[Y-Indology] Challenge to Indologists

[Guest guest]

vijinuk wrote:

 

 

> This chalenge is not an indological one, but a pedagogic one. Some

> Indologists are concerned about Indians getting their history wrong,

> but should they also be not be concerned about their home countries

> getting it wrong?

>

> Around 1500 BCE northern India was invaded by the Aryans, people who

> came from Iran and Southern Russia. The Aryans were light-skinned

> wandering tribes who forced the local dark-skinned people of Northern

> India, called Dravidians, southwards. For this reason, the Northern

> Indians are believed to be the descendants of the Aryans and the

> Southern Indians are considered descendants of the Dravidians.

> --------------------------

 

This version of the AIT sounds a bit like the jocular summary of Ibsen's play

"The Master Builder": "Elderly man falls in love with young woman but falls down

from a ladder and breaks his neck." Nothing very wrong there, the summary just

misses the point of the play.

If you keep the format given above, you would have to change the timeline by

a couple of centures either way (1700 - 1200, perhaps) since we now assume

several migrations over several centuries, and we would have to say that the

"invading" Aryans were not much different racially speaking from the people of

the Harappan culture (I believe it is called the Indo-Afghan type, with whom the

Aryans mixed on their way to the Punjab and beyond). Rather than running the

Dravidians southwards, it is likely that the Aryans mixed with them to some

extent. The most controversial point of view (which used to be popular) is of

course not that they were relegated to the South but rather to the bottom of the

social ladder. Matters now seem a bit more complicated.

Ideally speaking, Indologists should definitely take care to change

imprecise

descriptions of Indian history. Which is precisely what they do: the question

has

been thoroughly debated among the professionals, but the results have not yet

sifted down to the popular presentations of the subject. Hopefully, they will do

so eventually.

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

> To give another sample, under "Exercises" the school children are

> asked to ponder on this "3.1 What are the most important

> differences between Vedism and Hinduism? " as if these two entities

> are different.

 

To Academic Indology they are different. Vedic religion is the oldest stage,

Brahmanism the second oldest and Hinduism the last version of India's "Hindu"

religion. They are organically connected, but different. I believe any

introduction to the Hindu religion produced in the West will explain the

difference between these stages.

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax: +47 22 32 12 19

Email: lmfosse

[Guest guest]

getting their history wrong,>

 

It seems to me that Indologists whose field of specialization is the origins of

Indian civilization are the ones who are/should be concerned with this

question, not all Indologists. Furthermore, their scholalrly/research interests

should not have anything to do with whether they are "Indians" or not, as the

question seems to imply. After all, there are also many respectable, competent,

and highly regarded Indian Indologists. It would be unfortunate if we assume

that only non-Indians are Indologists.

 

2. <but should they also be not be concerned about their home countries getting

it wrong?>

 

This question, which follows from the unwarranted assumption in the last one,

seems to be indifferent to scholarly specialization. How can a French

Indologist, for example, speak with any authority (i.e. as a scholar) on the

correctness or otherwise of the history of his/her own country? Also, contrary

to the assumption in this statement, many Western historians are engaged in

correcting the mistakes and misrepresentations in their own history. I believe

that Indian scholars who specialize in European/American history, should

likewise correct and straighten out the mistakes in European/American history.

Some of them do.

 

3. Please note that I am not defending Western Indologists here, but only

clarifying the question that has been posed.

 

4. My own view is that at this sensitive juncture in humanity's history,

commentaries and analyses of cultures and history are best left to the

inheritors of particular cultures and histories, at least for some time, until

the air is cleared of all the mistrust and misunderstandings that have

accumulated as a result of a few centuries of Western hegemony. But that is

only a personal FEELING, not a RECOMMENDATION.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Lars Martin Fosse" <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

> vijinuk wrote:

>

>

> > This chalenge is not an indological one, but a pedagogic one. Some

> > Indologists are concerned about Indians getting their history wrong,

> > but should they also be not be concerned about their home countries

> > getting it wrong?

> >

> > Around 1500 BCE northern India was invaded by the Aryans, people who

> > came from Iran and Southern Russia. The Aryans were light-skinned

> > wandering tribes who forced the local dark-skinned people of Northern

> > India, called Dravidians, southwards. For this reason, the Northern

> > Indians are believed to be the descendants of the Aryans and the

> > Southern Indians are considered descendants of the Dravidians.

> > --------------------------

>

> If you keep the format given above, you would have to change the timeline

by

> a couple of centures either way (1700 - 1200, perhaps) since we now assume

> several migrations over several centuries, and we would have to say that the

> "invading" Aryans were not much different racially speaking from the people of

> the Harappan culture (I believe it is called the Indo-Afghan type, with whom

the

> Aryans mixed on their way to the Punjab and beyond). Rather than running the

> Dravidians southwards, it is likely that the Aryans mixed with them to some

> extent. The most controversial point of view (which used to be popular) is of

> course not that they were relegated to the South but rather to the bottom of

the

> social ladder. Matters now seem a bit more complicated.

 

 

Matters are so complicated that history records no people such as dravidians and

no such events such as being pushed either out or down by aryas. Message #1923

deals with this.

 

 

If dravidians of vedic age are merely defined as language family, then the above

version is a logical absurdity since people kill (or drive out)people, they

don't

kill language families and abstactions like language family don't have colour.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, vvrsps@r... wrote:

> getting their history wrong,>

>

> It seems to me that Indologists whose field of specialization is

the origins of

> Indian civilization are the ones who are/should be concerned with

this

> question, not all Indologists.

 

 

 

I agree with what you say, but it is a question of accent. Indology

is supposed to concerned with the whole of Indian civilization and

history and no doubt only some Indologists specialise in it's early

history and others accept their writings as true.

 

Furthermore, their scholalrly/research interests

> should not have anything to do with whether they are "Indians" or

not, as the

> question seems to imply. After all, there are also many

respectable, competent,

> and highly regarded Indian Indologists. It would be unfortunate if

we assume

> that only non-Indians are Indologists.

 

 

While what you say is correct as far as assumptions go, at a

pragmatic level, it is still western indology. 99% of what the

educated people , both in India and abroad, consider as Indological

results, output and grand synthesis come from the west.

 

 

 

> 2. <but should they also be not be concerned about their home

countries getting

> it wrong?>

>

> This question, which follows from the unwarranted assumption in the

last one,

> seems to be indifferent to scholarly specialization. How can a

French

> Indologist, for example, speak with any authority (i.e. as a

scholar) on the

> correctness or otherwise of the history of his/her own country?

 

 

There is some misunderstanding here. I meant Western Indologists

getting Indian history and communicating it to the wider public. What

I said was that Indologists are concerned that Indians are getting

Indian history wrong, but should they also not be concerned with

their home countries getting Indian history wrong like the web site I

quoted, which relies on a crude version of AIT.

 

 

While I appreciate your taking time to consider the assumptions in

my small post, I hope same critical attitude is directed towards

history of India written in the west, wherein assumptions such as

 

Racial group = Linguistic group

Arya=North India = White skin= Aggressor and

Dravida= South India = black skin = victim

 

is rife and is disseminated as the state-of-art wisdom

[Guest guest]

> While I appreciate your taking time to consider the assumptions in

> my small post, I hope same critical attitude is directed towards

> history of India written in the west, wherein assumptions such as

>

> Racial group = Linguistic group

> Arya=North India = White skin= Aggressor and

> Dravida= South India = black skin = victim

>

> is rife and is disseminated as the state-of-art wisdom

 

This is a crude misrepresentation of Western Indology as it is today. No Western

Indologist would be so naive as to claim that racial group = linguistic group.

There is data showing that such an assumption holds in a rough manner (see the

work by Cavalli-Sforza), but everybody knows that there are lots of exceptions:

e.g. Afro-Americans speak English without being Indo-Europeans.

 

As for point 2, it is assumed that the Aryans who reached India were not much

different from the ethnic types we find in North India today - they had mixed

with non-Aryans (in the "racial" sense) on their way. However, we know that they

were aggressive (read the Rigveda), and that they were involved in fighting both

with each other and with non-Aryans.

 

As for the Dravidians, they tend to be rather dark, but you will find

non-Dravidians who are dark, and you will find dark people who speak

non-Dravidian languages. The basic point: Dravidian is primarily a linguistic

term, not a racial one. Whether Dravidians always were victims, is a different

matter. Probably, they were as warlike as most other peoples on earth. But we

know little about this. Reconstructing early Indian history on the basis of the

very scant data we have, is necessarily difficult.

 

Mind you: Dravidians of low-caste origin have no problems seeing themselves as

victims of high-caste (i.e. "Aryan") aggression, and this is the reason why

"Western" Indology is so controversial. In an attempt to create social harmony

(without having to solve the social problems responsible for the disharmony),

India now tries to rewrite history as if you could create harmony with a magical

sleight of hand. It would have been better to leave it to professional

historians

(and not only Westerners) to ponder the intricacies of early Indian history in

the academic context and instead deliver a frontal attack against casteist

ideas,

social discrimination, maltreatment of untouchables etc. If India solves its

problems, it can live with any kind of distant past. Other peoples' distant past

was not much better.

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax: +47 22 32 12 19

Email: lmfosse

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Lars Martin Fosse" <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

> vijinuk wrote:

 

> To Academic Indology they are different. Vedic religion is the

oldest stage,

> Brahmanism the second oldest and Hinduism the last version of

India's "Hindu"

> religion. They are organically connected, but different. I believe

any

> introduction to the Hindu religion produced in the West will

explain the

> difference between these stages.

 

But would you also say that Religion of Abraham is different from

the Religion of Moses is different from the religion of Duetronomy

which is different from the religion of Religion of Rabbi Hillel

which is supposed to be different from the religion of Rabbi Kahane.

Do they see them as "diffrent but organically connected".

 

Would you also say that the religion of St.Paul is different from

that of St.Augustine is different from that of Luther which is

different from that of Pope John Paul II. Pre-1850s Christians by

and large accepted slavery and sexism. So, would you say that the

western religions before and after 1850 are "different but

organically connected"

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Lars Martin Fosse" <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

 

> This is a crude misrepresentation of Western Indology as it is

today. No Western

> Indologist would be so naive as to claim that racial group =

linguistic group.

 

It is not me who represented it like that. You have agreed a few

lines below "Dravidian is primarily a linguistic term, not a racial

one". If this priciple is consistantly followed , then there would

not be much confusion. But if you go through your own posts, you will

find that is not the case.

 

 

 

> As for the Dravidians, they tend to be rather dark, but you will

find

> non-Dravidians who are dark, and you will find dark people who

speak

> non-Dravidian languages. The basic point: Dravidian is primarily a

linguistic

> term, not a racial one. Whether Dravidians always were victims, is

a different

> matter. Probably, they were as warlike as most other peoples on

earth. But we

> know little about this. Reconstructing early Indian history on the

basis of the

> very scant data we have, is necessarily difficult.

 

 

These difficulties must be stated as they are, instead of creating

peoples and events ex-nihilo, in order to give an impression that we

know everything.

 

 

 

>

> Mind you: Dravidians of low-caste origin have no problems seeing

themselves as

> victims of high-caste (i.e. "Aryan") aggression, and this is the

reason why

> "Western" Indology is so controversial.

 

"Western" Indology is controversial on it's own terms without the

benefit of caste tensions in India, Paksian, Nepal or

Srilanka . "Western" Indology is controversial because it sees

peoples and events where none existed.

About 40% of Sikhs are classified "Scheduled Castes". They don't

blame the other 60% Sikhs for aryan aggression. Recently , you would

have read newspaper reports of caste tensions in Pakistan wherein a

woman was gang raped by high caste muslims. They are not blaming

aryan aggression for that.

 

 

In an attempt to create social harmony

> (without having to solve the social problems responsible for the

disharmony),

> India now tries to rewrite history as if you could create harmony

with a magical

> sleight of hand.

 

 

 

In India, things more substantial than magic wands are used to create

social harmony. Anything from 20% to 80% of the seats in the schools,

Universities and jobs are reserved to create social harmony. The

whole country was divided into language based states to create social

harmony. There are whole raft of laws, courts and other institutions

to bring out a social harmony, though they are far from efficient.

 

 

 

 

It would have been better to leave it to professional historians

> (and not only Westerners) to ponder the intricacies of early Indian

history in

> the academic context and instead deliver a frontal attack against

casteist ideas,

> social discrimination, maltreatment of untouchables etc.

 

 

Many times historians take up the chore of attacking what they see

as "communalism", "hindu fundementalism", etc instead of pondering

the intricacies of early Indian history in the academic context.

 

Political parties have arisen in India which base themselves on some

view of early Indian history and hence it cannot be left to the

academics completely.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Lars Martin Fosse" <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

> Mind you: Dravidians of low-caste origin have no problems seeing

themselves as

> victims of high-caste (i.e. "Aryan") aggression, and this is the

reason why

> "Western" Indology is so controversial.

 

VA: How do you know that? Is there a survey conducted in

the 'Dravidian states' to show that the low caste Hindus see

themselves as victims of 'Aryan' aggression? If it is indeed so, is

this resentment against 'Aryans' traditional, or is it being thrust

upon them by an Axis of Marxists, Mullahs, Missionaries and a section

of Indologists? I also do not understand why you sometimes

put 'western' between double quotes, when in your own post at

INDOLOGY/message/2226 , you defend

Western Indologists, without using the double quotes. Maybe you want

to highlight your 'western' connections to get credit, and dismiss

them when the skeletons in the cupboards are revealed.

 

 

In an attempt to create social harmony

> (without having to solve the social problems responsible for the

disharmony),

> India now tries to rewrite history as if you could create harmony

with a magical

> sleight of hand. It would have been better to leave it to

professional historians

> (and not only Westerners) to ponder the intricacies of early Indian

history in

> the academic context and instead deliver a frontal attack against

casteist ideas,

> social discrimination, maltreatment of untouchables etc.

 

VA: And who are these 'professional historians'? I hope you are not

endorsing Communists who these days get accolades from politically

motivated Indologists at Chicago, Harvard, Helsinki, Oslo.....

 

Sincerely, with the hope that the moderator will not censor this

message.

 

Vishal Agarwal

[Guest guest]

> In an attempt to create social harmony

> (without having to solve the social problems responsible for the

disharmony),

> India now tries to rewrite history as if you could create harmony

with a magical

> sleight of hand.

 

If you're not aware of all the efforts of the Govt of India for the

past fifty years in trying to empower the lower castes and the

statistics involved, best for you to keep silent.

 

> It would have been better to leave it to professional historians

> (and not only Westerners) to ponder the intricacies of early Indian

history in

> the academic context and instead deliver a frontal attack against

casteist ideas,

> social discrimination, maltreatment of untouchables etc. If India

solves its

> problems, it can live with any kind of distant past. Other peoples'

distant past

> was not much better.

 

What will work in a prosperous country need not necessarily work in a

poor country. If people (non-scholars) have enough wealth they'll

hardly have time to ponder over such issues - but in a poor country

like India where due to a huge population there's intense competition

for resources available, such "histories" can be misused/abused to

serve vested interests.

 

As noted before Indians who're aware of the ground realities in their

country can handle such issues with greater understanding and effect.

Best for western Indologists to stick to their professional interest

and not dabble with the politics in India.

[Guest guest]

> But would you also say that Religion of Abraham is different from

> the Religion of Moses is different from the religion of Duetronomy

> which is different from the religion of Religion of Rabbi Hillel

> which is supposed to be different from the religion of Rabbi Kahane.

> Do they see them as "diffrent but organically connected".

 

I am not familiar with the Jewish tradition, so I'll leave that out.

 

> Would you also say that the religion of St.Paul is different from

> that of St.Augustine is different from that of Luther which is

> different from that of Pope John Paul II. Pre-1850s Christians by

> and large accepted slavery and sexism. So, would you say that the

> western religions before and after 1850 are "different but

> organically connected"

 

Most definitely. 1) Christianity is organically connected to Judaism and the Old

Testament, but in many respects different. 2) Lutheranism (and other Christian

sects are definitely different in many respects from Catholicism, but

organically connected. 3) Modern Christianity is in many respects very different

from forms that were prevalent 100 years ago, although Catholicism is more

conservative than Protestantism.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

 

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax: +47 22 32 12 19

Email: lmfosse

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Lars Martin Fosse" <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

 

> Most definitely. 1) Christianity is organically connected to

Judaism and the Old Testament, but in many respects different.

 

 

Since Christianity and Judiasm are different, it does not parellel

the Indian situation

 

2) Lutheranism (and other Christian sects are definitely different

in many respects from Catholicism, but organically connected. 3)

Modern Christianity is in many respects very different from forms

that were prevalent 100 years ago, although Catholicism is more

conservative than Protestantism.

>

> Hope this clarifies.

>

> Lars Martin Fosse

 

Unlike Protestant sects which arose by direct repudiation of

Catholicism, which itself arose by the repudiation of Nestorianism

and other eastern sects, latter day Hinduism did not reject or

repudiate vedas or brahmins. Even Sikhism never repudiated vedic

connections and the absense of brahmins in Sikhism is merely a

reflection of local circumstances

 

 

Hence, once can talk of a stronger historical continuity in Hinduism

from early days - whenever it was- to the present than in

Christianity, where developements take place by a rejection of the

past