Reference: Message 9109 dt. 06 Sept 01
Dear Mr. Gasiorowski,
My initial post was prompted by the observation that you tend to be
very generous in inserting abusive and pejorative terms in between
statements of academic nature, while referring to opponents of AIT
and proponents of OIT.
This major intent of my post has been conveniently overlooked by you,
and much attention has rather been paid to peripheral issues. Please
read on below, wherein I will respond only to relevant (in my view)
items -
PG: <SNIP>..ge of views. Being an Indo-Europeanist rather than
Indologist, I do not specialise in Indo-Aryan, and the question of
its origin is for me only a fragment of a larger Indo-European
mosaic, not something I feel very strongly about. If I have any pent-
up frustrations, they have nothing to do with India or with Indo-
Aryan migrations.
VA: When a person throws abusive terminology against a set of people
holding particular opinions, without any provocation and rather
repeatedly and insultingly, there is a valid cause to search for
possible motivations and latent strong feelings on the matter despite
claims to the contrary. Your throwing insults on these people is
rather a part of a pattern and thus we see Mair etc, calling (or
speculating) even the Linguist S S Misra a `Nationalist' while he is
not one, and calling the work of a well known Marxist ideologue (R.
S. SHarma) and invasionist as `balanced'. Clearly, the criteria of
the `objectivity' of Indian scholars is whether they conform to the
cosy, make believe consensus of the Indo-Europeanists or not. This
pattern of selective abuse has been noticed by many, and there are
even published case studies on the same. Unfortunately, you do seem
to fall into this pattern.
*****
PG: I do dislike all forms of aggressive ethnocentrism, though. For
example, I heartily dislike Mr Slobodan Milos^evic' and the things he
did, notwithstanding which my pet theory of IE origins makes the
linguistic homeland overlap Serbia (Mr M. is a Great Serbian
superpatriot, by the way, not a pan-Slavic enthusiast).
VA: M might not be as pan slav enthusiast as his predecessors in pre
World War I Serbia, but nevertheless he did expect Russia to come to
his rescue. Good luck to you on your Danubian homeland theory.
******
PG: By the same token, the majority of IEists who locate the homeland
in the Pontic steppes are not East-Slavophiles. In general, I do
politics and linguistics separately, and I am sure most of my
colleagues do likewise.
VA: Adopting your methodology of calumny by association however, that
still makes them some sort of Eurocentric, is it not? And IE scholars
can come from Russia and Ukraine etc too. Recently, a Russian
Vedicist (Tatiana Elizarenkova) gave a lecture wherein she saw
remnisences of Urals in Rigveda. Should we now call her a Russian
Nationalist (considering that Aryanism has indeed been linked to this
ideology)? If not, why do IE scholars have to caricature OIT
followers or AIT skeptics (where AIT means AIT and its euphemistic
versions).
***********
PG: By the way, if it is no great secret, what is _your_ opinion on
the origin of the Indo-Aryans and the Indo-Europeans?
VA: My views are evolving and I am very open to the notion that
IA/IIr languages came to India from outside. At present however, the
preponderance of evidence from genetics, anthropology, hydronomy,
literary data and archaeology clearly seem to rule out the entry of
Aryans post or during IVC period or atleast render such a scenario
very improbable. Such a view will definitely conflict with that
school of IE studies according to which PIE split as late as 2000 BCE
but will not be affected much by a date around 4000 BCE as you seem
to hold. Anyway, to emphasize once again, I have no certain views on
this matter yet and I am still reading a lot on archaeological
reports etc.
**********
----------
> If we just look at the record, the proponents of AIT and its
euphemisitic versions are the ones responsible for the holocausts,
white supermacism, genocides and so on.
PG: I wish to protest. What record? These are just hackneyed slogans.
VA": If you wish to write an apologia or behave as a negationist,
that is clearly your problem. After all, there are even some people
who deny the Jewish holocaust. Even in our times, White Supermacists
like David Duke are firm believers in AIT, certainly more dangerous
that OIT followers. Anyway, list members could find the following
message somewhat informative
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDOLOGY/message/899
******
PG: Even such prototypical AIT writers as Sir Mortimer Wheeler were
not, as far as I know, genocidal maniacs but serious scholars who
just happened to be wrong (without hurting anyone physically).
VA: I was not referring to REM Mortimer Wheeler. In fact in EJVS 7-3,
Witzel even suggests (on the basis of `reliable oral testimony') that
it was Vasudeva Sharan Agrawal who provided those `invasion' passages
of RV to Wheeler although the latter never acknowledged the debt. In
reality, from WRITTEN account of this matter, it appears that Wheeler
merely asked V S Agrawal for such passages, which the latter merely
provided - And not that VSA actually motivated Wheeler to propose
such mythical massacres.
*********
PG: As for Hitler and his cronies, they were not qualified at all to
discuss scholarly questions, so whatever (if anything) they believed
concerning Indo-Aryan origins is irrelevant. If you regard any form
of Indo-Aryan influx theory as a euphemistic version of the AIT,
then, since I support such a theory, does it make me responsible for
unspecified but terrible crimes in you eyes? Mercy! I plead innocent.
I support the incriminated theory for purely linguistic reasons,
since linguistics is something I understand well.
VA: By the same yardstick, if OIT viewpoint is appropriated by
Hindutva folks, are you justified in lampooning all indigenists??
Bryant precisely shows that Hindutva/Nationalisism is not equal to
Indigenism. BTW, several early proponents of Aryan theories were also
racists. And several prominent Indologists are known to have served
the cause of Nazism by upholding these Aryan theories, while many
others (e.g. Paul Thieme) fought against Nazism. Likewise, several
non-Nationalists (e.g. S.S.Misra) have other reasons to reject AIT
while many followers of Hindutva (e.g. Savarkar) actually supported
AIT (which is precisely the reason why some Indian Marxists initially
opposed AIT). So when the matter is comfused, why do you caricature?
********
<SNIP>
PG: I see no need to reply in detail to the offensive propaganda
above (or to much more propaganda at the end of your posting).
VA: There was no propaganda involved. Only an illustration to suggest
that heaping abuse on harmless people who hold certain viewpoints
smacks of bigotry, especially when even the core issue or the exact
homeland or PIE people is not yet settled.
***********
> Is it then fair to speculate uselessly and pass non-verifiable and
subjective linugistic conjectures on tax-payer's money?
PG: Dear Vishal, if you mean _me_, I pay my own phone bills
(including the modem connection), use my own PC and write these
postings in my own spare time.
VA: The statement was directed at tenured professors who waste time
on useless speculation and unproductive activity.
*********
PG: I will certainly read this book with pleasure, for I value Prof.
Bryant's opinions even when I disagree with them. He opts for giving
the OIT a fair hearing, which I think is a waste of time, since the
theory has been discussed and disproved by mainstream scholars time
and time again. Edwin Bryant is not, strictly speaking, a linguist,
but he at least appreciates the value of linguistic evidence and the
insurmountable difficulties it causes for the OIT. It is all the more
puzzling, as far as I am concerned, why he insists that it remains a
serious theory.
VA: The book is about evidence no doubt. But it also deals a lot with
a kind of an offensive attitude of western scholars against Indian
scholars in general and against indigenists in particular. I still
have to read the book thoroughly, but the impression I get is that EB
does not rule out the NW corner of South Asia as one of the potential
IE homelands (in fact now Professor Hock also seems to hold this
opinion unless my information is wrong). In any case, had EB
championed the Indigenists position, it would have been impossible
for him to have got the book published - considering that I am told
that western IE journals will not even publish any article which
argues for an older date for RV (than the one currently assigned to
it) and at least 1 scholar has informed me how his article was
rejected by an anonymous reviewer after indulging merely in name-
dropping of other references which proposed the conventional date. In
short, the upholders of the `scholar consensus' seem to be more
zealous and fanatical about their consensus than scientists are about
well established facts. The professed `tolerance' and `open
mindedness' does not exist, as is reflected in a list member's
protest that people should `respect scholarly consensus' when in
reality it is merely a consensus of the weary, a farce.
*****
> 2. The Rigveda and History of India; David Frawley; Aditya
Prakashan;
New Delhi; 2001
PG: This I will not be looking forward to, as I have a passing
acquaintance with the output of David Frawley.
VA: It is precisely this attitude, that is looked down upon by Bryant
and hence I doubly recommend the two books to you. Non verifiable
linguistic conjectures and reconstructions cannot replace what the
texts say themselves directly.
********
> 3. The Rigveda- A Historical Analysis
Available on-line at
http://voi.org/books/rig/
Chapter 9 shows how the International 'experts' cannot get even their
elementary facts correct when it comes to the Rigveda.
PG: Well, who can? At any rate, the mere fact of not
being `international' doesn't make one a greater expert. You'd be
surprised to see how many non-British scholars study Old English in
exotic places like Germany, Japan, Finland or Poland.<SNIP>
VA: The above are merely rhetorical comments. The fact is that the
errors pointed out by Talageri completely discredit Witzel's
reconstruction of Vedic history .
************
----------
> I would also appreciate your remarks on the following URL's
1. The Aryan Migration Theory - Fabricating Literary Evidence
http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/AMT.html
2. What is the Aryan Migration Theory
http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/What_is_AMT.html
3. Mr. Talageri's response to Professor Michael Witzel's EJVS 7.2
http://sarasvati.simplenet.com/talageri01.pdf
(You will find very extensive comments on Professor Witzel's errors
in the comprehension of the Vedic literature from me in the July 2001
archives of the IndianCivilization list. In any case, if you can wait
for two more weeks, I will post them as an accessible URL).
PG: I have already read these articles. Mr. Talageri doesn't even
seem to understand Witzel's points and insists on making a fool of
himself. It's his problem. Members of our list may read the exchange
and form their own opinions.
VA: Your statement merely echoes your own prejudice. What is
this `Witzel's points' you are talking about. In reality, T answers
to each specific objection of Witzel, who is in fact caught inventing
errors, and indulges in reckless lies and slander. I think that you
have not understood Talageri's response and are merely deferring to
Witzel's authority. So much for open mindedness.
********
PG: Your own obsessive attacks against Witzel's single mistranslation
(while you choose not to address scores of better-argued points
presented by Witzel), are quite unsavoury. Prof. Witzel is on the
whole a very careful scholar and makes few sloppy errors.
VA: Your defence of your German colleague is very touching. You have
entirely missed the main point though. I do appreciate the good
points of Witzel although in your response here, you have not seen a
single good point in ANY of the three URL's! Freudian, should I say?
The point was that when German-American professor at Harvard (see
sections 7 and 8 of
http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/AMT.html )
recklessly accuses an Indian writer of fraud, and posts 250 messages
on a mailing list of profession Indologists, he is not only
tolerated, but cheered. In fact, his Frontline magazine article is
now being quoted by western Indologists to `prove' their point. But
when he is caught covering up and speaking lies and falsely
implicating a fellow colleague, by a lay India, you call it my
obsession. It does however a mystery why Witzel is so vehement and
bitter and abusive when he refers to indigenists. THAT demands some
investigation. So where is your sense of even handedness?
*******
PG: Call his (now corrected) interpretation of the passage in
question controversial if you like, but calling him dishonest or
ignorant, accusing him of fabricating evidence, etc., has no factual
support and smacks of something deeply personal (pent-up
frustration?). Tell me when serious Indologists like Hock or Cardona
start snubbing Witzel as a result of your crusade. I'll know that the
man is a crook and I must avoid him.
VA: I have interacted with Indologists sufficiently (not specifically
with Hock and Cardonna though) to know that their moral character is
quite low. I do not expect them to do the needful, nor do I want them
to do so. What I want is that scholars should focus more on their
work rather than indulging in crusades of political slander, abuse,
in displaying their prejudices against certain peoples (very well
documented now). The fact that you yourself give a clean chit to
Witzel despite his unethical behavior (see EJVS 7.1, 7.2..) is not
then surprising. Neither surprising is the fact that you could not
resist throwing the phrase `pent up frustrations' back at me :-)
By the way, the word `fabricate' can be used without any negative
connotations also. Readers can read that article and decide what
meaning they want to give to it. My intent was a neutral sense to the
word.
----------
PG: Letting a political agenda influence one's theories is _always_
wrong in science, even if you think you are promoting a just and
noble cause. The place of nationalism is in the ranks of political
parties, not in the academic world. As for political life, I'd sigh a
sigh of relief if a more promising way of preventing atrocities could
be found. I somehow can't believe nationalism is an effective cure.
If it were, it would have started working a long time ago. Tito's
Yugoslav nationalism created only a pleasant but precarious illusion
of inter-ethnic harmony. Once the illusion was gone, there was
nothing to stop bloodshed, political disintegration and ethnic
cleansing to the bitter end. Maybe you could save India in some other
way.
VA: If you are trying to imply that I would oppose AIT or its
euphemistic versions out of some nationalistic agenda, then you are
stereotying and caricaturing again. Apparently you have
misapprehended what I intended to say. However, I do note that your
sermon to India and Indians is motivated by an example from Europe-
precisely the eurocentric baggage attached to the concept of
nationalism that I was alluding to. Your response merely vindicates
my point and I would request you to view at the issue of nationalism
from the perspective of Indians as well by shedding your ethnocentric
paradigm.
Sincerely,
Vishal