Guest guest Posted November 21, 2005 Report Share Posted November 21, 2005 Dear Unni, thank you for this most enlightening link! Volker --------------------- Unnikuttan wrote: >what do you have to say about this ? > >visit this page > >http://www.stephen-knapp.com/death_of_the_aryan_invasion_theory.htm > >Rgds >Unni >INDOLOGY, "Robert Zydenbos" <indologist@o...> >wrote: > > >>INDOLOGY, Paul Barlow <paul.barlow@u...> >>wrote: >> >> >>>I should like to draw list-users' attention to the following >>> >>> >>section of the >> >> >>>BBC website. It is the BBC's official account of the history of >>> >>> >>Hinduism. [...] >> >>Interesting. That shows (a) that the mass media in Britain are >>estranged from the academic establishment, (b) that the complaints >>of the Indian ultra-right about the grand conspiracy of the >>distorting of Indian history by the Western academic establishment >>at the behest of the governments of their countries in order to >>intellectually confuse supposedly hapless Indians and thereby >>humiliate and exploit them, are false. >> >>It would rather seem that the BBC is either infested by hardcore >>Hindutvavadis and / or their sympathizers, or we are dealing with >> >> >a > > >>new type of conspiracy: that an agency financed by the British >>government is instrumentalized to toe the revisionist line of the >>political extreme right of a country that was recently dismissed >> >> >in > > >>general elections in that country. But somehow, I think this >> >> >second > > >>possibility is bit unlikely. :-) Or perhaps this is the doing of a >>naive and uncritical, easily impressionable employee in a position >>of more responsibility than s/he can handle, who was influenced by >>the wrong people to put that material on the website. >> >>Perhaps somebody (a Briton) can draw up a letter to the BBC, to be >>signed by concerned persons, pointing out the need of rectifying >>that irrationality? >> >>RZ >> >> >> > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2005 Report Share Posted December 24, 2005 vpcnk wrote: > > For examples of what revisionist 'scholars' do and how they are > > exposed, see: > > but such "exposure" doesn't necessarily mean that pro-ait advocates > are right. Correct. > it only means that somebody screwed up in their anti-ait argument. Also correct. But it remains interesting that although the entire issue is a non-issue from the standpoint of contemporary scholarship (I do not know any 19th-century-style 'pro-ait advocates' among scholars who take a professional interest in these matters; so there is no use for 'anti-ait arguments'), there are those amateurs who pretend that it is an issue - which makes the entire matter an issue for a different branch of scholarship, viz. the study of contemporary Indian culture, society and politics, which belongs to my field of professional activity. And when one deals with this 'issue' from this point of view, one cannot help noticing that, as I mentioned earlier in this same thread, the same lame conspiracy theories are repeated by the same kinds of people, and with the same obvious objectives, which have nothing to do with scholarly historical research (except in a purely negative way). > the tendency of indological scholars to present "facts" as though > they are indisputable should be tempered. A real fact is something that cannot be disputed - that is precisely what makes it a fact. Presenting facts is one of the first steps in any scholarly undertaking, and therefore there cannot be any question of 'tempering'. > after all we've little conclusive evidence about the ancient past in > india. so best to keep an open mind about all possibilities. In all generalness, this is correct - but there is a gigantic difference between 'keeping an open mind' on the one hand and, on the other, what polemicists like N.S. Rajaram do. Scholarship is about determining facts (which, I repeat, are things that cannot be disputed) and then, through a process of sober reflection on those facts, reaching conclusions that on the basis of the present state of knowledge (which is based on facts) are not refuted. This also means that a current scholarly opinion may be refuted in future, and this is why research continues: scholarship is an ongoing, self-critical process that follows certain rules of rationality and objectivity and respect for facts. When some amateur (who, by the way, has more than once simply uttered abuse at serious professional scholars who happen to disagreee with his pet ideas) distorts evidence and in public discourse uses his forgeries to bolster his Hindutvavadi fantasies which he passes off as history, then it is good that certain scholars burst his bubble. Exposing fraud is a valid and valuable use of real scholarship. Keeping an open mind does not mean that we switch off our minds altogether and smilingly accept just any kind of nonsense. Such nonsense in itself can be interesting to study for what it is (to answer questions like why people think up such things and propagate them); but something is wrong when a BBC website displays such nonsense as if it is scholarly opinion. One would expect Aunty Beeb to be more prudent. RZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.