ICHR controversy (Reply to Mr. Dougal Part 3)

[Vishal Agarwal]

Dear Mr. Dougal,

It was Shivaratri yesterday. Did you do worship the phallus?
________
From: Sundeep Dougal <holden at GIASDL01.VSNL.NET.IN>
Shourie starts by accusing in Chapter 15, that Lord Indra
has been called ' "rowdy and amoral" ' without evidence (p. 156)
3. The Extended Phallus (Pg 8 of the booklet)
On Pg 159 of his eminent book, for Jha, he asserts 'Lord Shiva
is just a "development of phallic cults" ' (citing from Jha, op
cit., p.90). Now this 'just' is just Shourie's imputation.........On this
page, 90 (nor for that matter in any of the 8 pages
mentioned for the entry 'Shiva') of Jha's book, this quote is
(surprise surprise) not there............

Vishal replies: Again, relying merely on 1998 book which seems to have
revised heavily the chapter on IVC/AIT, it is clear nonetheless that Dr. D N
Jha drew his inspiration from the works of Dr. Kosambi. In addition to M and
R, I have his other book "An introduction to the Study of Indian History;
1975; Popular Prakashan; Bombay"

Chapters 3 and 4 of this book describe the AIT in gory detail, translating
certain RV verses as showing Indra as a maruader who 'broke dams' and
inundated Hariyupiya (which is equated with Harappa), who killed the dark
skinned Dasyus, who burnt down their cities......... and that this brought
an end to IVC. These are precisely the interpretations that modern
Indologists reject for AIT/AMT purposes, and the 1977 book of D N Jha might
well contained these. But his is not to deny the overall character of Indra
as depicted in the Rigveda. Rather, Shourie laments that the gutter
inspector in D N Jha makes him write only negative statements on Hindu gods
and goddesses whereas even foreigners can see postive things in them.
And Shourie is right in stating so, for does the RV not have any good things
to say about Indra? Eg. "trataram indram avitaram han..."

One might say that it is unacademic on part of Mr. D N Jha to sing
panegyrics to Hindu gods. But then, is it not a manifestation of his disdain
for Hinduism and also unacademic on his part to make such misleading
statements (which are no less emotional than a panegyric could be):
1. "Saraswati flows underground to meet the Ganga and Yamuna at the sangam
only in the minds of credulous Hindus" (parahrasing from memory)
2. "The cow became an object of worship; the seeds of modern Indian communal
politics were thus sown" (Pg. 138; 1998 book)
3. "In our own times, it(the Gita) is talked about more than read, its
glaring contradictions and poetic excellence being convenientlly ignored by
those who tirelessly swear by it." (Pg. 137)
4. "..Krishna despite his rather questionable personal record" (Pg. 137)
5. "Krishna, who is mentioned in the RV as a demon and as an enemy of Indra
" Pg. 133 (This is a clear distortion. Krishna IS NOT mentioned in the RV
except for some Sanatani tracts written in recent centuries).
It is OK to de-romanticize History, but why make such unnecessary slurs?
On Dr. D. N. Jha's treatment of the Shivalinga in the following
post...........

Vishal

PS. A link in my last post did not work. I am re-posting it to show the
hysterical response of the secularist press on Shourie's book

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/07121998/books.html

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