking pride or fondness in your spoken/family/ regional
tongue enough to
constitute nationalism. The "mula-sthana" has been always a
matter of identity
for pretwentienth century Indians. The mulasthaana , caste
or gotra, and occupational
reference were the constituents of an Indian name till
recently.
Nationalism on the other hand is an urge to demarcate a
state on the basis of
language which is then used for everkind of thng by its
inhabitants. It is an obsession
with monolingualism that tends to use that language for
everthing from buying a beetle
leaf to philosophical discourse. This phenomenon begins with
print in Europe and came to
India in the 19th century. Before that Indians were highly
multulingual, using different
languages for different things and for addressing different
social classes.
If we call Cilapaddikaram is a work of Tamil nationalism,
then Tulsidas's Ramayana is a
work of Avadhii nationalism, Surdas's Bhramargit of Brija
nationalism (both works where
great affection is revealed for the topography) and
Meghaduta of ??? Brahmin/Aryan-ism,
I guess, because it is sanskrit and being in sanskrit keeps
it only brahmin eventhough
it is a great example of topographical aesthetics.
Bharat Gupt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:22:10 -0500
From: Gail Coelho <gail at UTXVMS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Banning Foreign Scholars in India.
Thank you for forwarding that message to the list. I think
Academicians in
India should do something about these restrictions on work
by foreign
scholars in India, especially because the restrictions harm
the quality of
Indian academics itself. But the question is what can we do
about it? Any
ideas?
Gail Coelho
At 12:53 AM 9/12/99 +0530, you wrote:
>This is forwarded from the RISA-L.
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date sent: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 05:07:25 -0700
(PDT)
>Send reply to: risa-l at lists.acusd.edu
>Subject: Banning Foreign Scholars in India.
>
>Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXIV, No 30 (July 24,
1999): 2048-2049
>
>Civil Liberties
>Banning Foreign Scholars by A G Noorani
>
>By a recent government order a foreign national intending
to attend workshop
>seminars has to seek clearance from the home ministry. This
order is an
>assault on the autonomy of Indian universities, already
under stress.
>
>It bagan in the 1970s when T N Kaul was ambassador to the
US. There was a
>sharp decline in the grant of visas to American scholars to
visit India.
>Coinciding as it did with the US resumption of links with
China, it led to a
>significant diminution of interest in India. Be it said to
the credit of
>American academia that it was sharply critical of the
Nixon-Kissinger policy
>on Bangladesh.
>
>If a restrictive visa policy marked Phase I, in the next
phase, a decade
>later, new curbs were put on the appointment of foreign
nationals in Indian
>universities. Devsagar Singh's report in Indian Express of
June 7, 1985
>provided the details: "The government of India has put new
restrictions on
>the appointment of foreign nationals in Indian
universities, their research
>programme and movement into sensitive areas. All the
universities have been
>asked to keep a strict vigil on their activities and
implement the
>guidelines of the government strictly". He amplified:
"Appointments of
>foreign nationals could be made only in very exceptional
circumstances after
>obtaining prior clearance of the government... Even for
inviting a foreign
>scholar as visiting professor, universities will now be
required to obtain
>prior permission of the government."
>
>Nor is this all. "In case a university proposes to organise
an international
>seminar or symposium, it will have to furnish to the
government a detailed
>note on the theme of the conference, level of
participation, name of the
>countries and their scholars as also the source of funding.
The government
>will have the right to refuse permission." Subjects like
defence, "themes
>which are politically sensitive" and the like are barred as
subjects for
>research. If foreigners come on a tourist visa they must
not conduct
>research. Lastly,"foreign scholars have also been debarred
from delivering
>any lecture or talk on topics of controversial nature".
>
>I had then remarked in this column: "Presumably a judge of
the US Supreme
>Court visiting India will not be allowed to deliver a talk
explaining the
>Bakke case, on positive discrimination in favour of the
Blacks and its
>aftermath because it might have a bearing on the
'politically sensitive'
>issue of reservations. Nor may he speak on federal-state
relations - also a
>'politically sensitive' issue.
>
>So much for the casual solitary lecture - what to speak of
a series of
>lectures sponsored by an endowment or a university. Rise
further in this
>ladder of state control of knowledge and you find curbs on
seminars, or
>invitation to or appointment of foreign scholars"... that
has now come to
>pass as a report in The Hindu of June 24, 1999 shows. It
bears quotation in
>extenso: In a surprise move, the government has made it
'mandatory' for all
>foreign nationals intending to participate in workshops and
seminars
>organised by voluntary organisations in the country to take
clearance from
>the Union home ministry.
>
>Though there is no written rule or guideline, the
government has started
>following this system recently setting up a new precedent.
This pertains to
>seminars and workshops organised by voluntary
organisations. Also, the
>voluntary organisations would have to take permission from
the ministry of
>external afairs to organise such a conference where there
are foreign
>participants.
>
>Recently, three of the international participants to the
11th Annual Johns
>Hopkins International Philanthropy Fellows Conference on
Building Civil
>Society being organised by the Development Support
Initiative, Bangalore,
>from July 3-9 got a fax that they will not be given visas.
The three
>participants were told by the Indian High Commission in
London that they
>should first get clearance from the home ministry. The High
Commission
>informed them that "all conferences to do with the
voluntary sector and
>which appear to be government/politically sensitive has to
get clearance for
>participants from abroad".
>
>Several government officials, members from the corporate
sector and the
>media are expected to participate in the conference to be
held in Bangalore.
>This matter was brought to the notice of the Voluntary
Action Network India
>(VANI) which expressed shock and surprise at the home
ministry setting up
>the new precedent of foreign participants having to take
clearance from it
>for attending workshops and seminars organised by NGOs in
the country. VANI
>expressed surprise that while thousands of foreign tourists
are coming to
>India without much problems and NRIs are getting permanent
visas after
>paying certain amount of money, the government has started
a new precedent
>to get special clearance from the home ministry for
participants at
>conferences organised by the voluntary sector... The
officials of the home
>ministry failed to give any explanation behind this move.
>Indian academia is not only a house divided but one of
whose major sections
>is possessed of chauvinism while another pays court to the
Congress (I) by
>sheer force of habit, presumably. What to speak of curbs on
foreigners, the
>academia has overlooked Sonia Gandhi's untenable claims to
copyright in the
>Nehru-Indira Gandhi papers which properly belong to the
Union of India as
>trustees for the nation (Vide the writer's article 'State
Property: The
>Status of Official Documents', Frontline, August 8, 1997).
>
>The latest order is not only a curb on foreign academies
but, above all, an
>assault on the autonomy of Indian universities, NGOs and
think-tanks -
>already under stress and on the rights of the Indian
citizen. As has been
>pointed out in this column earlier the fundamental right to
freedom of
>speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution) necessarily
>implies that the citizen is entitled to receive information
-
>electronically, in print and orally ('Right to Receive
Foreign Telecasts',
>EPW April 13, 1991). The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly
that the right
>to know flows from the right to speak; is "derived from the
concept of
>freedom of speech" (vide Raj Narain's case AIR 1975 SC
865), Maneka Gandhi's
>case AIR 1978 597 and S P Gupta's case AIR 1981 SC 149).
>
>India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
>Article 19(2) of the Covenant says explicitly that the
right to freedom of
>expression "shall include freedom to seek, receive and
import information
>and ideas of all kind, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or
>in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of
his choice".
>India is obligated under the Covenant to submit periodic
reports for
>examination by the Human Rights Committee on its observance
of the rights.
>Successive attorneys-general of India have been grilled by
experts on the
>committee.
>
>It is true that the courts allow the government
considerable latitude in
>matters of national security and in the admission and
expulsion of
>foreigners. But the onus is on the state to establish that
the acts are so
>related. The courts will not scrutinise the adequacy of the
evidence.
>However, if the order is shown to be mala fide or an abuse
of power it will
>be struck down. Refusal of visa to a foreign national
invited to participate
>in a conference or seminar in India is very much open to
challenge in the
>courts if it is demonstrated to be an attempt to stifle
dissent, not the
>foreigners dissent so much as their Indian hosts' right to
hear a viewpoint
>the government of India finds distasteful. The Indian
citizen's rights do
>not depend on the tastes of the ministers or bureaucrats.
>
>In Kleindienst vs Mandel (1972) 408 US 753, the US Supreme
Court upheld the
>attorney general, Richard Kleindienst's refusal of a visa
for Ernest Mandel,
>a Belgian journalist and Marxist theoretician to
participate in an academic
>conference sponsored by Americans. The court split 6-3. The
attorney-general
>refused to grant a waiver under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 1952 -
>as is required for advocates of communist doctrine - to
make Ernest Mandel
>eligible for a visa to the US. A Belgian citizen, Mandel,
is a scholar, a
>professional journalist and an avowed Marxist
revolutionary. The government
>claimed that he had abused opportunities afforded to him
during an earlier
>visit. Mandel and several American academics sued the
attorney-general
>alleging violation of their right to hear him and engage
him in a free and
>open academic exchange. It turned, however, on the special
facts of the case
>- the attorney-general's charge of past abuse. The majority
held this was
>bona fide exercise of discretion and did not consider the
other issues.
>Imagine its reaction to a blanket ban. Even so Justices
Douglas, Marshall
>and Brennan dissented. More, even the majority rejected the
government's
>plea that Mandel's books were available, after all. "This
argument overlooks
>what may be particular qualities inherent in sustained
face-to-face debate,
>discussion and questioning", the majority opined. It is
unlikely that our
>Supreme Court would uphold such a ban and a crying shame if
it ever did.
>______________________________________________________________________
>END OF TEXT
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 09:32:27 -0500
From: Gail Coelho <gail at UTXVMS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Banning Foreign Scholars in India.
At 01:23 PM 9/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Readers must note that Justice A. G. Noorani was arrested
by the government
>of India more than 2 decades ago for suspected espionage
for Pakistan. Of
>course this fact is well know to all Indians, except his
blind followers
>like Comrade N. Ram who is the editor of newspaper 'The
Hindu' and also the
>Frontline magazine
>
What is well known to Indians? That Noorani *was* a spy or
was *suspected*
of spying? I'm glad to say that not everyone in India
blindly accepts the
government's accusations of spying -- because (a) suspicion
is not the same
as proof and (b) you'd have to be naive to believe that such
accusations
are always politically unmotivated ones. So it really does
not tell us
anything about Noorani -- either for or against him -- to
say that he was
arrested on suspicions of espionage.
Also can we keep such irrelevant personal details out of it
and get down to
discussing the issue of preventing foreign scholars from
working in India?
Does Indian academia suffer because of it, and what can we
Indians do?
Gail Coelho
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:12:06 EDT
From: Harry Spier <harryspier at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Bibliographic information wanted
Dear list members,
1) Can someone tell me if it is still possible to purchase
Mayrhofer's A Concise etymological Sanskrit dictionary? The
citing I have
is "Kurzegefasstes etymologisches Worterbuch des
Altindischen. A concise
etymological Sanskrit Dictionary. Heidelberg, C. Winter,
1953. I can't
find it listed even as out-of-print. Is C. Winter the
publisher? I haven't
been able to find anything for that either on the internet.
2)A. A. MacDonell in the introduction to his "Vedic Grammar
for Student's"
mention's his larger "Vedic Grammar". I've always wondered
why given the
easy availability and popularity of his other books for
Vedic studies (and
the lack of other generally available english books for
Vedic Sanskrit),
that this book has not been more readily available. I
found it cited only
3 times in the Indology archives. I also see from the New
York Public
Library oriental collections that it was reprinted in 1968
by Indology Book
House of Varanasi. Was the material in this larger grammar
made redundant
by his smaller Vedic Grammar for Students? Is it still a
sound guide for
Vedic studies? Also how have his other books, his students
grammar and
reader held up to the almost century of research since their
publication?
Yours,
Harry
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 23:10:08 +0200
From: Koenraad Elst <ke.raadsrots at UNICALL.BE>
Subject: Godse
Dear Dr. Thompson,
Thanks for sending all those new visitors to my website.
And sorry to disappoint them that the applause for Godse
they expected
wasn't
there. My serious opinion about Gandhi and Godse is not in
that brief
website article (my Dutch book Moord op de Mahatma,
Davidsfonds, Leuven
1998, though somewhat maltreated by the publisher, comes
closer; I hope to
have a better English version out by summer next year ; for
a Hindu judgment
of the murder with which I can largely agree, see the Gandhi
chapter in Sita
Ram Goel: Perversion of India's Political Parlance, Voice of
India, Delhi
ca. 1986, still in print). The article merely comments on
the different
political fall-out of the Gandhi murder as compared with the
murder of
Yitzhak Rabin, both killed because they were held
responsible for a "land
for peace" agreement.
What I do express there is my agreement with Dr.
Ambedkar that an
orderly exchange of population would have saved many lives,
and my
disagreement with Godse that Partition was Gandhi's fault.
The latter
impression is still alive among the communities most
affected by Partition,
and I've noticed openly hostile reactions among Sikhs and
Bengalis when the
Mahatma is mentioned. However, Gandhi could not have
prevented Partition
even if he had staked his life for it. That he failed to
try his tested
method of fast unto death to put pressure on Jinnah is
indeed something
which can be held against him, at least if one insists on
treating him as a
superhuman saint. Which I don't : decades of informed
criticism of Gandhi
from many sides (see e.g. the Muslim-cum-Ambedkarite booklet
Gandhi, Saint
or Sinner? by one Fazl-ul-Haq, which presents a list of
embarrassing facts)
have brought the man down to the human level where he
belongs, and where he
will remain for the sobre historians in coming generations.
Incidentally, and again in the footsteps of Dr.
Ambedkar, I think
Partition was the lesser evil, and the only important issue
then was to
minimize the human damage. In that task, the then
leadership failed
miserably, but Gandhi was simply not in charge then; as the
guilty men, I
would mention Jinnah, Nehru and especially Mountbatten.
As for my judgment of the murder, I think that apart
from morally wrong,
it was also politically disastrous for India, and it was of
course also a
suicidal act for Godse's own political party (Hindu
Mahasabha), which never
recovered from the blow. It is difficult to find in history
a man who, with
so small a movement of his index finger, did more harm to
the very ideals he
cherished, than Godse.
As Dr. Thompson summoned me to make a public statement
on this matter, I
felt I had to put the above on record. However, in
deference to list rules,
I appeal to all members to let this purely political topic
rest.
Yours sincerely,
Koenraad Elst
http://members.xoom.com/KoenraadElst/
------------------------------
End of INDOLOGY Digest - 11 Sep 1999 to 12 Sep 1999
(#1999-174)
***************************************************************
--
This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone
who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received
this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from
your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Macmillan
Publishers Limited cannot accept liability for any statements
made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly
made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its
agents.
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list