S. Farmer, Indology and overreacting

[Luis Gonzalez-Reimann]

The following was written yesterday, before Dominik's post about closing
down INDOLOGY. The last sentence seems to have acquired more meaning.

_____________________

At 07:50 AM 04/14/2001 -0400, Bhadraiah Mallampalli wrote:

>The reason why Rajaram, Talageri get accepted is because it is refreshing to
>see something different.

In some cases, this might be true. But there is also a clear propagandistic
effort not only to promote these views but also to discredit Indologists
and the whole of Indology as a discipline. This effort, as we all know,
follows a nationalistic agenda.

> They will also become obsolete if they are wrong

Yes, eventually, but if Witzel and Farmer (along with their gaNas of
cohorts) had not taken a stand and countered many of their claims, their
ideas would continue to spread unchallenged. The more that false/unfounded
ideas spread, the longer it takes later on to correct the mistakes,
especially if these ideas have been actively proclaimed to the four winds
instead of being confined to scholarly publications. People like Kak make a
point of stating that their theories have not been challenged by scholars,
so simply ignoring such ideas and not offering counter arguments would only
seem to confirm their claims to scholarly authority.

>No one had promoted their findings in this list except via URLs,

Not quite so. For a very long time now, INDOLOGY has been periodically
bombarded with very belligerent, aggressive attacks on "Western"
Indologists and Indian "secularists." Some times genuine questions were
asked -and replied to- and other times ideas have been fruitfully
exchanged, but too often it has become an excuse for accusing contemporary
Indology of being some sort of neo-colonialist, Christian, imperialist
conspiracy against Hinduism (following Rajaram's lead). As pointed out by
S. Farmer in his reply to one S. Bhatta, one often wonders who some of the
list members are, and what their intentions are. Some of this would be
solved if we all knew who we are talking to. In other words, if those who
post to the list give some information about themselves or their
institutional affiliations, instead of an unknown name and a hotmail or
another similarly anonymous account.

>but there was over reaction from all sides.

Yes, there has been over reaction on all sides, but too often too much time
is spent replying to uninformed and/or ill-intentioned posts.
Also, most of this has been explained before on the list, but we
periodically have new list members who start all over again with
accusations and insinuations. That's why many get tired and stop posting,
or leave the list. But maybe that's precisely the intention of some of the
aggressors.

Best wishes,

Luis Gonzalez-Reimann
University of California, Berkeley