RAJARAM EPISODE

[hans henrich hock]

The comments below are not specifically directed at Nanda Chandran or 
at Robert Zydenbos.  I must ask the two for their indulgence and 
understanding.

I have been watching the growing altercation following in the 
aftermath of Rajaram's obviously ill-established claims, and I am 
getting progressively irritated by the shrillness and the 
increasingly pervasive holier-than-thou attitude on all too many of 
the sides to the debate.

I am also heartened by occasional requests for civility and for calls 
for impartially investigating and questioning *all* claims, whether 
by past or present Indologists (whose attitudes on race and power 
clearly are not monolithic and unchanging), by leftists or 
progressives (who, again, show great variation and change), or 
nationalists and rightists of various extremes (among whom, too, 
there is no full unanimity). I would very much hope that this 
universally-critical attitude will prevail on our list.  In fact, 
closer examination readily shows up problems in virtually every 
corner (except, of course, one's own?).

Ultimately, what should concern us on this list is, not political and 
ideological stances (which tend to change constantly), but a search 
for truth, however elusive it may be.  In this context it may be well 
to remember that even people whose politics and ideology we disagree 
with may have valid points (something which sometime back Elst and 
Zydenbos seemed to agree on), and also that just because one or 
another piece of evidence in favor of one or another hypothesis turns 
out to be problematic, this does not necessarily invalidate that 
hypothesis.

If we fail to introduce more civility and impartiality we will not 
only talk past each other, we will actually be providing aid and 
comfort to those we are trying to combat, by creating the appearance 
that it's simply one ideologically-based and problematic approach 
opposing another one.  As the case of the vituperative verbal (and 
physical) battles in pre-Nazi Germany shows, under such circumstances 
there is a common tendency for people to favor their own, right-wing 
brand of (perceived) extremism, rather than one that can be branded 
as "foreign"; and the consequences can be disastrous.

Having gotten this off my chest, I will sit back and return to 
observing--and, if the "flavor" of the list's discourse does not 
improve, I may have to decide to unsubscribe.

Best wishes,

Hans Henrich Hock

yo asyaadhyakSaH parame vyomantso aNga veda yadi vaa na veda



>Am 30 Sep schrieb nanda chandran:
>
> > Likewise we're not asking back territory from Pakistan. Let us just have
> > our most important temples back.
>
>Perhaps that overwhelming Hindu majority could consider returning all the
>Jaina and Buddhist structures to their erstwhile owners first, before raving
>about what the Muslims later did to brahminical structures? Why such a
>partisan attitude? (Sorry if the desire for 'truth and integrity' in 
>some of us,
>which you expressly say not to believe in, asks such questions.)
>
> > If you're unable to understand our standpoint, I do not blame you. Mere
> > knowledge of Sanskrit or Indian literature does not make one a Hindu
> > nor will it enable you to truly understand the Hindu mind.
>
>You should know perfectly well that your attitudes are not representative
>of the whole of Hindudom - fortunately not. We know enough about India to
>know that this kind of noisy polemic is insulting to a good many persons who
>consider themselves Hindu. It is also insulting to our intelligence. If you
>wish to be taken seriously, please stop this kind of writing.
>
>RZ
>
>
>--
>Prof. Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos
>Institut f¸r Indologie und Iranistik
>Universit”t M¸nchen
>E-mail zydenbos at gmx.de
>
>Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net