RAJARAM EPISODE

[Steve Farmer]

Nanda Chandra writes, in one message:

> And in this they have the support of "researchers" like S Farmer etc. I am
> curious to know what exactly his motivation in this whole matter is?
> According to his earlier posts he is not even an Indologist and was only
> interested in Indian history in relation to other cultures. But now it looks
> like he has turned full time Indologist! So what motivated him to join
> forces with M Witzel and spend so much time in refuting Rajaram?
>
> I hope you won't dish out the "integrity and truth" routine to me ... I'm
> too cynical to believe in such!

I'm always sorry to find anyone too burned out to believe in
"integrity and truth." Comparative historians by definition deal
with more than one civilization. Are you telling me that Indology
is out of bounds? By the way, I've certainly conducted enough
historical research, held enough post-docs, research grants,
university teaching positions, and produced enough scholarly
works (including a recent 595-page book on premodern thought) not
to have "researcher" put in question marks. How about you?

Anun Gupta writes:

> Romila Thapar along with other JNU historians issued a statement about a
> decade ago, regarding the Babri Masjid dispute. In that statement they cite
> the Babarnamah as evidence that Babur did not demolish any temple in
> Ayodhya....

I hardly think that that what led to the mob destruction of Babri
Mosque qualifies as a simple "dispute." Can I point out that
Rajaram glorifies its destruction as the beginning of the
resurgence of modern India?

So indeed: truth and integrity. Rajaram stands for a lot more
than just intellectual dishonesty. There is a nasty political
edge to everything he writes. His supposedly historical works are
not aimed at scholars but at mobilizing the masses in India.
Opposing people like him is not a scholarly act (it doesn't take
much research acumen to undercut his work) but a moral act. If
Rajaram were just a crackpot - and there are obviously plenty of
crackpots around who claim to have deciphered Harappan -
discussing his work wouldn't be worth the effort. But Rajaram is
a Hindutva propagandist, not a scholar. If you doubt this, I
suggest that you read Rajaram's political writings at the
(ironically named) "Sword of Truth" website. Deep down, I think,
people *can* be moved by evidence, and that makes the effort
worth it.

By the way, I don't see you or anyone else defending Rajaram's
views on his "decipherment" these days, correct? A few months ago
Koenraad Elst was dropping deep hints in this newsgroup that
Rajaram's book was about to work a revolution in Indology.
Efforts wasted?

I must pass by further discussions of this sort, since I have to
prepare some "research" (I'll retain the quotation marks) at a
conference next week.

Steve Farmer