Viveka & Rta/Satya

[Michael Witzel]

R. Kocchar, always the detached scientist, is entirely right in admonishing
us to use some VIVEKA, restrain and discrimination, (though I am not so
sure whether this is indeed used by those who call themselves Vivek Kendra,
see below. Pun intended?).

Agreed, including  his advice on personal self-deprecation and humility.
You'll know the old adage  "Except for you and me, all the others [in our
field] are crazy, -- and sometimes I doubt about you," which I have since
long expanded, in teasing friends, students etc., with "and sometimes, --
about me."

                                        ***

Joking aside, I think Mr. Subrahmanya's case and that of his brothers in
spirit (Tarek Wani and Vishal Agarwal) is different, it is Slander and,
worse, Libel.  (See my 'gem collection' message to this list of Feb.13,
2000). They  variously alleged in separate messages of Feb. 11, 2000:

"Witzel's panzer divisions", "Witzel has 'managed' to find Aryan chariot
panzers",  "Witzels are free to conjure images of fair skinned
Kashmiri/Irani/Kashmiri looking IE speakers hurtling down the Khyber on the
chariots and overwhelming the proto Mundas or the Para Mundas". As
indicated in my 2/13/2000  message, I have not written any such thing.

(-- and, with R.Kochhar, who cares anyhow?)

Since Febr. 13, Subrahmanya (and the others) have had time to *prove* their
cased by giving quotations from my writings. None has done, including
Subrahmanya, whom I have incited to do so a few days ago, -- even while
invoking Varuna, the Lord of Truth, and while not being able to address
him, S., face to face but only by calling him, aakaazena, from a distance,
with Pluti.

Taittiriya Upanisad 1.11 admonishes any graduate of Vedic study:  satyam
vada! and, when wrongly accused, to resort to restrained, knowlegable
Brahmins, which I have done here, to this Parishad of Vidvant-s.

Instead, Subrahmanya, Incitatus, has used the old discussion technique (on
this list, certainly worthy of *tertiary* level research) to shift topics
and attack sub-issues, and to complain.

However, until Subrahmanya *proves* his case, he must be content to be
admonished "impolitely" to keep silent, or he must suffer to have his
auspicious prefix Su- exchanged forever by Dur-.

                                        ***

Of course, we could follow V. Agarwal's advice (he indeed has imbibed the
local culture well in his few years here!)  and resort to US courts, as the
above quotes constitute, according to my Oxford dictionary, not just
slander but LIBEL: "written or printed statements that damages somebody's
reputation".

However,  I put my trust  in this Parishad and in the eye of Varuna and
Mitra, the Sun, and in their <electronic> spies at night, the 1000 spaz,
who watch out constantly for Truth, (-- and, eventually,  punish
perpetrators of DRUH by dropsy, RV 8.89).

I would not even have bothered about all of this, following the old
proverbial advice "what does the moon care if a dog barks at it?" if the
above was not part of a concerted campaign against "western colonialist,
missionary, "eurocentric" Indologists", see for  example the web sites of
Rajaram or of Hindu Vivek Kendra, which has the MISSION to propagate such
views.  *That* is serious. Especially when combined with official policies.
But that's a topic for scholars of political science...

                                        ***

The quotes below should be of interest to all Indologists, irrespective of
sub-discipline.
Question: Do you all regard your work just as an "exercise in
self-preservation"??

Hindu Vivek Kendra (including our old friend, now 'official' ideologist,
K.Elst, etc.)
http://www.hvk.org/abouthvk.html

And cf. Rajaram's "Sword of Truth", at the end of the page: badly informed
about the 18/19th century, and about Indology in general, but very
assertive anyhow:
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/navaratnarajaram/=
wowp
2cto.html

He writes:

""A morality tale:
                  As far as Indians are concerned, both the creators and
the inheritors of the Vedic and Harappan civilizations,
                  this holds an important moral lesson. There is no reason
why Indians should defer to the opinions of these
                  'scholars' who have their own axes to grind. Their field
originated driven by colonial politics and Christian
                  missionary interests, at a time when race dominated
scholarly discourse in the West. Their academic
                  discipline holds on to the same colonial legacy though
racism is no longer respectable; the same theories are
                  now presented in linguistic garb. What drove the
'research' of Western scholars a century ago were colonial
                  and missionary interests; what is driving it today is
academic self-interest. Indian history and tradition don't
                  exist to serve them and their pseudo-discipline.

                  Here then is a basic question: who are these people to
tell Indians - the inheritors of the only surviving
                  civilization of the ancient world - how they should view
themselves and their civilization? Every scientific
                  advance - from the discovery of the Sarasvati River to
the decipherment of the Harappan script - is exposing
                  the hollowness of their theories and their discipline. It
is this realization that is driving many academics to
                  desperately cling to discredited theories, contriving new
theories and explanations. It is nothing but an
                  exercise in self-preservation. This is the moral of the
latest episode following the 'world's oldest writing'. It
                  may not be 'oldest anything', but it has served to expose
the fears, the interests and the methods behind
                  Western Indology. ""