Dear Vishal,
I suggest we stop using strong language and
attributing to each other ill will, ideological bias or having an ethnocentric
paradigm. This is a linguistic list and we should restrict ourselves to
discussing linguistic and related problems. Ad hominem remarks (also concerning
third parties; I am not particularly interested in your opinion concerning the
moral standards of the Indologists you've met) and attepts to psychoanalyse the
opponent make discussion impossible and turn it into a shouting match. Political
and ideological questions should be regarded as entirely OT here. If I have
erred in this respect, I apologise, but I expect you to follow suit. I
accept that you are not a Hindutva fanatic and please accept that I am not
a sick Eurocentrist. There may be strong ideological differences between us, but
discussion should be possible in spite of them if we talk about facts and
hypotheses, not about each other's actual or imagined political
attitudes.
I also suggest we stop referring to
legitimate _scientific_ theories using loaded terms like "AIT" and "OIT". If I
am speaking about a population influx into India and you immediately
respond by calling it "a euphemistic version of the AIT", this is just the sort
of dogmatic classification one expects of the stereotyped belligerent
indigenist. If you argued for migrations out of India and I called you "another
OIT nut case" rather than counter your arguments in a dispassionate way,
that would be equally uncivil and might justify your regarding me as a biassed
Eurocentric. So let's stop this "AIT/OIT" game altogether _now_, shall we? No
sermons to India and no sermons to Europe, OK?
I appreciate your detailed comments on the
Sarasvati question, and if time permits will return to that thread soon. That's
what contributions to this list should look like.
Piotr
(please address me by my first name, which
is what we do here)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:37 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Scientific Nationalism