From: vishalagarwal@...
Message: 11345
Date: 2001-11-21
--- In IndianCivilization@..., vishalagarwal@... wrote:
Certain arrogant western scholars have hurled wanton abuses at anyone
who disagrees with them, if they are renowned scholars in their own
right, and even if they advance purely academic reasons for
challenging the Aryan invasion theory and its various euphemistic
versions. The Harvard Linguist Michael Witzel has demonized even
Professor B. B. Lal, one of the doyens of Indian archaeology, and an
internationally respected archaeologist. Perhaps Witzel would have
been more careful in lampooning Lal had he been a westerner and a non-
Hindu.
LAL [1998:439-440] responds to such mud-slinging in a very
gentlemanly manner-
QUOTE BEGINS
"However, the most regrettable part of this debate is that, more
often than not, pride and prejudice have played a significant role in
it. So much so that certain scholars who are expected to be sober
have not hesitated from slinging mud on others. For example, in a
recent (1995) paper, Michael Witzel of the Department of Sanskrit,
Harvard University, has dubbed two of the publications of the present
writer, one dealing with the excavations at Hastinapur (Lal 1954-55)
and the other relating to the historicity of the two Indian epics,
viz. the Mahabharata and Ramayana (Lal 1981) `as examples of modern
Hindu exegetical or apologetic religious writing; even if they do not
come with the requisite label warning us of their real intentions'
(Witzel 1995:117, n. 81). The present writer would have greatly
appreciated if Witzel would have come forward with his arguments for
not agreeing with the former's views. Instead, all that Witzel does
is merely impute motives to the former's writings, and that too in an
unbecoming manner.
Witzel would be well advised to read, on this very topic, the
writings of two renowned non-Hindu scholars, one from his own country
and the other from across the Atlantic/Pacific. They are
respectively: Van Buitenen of the University of Chicago and A. L.
Basham who was earlier at the University of London and later moved on
to the University of Canberra, Australia. Sure enough, they are not
Frawley, a Westerner, who Witzel suspects of being a Hindu agent and
fifth-columnist, as evidenced from his using such expressions as `a
view adopted by some western scholars as well' (ibid: 116, n. 79).
Does Witzel hold that all Western scholars must toe his line of
thinking and refrain from expressing his own views? Anyway.
A great Sanskritist as he was, Van Buitenen took upon himself
to translate the Mahabharata. In his Introduction to the first volume
(Van Buitenen 1979:9, n.12), he acknowledges: "The easiest source of
information on the identity of epic sites is B. B. Lal's book-length
article "Excavation at Hastinapur and other explorations in the Upper
Ganga and Sutlej basins 1950-52 .". Ancient India 10-11 (1954-55)'
Reviewing the Hastinapur Report (in Journal of Economic and
Social History of Orient I, 3, 1959), Professor Basham observed:
SUBQUOTE BEGINS
<<<`The historian must thank Mr. Lal for his excavations, his well
reasoned conclusions. We believe that the latter provide the most
probable hypothesis at present available to us. It seems, in fact,
that the remains of Period II do show us something of the way of life
of the people remembered in the epic (Mhabharata) story. These, if we
are to believe Mr. Lal's very reasonable hypothesis, are the people
whose priests composed and orally transmitted the enormous later
Vedic literature.'>>>SUBQUOTE ENDS
The present writer has quoted these authorities just to remind Witzel
that not all (Western) non-Hindu scholars look at the scholarly
writings of others with the tinted glasses that Witzel apparently
wears. May God give us all the good sense not to stoop so low in
academic contronversies."
QUOTE ENDS
Reference -
LAL B. B. 1998. Rigvedic Aryans: The Debate Must Go On. In 'East and
West', vol. 48, pages 439-448
--- End forwarded message ---