SV: SV: ICHR controversey

Thu Mar 2 23:16:32 UTC 2000

I am not a history scholar or teacher but even as a common man when I read
history I want to know exactly what happened,when,where, how and why. I want
an insight in to the past to understand the present better. No sanitised
censored version of convenience to the government of the day can help me
there. But again as they said history is always written by the victor. The
villain of Mahabharat of Duryodhan and not Suyodhan.
AP

>From: Lars Martin Fosse <lmfosse at ONLINE.NO>
>Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
>Subject: SV: SV: ICHR controversey
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:58:59 +0100
>
>Rajarshi Banerjee [SMTP:rajarshi.banerjee at SMGINC.COM] skrev 01. mars 2000
>19:41:
> >
> > RB>I am not talking about morals, who wronged who, or preaching
>anything.
> > When a naturalist goes into the field he does not take sides between say
> > prey and predator,  Such an approach would compromise truth and limit
> > understanding.
> > Its undestandable to sanitize news stories if they can be iflammatory
>but
> > such principles should not be used for long term analysis of history.
> > Marxist scholars indeed become defensive when its time to deal with
>islamic
> > activities in India.
>
>As I was trying to say in another mail: not just Marxist scholars. However:
>we
>are evidently discussing two things at the same time: on the one hand,
>mass-media communication where a certain amount of responsibility and
>restraint
>is called for (for the reasons you mention yourself), and scholarly
>discussions
>where professional attitude and factuality is called for. Discussing past
>Muslim atrocities is perfectly in order as long as this discussion is
>delinked
>from the modern political situation and not used as a tool to dehumanize
>Muslims in general. In India this principle hardly seems to obtain.
>
> > If you are worried that the sight of broken pre-islamic monuments will
>make
> > hindus vengful you are off track. Compare INdian attitudes with the
>paranoid
> > israelis, Americans who bombed libya over a hijacking.
>
>There is a slight difference here: I am not talking about an immediate
>reaction
>to an act of terrorism or a military attack. (This is called "defending
>your
>country").  I am talking about revenge for injustices suffered by past
>generations many decades or centuries ago. (BTW: I do not necessarily
>endorse
>all action taken by Israelis and Americans. Israeli treatment of
>Palestinians
>can be atrocious, but then Palestinian behaviour is not always adequate
>either). If you want to react to military threats or acts of terrorism, the
>targets should ideally be the perpetrators and/or their political leaders,
>not
>random, ordinary civilians. But that is part of a definitely
>non-Indological
>discussion).
>
>The harping on Muslim injustice in the pre-British period is used as a
>means of
>targeting Muslims *in general*, and Muslims at that who are innocent of the
>atrocities committed in the past. But as I said, that does not mean that
>Muslims are beyond criticism. I have seen stupid and brutal reactions on
>the
>part of Muslims as well, and there is no excuse for committing such acts of
>terrorism as you mention.
>
>INdia probably has
> > faced more terrorist attacks than all of them combined. Starting with
>747
> > blown oput of the sky, stock exchange bombings ....... assasinations ,
>bomb
> > blasts, mowing down of many marriage processions in jammu, migrant
>labourers
> > shot dead as they sleep to give just a few examples all happening over
>and
> > over again. These are never reported in the western media.
>
>You are wrong. As far as I can see, such episodes get mentioned fairly
>often,
>although they do not necessarily become first page headlines. Journalists
>tend
>to look for a bit of blood and gore to enliven the pages of otherwise
>boring
>newspapers, and items such "30 persons gunned down at Indian wedding", "25
>persons drown in ferry accident on the Ganges" etc. usually end up at the
>bottom of page 3 or 4. I have seen fairly regular - but underemphasized
>reports
>on atrocities in South Asia in the local press here. The problem is that
>they
>are rarely analyzed in a broader context. The reader gets scraps of
>information
>on South Asia, but  seldom intelligent explanations. And of course, our
>local
>petty political quarrels are always more in focus than major catastrophies
>in
>the world beyond Norway.
>
> > Even the so called rabid and nationalsit BJP government is pretty laid
>back
> > and restrained by world standards.
>
>That is highly debatable. I have been a subscriber to the "Organiser" for a
>year, and "laid back" and "restrained" are hardly words that pop into my
>mind.
>The BJP and its sister organisations run pretty hard-nosed campaigns
>against
>both Muslims and Christians, thus exposing them to violence at grass-root
>levels.
>
>From a practical political point of view, Panikkar's version of history is
>probably less damaging to India's body politic and society than the
>"critical"
>version of history you want to see published. However, if Panikkar's view
>is as
>stated by you earlier, I don't share it. So should I shout my opinion from
>the
>rooftops and contribute to  a potential blood-bath? Or should I discuss my
>views in fora where I am surrounded by responsible persons who will not run
>off
>and kill their Muslim neighbours because of injustice suffered by their
>forefathers long ago? I would opt for responsibility.
>
>As an afterthought, I come to remember the situation in France a couple of
>years ago, when several books on French collabation with the German
>occupation
>force during WWII were published. As I remember it, it transpired that such
>collaboration had been much more widespread than assumed until recently.
>Apparently, the true war history of France had been deliberately suppressed
>on
>the initiative of General de Gaulle, who had the statesmanlike idea that it
>would be easier to build a new and better France if the French were
>convinced
>that they had been a nation of heroic resistance fighters rather than a
>bunch
>of unprincipled opportunists, traitors and cowards. So for 50 years, they
>were
>told that they had been heroes (which of course many of them were). And
>now, it
>doesn't matter what they are told. Is there a lesson here?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Lars Martin Fosse
>
>Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse
>Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
>0674 Oslo
>Norway
>Phone/Fax: +47 22 32 12 19
>Email: lmfosse at online.no
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com