Please see below -
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <vishalsagarwal@...>
> Dear Vishal, I'd say that Kazanas was positively lionised by the
editors. He was given 60 pages -- twice the length of the next
longest article in the issue. Both Mallory's promise (no matter if
real or alleged) and Kazanas's complaint about its breach (no matter
if justified or not) sound ludicrous to me. Science is one. It is not
Indian, American, German or Japanese, leftist, centrist or rightist,
Eastern or Western, Hindu, Protestant, Vedic, Quranic or atheist,
feminist, gay or male-chauvinist. The nationality of the reviewers
should not matter at all.
VA: In this case, IT DOES. Because it was expected that
archaeologists from India, who are much closer to the archaeological
data, would be some of the reviewers. This lacuna in the list of
reviewers leads to some wrong comments in the reviews. For instance,
Kuzmina says that oldest specimens of spoked wheel chariots come from
somewhere north of Afghanistan. In reality, terracotta spoked wheel
representations have been found in atleast two Harappan sites, at
levels dated to 2300 -2200 BCE, and I have seen photographs.
Moreover, the chariot argument is flawed because spokes find mention
in only late parts of Rigveda. Counting pages here is quite silly.
Let us count the total number of pages given by Mallory to 'OIT'
position vis a vis all the other views on PIE homeland. In fact, 60
pages are too short to discuss the alternate paradigms.
PG: All that matters is what they have to say. One might remark,
somewhat cynically, that Kazanas's indignant refusal to address the
critics is rather convenient from his point of view. I'm not going to
engage in meta-reviewing (all our members may read the article and
the reviews for themselves), but consider this: obviously unfair
criticism is easy to rebut. What if the criticism is devastating but
well-deserved? Never fear. A prudent strategos knows when to sound a
retreat and how to make it look like a moral victory.
VA: The criticism appears devastating only to those who are totally
ignorant of the tons of literature published in India (reflected so
clearly in the bibliographies of the reviewers in the JIES Winter
2002). Your final remarks, which some other list members find so
thrilling, merely reflects the prejudices so deeply ingrained in some
people.
>
> > The list members must note that none of the more experienced and
balanced South Asian archaeologists were asked to review the article,
the reviews are all one sided, and some (like that of German scholar
Stefan Zimmer) plain abuse.
>
> One-sided in what way? Do you simply mean that they were all
critical of Kazanas's ideas and nobody praised them? Ouch, it must
have been painful!
VA: There was nothing difficult in my post that you could not
comprehend. As noted above, Mallory did not include even one
archaeologist who has dug extensively in India (Meadow largely
restricts to Pakistan) except DPA whose views are a minority opinion
within India, Kuzmina digs in earstwhile Soviet Union. The only
Vedicists included were Parpola and Witzel, whose views are at the
same and one end of the spectrum, no Vedic scholar with opposite or
even different views was included. I presume, you do not want a list
of people who Mallory could have included.
> > D P Agrawal is somewhat of an oddity in the Indian Archaeology
establishment in his continued support to crypto Invasionist
scenarios (and is widely known within India for his leftist-
sublaternist affiliations).
>
> Hang me if I know what a "leftist-sublaternist" is or why it should
be bad to be one, or in what way being one discredits one as a
scientist. I'm a linguist but I scarcely understand a word of this
manipulative political gibberish. I'm sure, however, that it's proper
place is in propaganda leaflets. Why don't you use plain English
instead? But perhaps saying that somebody admits the possibility of
migrations into India does not sound as damning as "crypto-
Invasionism".
VA: Ask Zimmer or other 'reviewers' who throw words like 'Hindu
Nationalists' whenever someone questions their own views in India.
Within Indian political scenarios, unfortunately, the issue has
become politicized, and the Marxists-Leftists are actually asking
that the government ban archaeological digs in India for the next few
years!! I presume that since you are ignorant of all this, you would
not understand.
>
> > Parpola is a multiple invasionist as is well known,
>
> The way you put it, it sounds sinister, but is it against the law
to be a "multiple invasionist" (especially if we are talking of
invasions in the distant past)? If so, is the punishment proportional
to the number of assumed invasions?
VA: By this phrase, I meant that he subscribes to the theory of
atleast 2 invasions of IA speakers into India. In the context of my
note, it merely means that while evidence for even one invasion is
difficult to come by, this person subscribes to multiple invasionist
scenarios. I do not know how much of his decipherment articles and
books you have read, but to me (and to many reviewers in print),
Parpola has not been able to prove his case at all.
>
> > and a darling of Dravidian chauvinists.
>
> Thanks to his being a Dravidologist, I suppose. Even if true, does
that undermine his credibility as a scholar? As far as I know,
Parpola himself is not a chauvinist, Dravidian or whatever.
VA: It does, because of his penchant for projecting himself as the
savior of Dravidians in India. People like Parpola write that OIT is
propagated only by upper caste north Indians, and accuse OIT'ers of
ignoring the 'Dravidian' component of Indian culture, when the
current meaning of the word 'Dravidian' to cover 25% Indians itself
is a modern colonial-missionary fabrication, and has hardly any
validity outside linguistic classifications (there are other
discusions on this topic on Indian lists, and I refrain from stating
more here). So when Parpola (incidenally, co-editor of Witzel's EJVS)
can make such stupid sttements and project himself as a savior of the
honor and culture of 250 million Indians, he wil doubtlessly attract
criticism.
>
> > Bryant is somewhat balanced, although he refrains for castigating
his benefactor at Harvard for blatantly inappropriate comments.
>
> I somehow have difficulty imagining Edwin Bryant as a member of a
white supremacist kangaroo court. So in order to prove that he's
fully balanced he ought to castigate ... why do you refer cryptically
to "his benefactor at Harvard" instead of naming the man? Are you
talking of Lord Voldemort? What's Bryant's failure to castigate him
got to do with what Bryant has to say about Kazanas's article?
VA: Yes and No, to your last question. In fact, Bryant is critical of
Kazanas at times (for that matter, I also find it hard to digest the
extremely high chronology that K has argued for). However, on
Eurocentric Indology lists, he and just 1 or two other people (such
as Dr. Hock) have come out OPENLY protesting the rudeness and
unfairness of the 'mainstream' Indology when discussing these topics
(why not do a search on Liverpool Indology archives).
>
> > Meadow has already shown his prejudices by openly supporting
Indian marxists such as Thapar and the 'secular RSS' (R S Sharma) and
by calling South Asian writings as tainted with 'flights of fancy',
IN PRINT.
>
> How confusing! It seems the extreme rightists in the West are
conspiring with the extreme leftists in India against whatever
Kazanas stands for.
VA: Yes, truth is stranger than fiction. The reverse of your
statement also appears to be valid, because people who would be
called bleeding heart liberals and leftists, are accused of
supporting Rightists in India :-) See
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/civilization/partII10.htm
Many people like Witzel etc. know that these people are uniformly
referred to as Marxists in India and that this is often their self-
descriptor, but when confronted with the question - "Why do you
support Marxists", they tend to give dishonest or vague answers to
the questioner. For instance, in EJVS 7.3, Witzel ridicules those who
term the 'Delhi School of Historians' as Marxists, when in fact
the 'Dictionary of Marxist Thought' by Bottomore (published,
incidentally from Harvard Press) itself names Jha, Thapar, Secular
RSS as Marxists!
PG: I know of many European writings that can be described
as "flights of fancy" and have been so called, justly, in print. Do
you mean that South Asia is absolutely uninfested by flights of fancy
and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to be pilloried as a crypto-
something-or-other?
VA: You have to read the foreward where this statement is made. The
prejudice of Meadow is SO APPARENT that one can even read a statement
to this effect in an online, Amazon.com review of J. M. Kenoyer's
book 'Cities of the Indus Civilization.'
>
> > In other words, the collection of 'reviews' is just another
kangaroo court, published in a journal alleged to be associated with
white supermacism and racism.
>
> A kangaroo court? It sounds as though they had lynched Kazanas or
at least denied him his rights (e.g. by refusing to print his reply
if he had chosen to write one), which doesn't seem to be the case. "A
journal alleged to be be associated with white supremacism and
racism"? The alleged association has no practical effect,
fortunately. Whatever Roger Pearson's views are, the JIES itself is a
respectable journal, not a racist forum. 'Nuf said, we've been
through that before.
>
VA: So I gather it is not wrong to accept money also from smugglers,
murderers, neo-Nazis and all kinds of criminals to fund journals. Not
that Roger Pearson is any of them, but I really marvel at the low
morals and ethics of the 'scholarly readers' of the JIES.
Surely, 'Indian Nationalists', and 'Hindu Nationalists' are more
respectable than them.
Sincerely,
Vishal
PS: I will not respond to you on this subject anymore, due to lack of
time.