Dear fellow Indologists, 

Eli Franco posted a “rejoinder” to the Theses on Indology a few hours ago. Readers can make up their own minds about it. Rather than dignify his ad hominem statements, we have produced an intellectual response, which addresses the important issue of Jews and Jewish scholars in Indology. 

In his rejoinder, Franco states, “The Semler method may possibly have been conceived with ulterior motives and used by some racists and anti-Semites, but it was also used by Jewish scholars and by non-Jewish scholars who can in no way accused of antisemitism without any concrete evidence. The authors’ claim amounts to saying that a knife mutilates.” This is indeed a worthy question, and one we already anticipated. Our response to Eli Franco’s rather predictable objection is uploaded here: https://www.academia.edu/30937643/Jews_and_Hindus_in_Indology

We emphasize that this is not a personal issue, nor is our dialogue in any way a personal one with Eli Franco. From a personal perspective, Vishwa and I intend to pursue our engagement with Indology, and this includes attending all conferences of interest, where we expect professional courtesy to be maintained. However, the fact that we maintain a dignified tone does not mean that we should abandon vital issues like asking who we as Indologists really are, what we do, and why we avoid or wish to foreclose immediately any discussion of anti-Semitism in Indology. 

The paper “Jews and Hindus in Indology” makes a contribution to this issue, which must surely concern us all as Indologists. It raises some important questions:

Were Jewish scholars in Indology sufficiently aware of the anti-Semitic bias ingrained in the discipline? 

Did they make sufficient efforts to counter this bias? 

Or were they also playing the institutional game of othering and denigrating the Indians in a quest for acceptance in a pervasively anti-Semitic discipline? 

What efforts have Jewish scholars practicing Indology today made to bring these issues to light and how can we trust their critical judgment if they were either unaware of or tacitly countenanced Indology’s ingrained anti-Semitism? 

Franco, at any rate, has consistently shown that he prefers to substitute a discourse of identities (insider/outsider, German/non-German, scholar/non-scholar, philologist/non-philologist, German/Indian, Indologist/Hindutva) for a discussion of ideas. We have not yet answered the question of why so many contemporary Jewish Indologists have remained silent on the painful issue of anti-Semitism in Indology. The fact that scholars like Eli Franco and Maria Schetelich (both at the Institut für Indologie und Zentralasienwissenschaften, Universität Leipzig) attempted to obscure known facts about Johannes Hertel’s anti-Semitism (see n. 193) should give us pause for thought. But if Franco wishes us to expand the scope of our inquiries and work on clarifying this issue as well, we will.

Finally, Franco writes, “none of the reviewers quoted by the authors in their own praise is an Indologist.” This only reflects the extent to which he failed to grasp, first, The Nay Science and, now, the Theses on Indology. There are many who have grasped these works’ institutional and methodological critique, and wish to move forward with a new philology cognizant of the problems with past scholarship and willing to address its issues. For the others, who are in the discipline merely to play the game, there exists the option of every failed intellectual: to sign a petition. Perhaps Franco can himself initiate such a motion in the DMG’s august assembly or publish a resolution in the ZDMG or one of the other “official” organs we listed.

Sincerely, 

Joydeep Bagchee