Thus Spake Professor Michael Witzel A Harvard University Case Study in Prejudice? _________________________________________________ CONTENTS: Pg. No. 1.0 Background 2 2.0 Statements stereotyping Indian Americans………………………………………………….. 2-6 2.1: Indian Americans are ‘lost’ and ‘abandoned’ 2.2: Indian American scholars are all chauvinists 2.3: Indian/Hindu American groups are Hindu fundamentalists 2.4 Rudeness towards Indian Americans and Indians 3.0 Statements Stereotyping scholarship in India and Indians in general…………………… 6-8 3.1 Direct attacks by Witzel- 3.2 ‘Indians are uncomfortable changing their opinions’ 3.3 Defending other racists and ethnocentrics 34 Indians and dogs are not allowed 4.0 Statements lampooning scholars with different opinions……………………………. 8-11 4.1 Loutish and unscholarly behavior in academic journals- 4.2 Slander in his own cottage journals (co-edited by other Witzel Petition signatories) 4.3 Commissioner Metzenberg is a ‘budding politician’ 5.0 Statements making personal attacks on other individuals…………………………….. 11-13 5.1 Slander on public lists 5.2 Slander on secretive Indology lists 5.3 Labelling dissenting scholars 5.4 Persecution complex/mania of Prof. Witzel? Offense is the best defense! 6.0 Indology’s Creationism: The Intelligent Design of the master Aryan race:………………. 13-19 6.1 The genetic clones of Aryan Invasion Theory 6.2 Aryan Panzers launch a Blitzkrieg into India 6.3 Indian natives appropriate Aryanism 6.4 You’ve got the ‘Aryan’ look 6.5 ‘Anti-Aryanism is a Hindu Conspiracy’ 6.6 Inventing evidence for Aryan invasions 6.7 Bluffs as evidence for Aryan invasion 6.8 Aryan Templar knights hunt for the pure Aryan gene 7.0 What would Witzel Do? (WWWD)- A Satire…………………………………………………………….. 19-21 7.1 Witzel as a supporter of Pan-German ideology 7.2 An apologist for absconding Nazi war criminals? 7.3 Quoting Nazi Indologists 7.4 Proud descendant of Martin Luther, the first Nazi? 8.0 Academic or Politician? Witzel’s links with Indian Communists………………………… 21-24 8.1 Writing for a multi-millionaire Marxist 8.2 Defending Indian Marxist historians 8.3 Attack critics of Indian Marxist historians 8.4 Collaborate with Yankee Comrades and Indian communists 8.5 Idolizing Karl Marx 8.6 A comrade in arms? 9.0 Trivialization of the heritage of Hindus and Indians……………………………………… 24-26 9.1 Example of denigration of Hindu texts 9.2 India is just a cultural ‘cul-de-sac’ of Asia 1 9.3 Modern Indian languages are not scholarly 9.4 Obsession with negative interpretations of Hindu heritage 10.0 Concluding Remarks: ‘Yes, I am Pompous’………………………………………………. 26-27 Disclaimer 27 1.0 Background: We all generalize about people, about groups, about ideologies and so on in our lives. But when this generalization is judgmental, when it is not based on the complete set of evidence available to us and when we are unwilling to consider new or contrary data to revise our judgment, this generalization becomes a stereotype1. A stereotype is a highly exaggerated negative view of the reality. It is especially resorted to by people who are quick to condemn people different from themselves, or in other words, by people who are themselves intolerant. Prejudice2 is rarely expressed explicitly. It is more often demonstrated through creation of stereotypes, through the creation of a hated or a disliked ‘other’, through an excessive and obsessive focus on the negatives of this ‘other’, through half-truths, repeated and deliberate misrepresentation and so on. Ethnocentrism3 is a form of prejudice involving the belief that one’s own group’s values, practices or behavior are the best whereas those of the ‘other’ groups are inferior. Racism4 is another dangerous variety of prejudice involving the belief that a perceived ‘racial difference is sufficient to value one person less than another’. The reader should keep these definitions in mind constantly, while reading the text below, and judge for himself whether the activities and conduct of Professor Witzel could be termed a manifestation of prejudice in its various varieties. It is unfortunate that Dr. Witzel, a tenured professor at the Harvard University, publicly engages in highly reprehensible activities. Below is a brief account of his statements appearing on internet forums and in print with a few illustrative examples each but many more can be given. Except for one example, we have not quoted his damning prolific posts left in secretive lists of Indologists not open to public, nor have we quoted his emails sent to individuals or to groups5. After all, Professor Witzel is entitled to the privacy of his personal views, no matter how obnoxious these views are. 2.0 Statements stereotyping Indian Americans 2.1: Indian Americans are ‘lost’ and ‘abandoned’: Practically every month, Professor Witzel publishes a statement (in print or on the internet) that denigrates and stereotypes Indian Americans. We are a hard-working and law-abiding 1 Joel M. Charon. 2001. Ten Questions, A Sociological Perspective. Wadsworth Thompson Learning: Belmont (California), pp. 247-265 2 The following study gives a nultifaceted view on prejudice and discrimination – Gordon W. Allport. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.: New York 3 Claire M. Renzetti ad Daniel Curran, ‘Living Sociology’, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights (MA, USA): 1998, p. 287 4 Konrad Phillip Kottak, “Cultural Anthropology”, McGraw-Hill, Inc. : 1994, p. 79 5 For example, in an email message sent to a group of 8 people in September 1999, Witzel remarked that “Many Indians still cannot read their texts critically…..But Indian women are better than men”. We have also completely ignored the scary information about him that comes from grapevines in various universities in the United States. 2 community that has contributed immensely to the United States and reject such characterizations as prejudiced and unscholarly. We give the latest example of his stereotypical statements6: “Rajesh, I agree: The Hindus in North America (HINAs) are not just hiina, "lost, abandoned", but they (understandably) cling to their homeland in all manners they can come up with. "Reforming" our schoolbooks according to an imagined Golden Age (Ram Raj), hoary India is just one of the expressions we can observe. They also tell their daughters to study Classical Indian dance (not exactly a highly regarded occupation back home), they build many temples and have Sunday schools (as many other ethnicities do). But, they hardly invest in Higher Education as other successful Asians have done. Nor allow their children to study items outside Law or Medicine, such as Indian Studies, --- the only way that members of their group could speak with real authority (for example, in school books). However, as they are NRIs ("non returning Indians", as I just learned from a Hindi movie), they have begun ---as an old, very conservative US Brahmin friend pointed out to me already in 1994—building crematoria as well. And see that they children marry within the local caste of origin (preferably, as per advertisement, of "fair' or "wheatish" color), if necessary imported out of India. (I have represented in court for one unfortunate victim of such a cross-cultural RNI-Indian marriage). Or at least, they look for a spouse within the same general Indian caste (jaati), or worse, class (varna), or worst, among any Indians. They have seen too many of their children marry US people (whether of other Asian or of European descent; Blacks seem unthinkable). And loose their Hinduism, which second generation people just understand as "boaring rituals" (puja, etc.), temple visits and Indian (mythological) comic books ... All such items add to the heady brew that we have seen emerging here... Cheers, MW” Critique: It is a completely wrong to suggest that learning dance is considered disreputable in India or amongst Hindus. We have dozens of festivals in which people of all genders and social strata indulge in dancing and singing. Thousands of families in India hire professional dance teachers to teach traditional dances to their children. Why is Professor Witzel annoyed at us for teaching our classical dances to our children when we are, in the process, also enriching American culture? Also note that ‘Hina’, if pronounced with a particular phonetic stress (as done by Witzel in his transliteration ‘hiina’ above), means ‘deprived’, ‘lowly’ and ‘insecure’ amongst other negative things in many Indian languages. Such terms have been used in the past to denigrate Jewish minorities. Professor Witzel, a first generation German immigrant himself, could not have been unaware of these meanings. Witzel does not cite any data to make the negative assertion that Indians do not invest in their children’s higher education. The over-representation of Indian American children and adults in Rhodes Scholarship lists and in institutes of higher learning gives a lie to his negative stereotyping. If he is referring to the view that Indians do not establish chairs in Universities, we should ask the question – ‘Why should Indians do so? To generate more Witzels that denigrate us as ‘hiinas’? Also, does Witzel know that the population of Indians in the United States has shot up only recently, from a bare 500,000 in 1980s to 1.7 million in 2000. Most Indians are still trying to settle down financially here, and are focusing more on their priorities – building institutions that involve their ‘living’ traditions, such as dance schools, temples, Gurudwaras and so on. But Witzel only focuses only on the negatives of our community. 6 Message number msg 2300 dt. 11/13/05, on http:/groups.yahoo.com/indo-eurasian_research 3 What is wrong if Indians wish to build crematoria here in the United States. Does Witzel want to convert this country into something like Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims have to ship out their dead ones to their home-country for funerals? Contrary to what Witzel alleges, there are several inter-caste and inter-nationality marriages involving Indians. Witzel of course offers no hard data to support his own prejudiced statement. For that matter, does not the marriage of couples from different phenotype (African American and Caucasian for instance) raise eyebrows in the respective American households even today? We have also come across cases where the couple were both Caucasians but their families created a ruckus just because the two belonged to different Christian denominations. But we do not go around creating stereotypes out of such instances. Although Witzel seems to mock at the presence of Indian Americans in his midst, most Americans are not prejudiced as he is. Considering his prejudiced statements above, we do not think Indians or Hindus need his stamp of approval to “speak with real authority”. Witzel has declared proudly on various Internet lists that he is a descendant of Martin Luther, the medieval German founder of Protestant Christianity, who also said that ‘music is the invention of Satan’. Is that why Witzel considers the learning of classical dance by Indian American girls as something disrespectful?7 2.2: Indian American scholars are all chauvinists: Witzel has also repeatedly questioned the agency and intelligence of Indian Americans in defining and understanding their own culture. He tends to portray their interest in their heritage and history as singularly motivated by goals of what he terms as ‘chauvinism’ and ‘nationalism’. For instance, in criticizing an attempt at the decipherment of the Indus script by Natwar Jha (who lives in India) and Navaratna Rajaram (who left USA to live in India several years ago, much before Witzel wrote the article below), Witzel then goes on to lampoon entire Indian Americans as a group8 - “Given the scholarly inclinations among the expatriate communities in North America we may expect a slew of new interpretations, in fact, a whole new cottage industry. Their impact will appear especially on the internet. This fits in very well with some of their goals, --they have backed several nationalistic and even chauvinistic web sites-- the gaining of respect in their new and old homelands.” Similar stereotypical remarks about Indian Americans are inserted deliberately by him whenever he writes negative reviews of books or articles authored by an Indian scholar, irrespective of 7 In fact, many cohorts of Witzel who signed on the ‘Witzel Petition’ (see later in this article) have Christian missionary links. Asko Parpola’s maternal grandfather was a Christian missionary in Japan. His wife Marjatta Parpola talks of ‘our Christian friend’ in her recent book on Kerala Brahmins (‘Kerala Brahmins in Transition’, Finnish Oriental Society: Helsinki, 2000). Jonathan Kenoyer’s father was the chief physician at a Mission hospital in Shillong (the hub of Christian evangelization even today). Lars Martin Fosse contacted Father John Dayal, a right wing Christian leader from India, for help on the California textbook controversy issue. James Heitzman (who formed the CRP committee with Witzel) seems to be a Christian miracle monger, if his writings are seen. Many other Indologists such as Wilhelm Rau (whose writings are sacrosanct for Witzel) started his career as a Christian theologian and has many biographies of great Lutheran Christians to his credit. Despite their Christian missionary links, no Indologist questions the objectivity of worth of their writings. On the other hand, on lists such as the ones moderated by likes of Witzel (e.g., the Indo-Eurasian_Research Yahoogroup, or IER), aspersions are routinely cast on Hindus or Indians (or even South Asians in general) that the writings of these ‘natives’ are tainted by nationalism or pre-scientific religious viewpoints! 8 See Section 6 at the webpage http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/R&J.htm 4 whether that scholar lives in India or elsewhere. Clearly, according the Harvard Professor, Indian expats are wanting in a sense of discrimination and suffer from an identity crisis. The question is – where is all this crass and crude contempt for the Indian diaspora in the minds of ‘world class’ Indologists and scholars in ‘South Asian’ coming from? 2.3: Indian/Hindu American groups are Hindu fundamentalists: Another incident where he unfairly accused groups of Hindu Americans may be discussed now. The State of California in the United States adopts new textbooks every six years. The adoption of these textbooks is preceded by a well laid out and a lengthy process of review in which members of different resident communities in the state also get a chance to participate and offer their comments on the contents of these textbooks. California is currently undergoing closure of one such cycle of textbook reviews. The textbooks that will be adopted in the next month will be then used in public schools for the next six years. Grade VI textbooks on history contain a long section on Ancient India, together with descriptions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. For several decades, Hindu Americans and Indian Americans have been dismayed at the slanted, erroneous and prejudiced descriptions of their heritage in these textbooks9. This time however, they organized themselves and approached the State Board of Education (SBE) in California to rectify these errors, before the textbooks were formally adopted and the text was frozen. These groups of Hindu Americans meticulously followed the procedures of the State Board in offering their comments, suggestions and edits to the texts that were submitted to the Board for reviews. However, just when these corrections were about to be accepted, a group of traditional India- bashers (e.g. Michael Witzel), non-scholars (e.g., astrophysicist Rajesh Kocchar10), Indian Marxists (e.g., D N Jha, Romila Thapar), non-specialists in ancient India (e.g. economist Sudha Shenoy, post-colonial studies scholar Homi Bhabha, comparative historian Steve Farmer), scholars alleged to have demonstrated Eurocentric bias in the past (e.g., M Tosi11 of Italy), non- Indologists (e.g., S. Palaniappan, PhD in Road Transportation) and obscure linguists wrote an arrogant and pompous letter (on Harvard University letterhead, signed by Michael Witzel with endorsing signatures from 46 other ‘scholars’) to the State Board, addressing themselves as “all equally famous world class specialists” on ancient Indian history. The letter (henceforth referred to as ‘Witzel Petition’) alleged that all these Hindu groups proposing edits in the textbooks under review were dangerous Hindu nationalists who were somehow connected with the slaughter of 9 For examples of such distortions, see http://www.india-forum.com/articles/60/1 It is precisely these kinds of errors, slanted descriptions, prejudiced discussions and outdated information in the textbooks (as mentioned above by me) that alarmed the parents of the Indian American and Hindu American communities in California. And yet, Michael Witzel, Romila Thapar and other prejudiced ‘scholars’ launched a Goebbelsian blitzkrieg, labeling these California residents, apolitical parents who pay their taxes regularly and contribute to the US society immensely, as dangerous Hindu fundamentalists linked to murderers and what not. 10 Amongst the crackpot theories of this protégé of Romila Thapar is the ingenious suggestion that not just the Rigvedic Saraswati, but even the Ganga and Yamuna mentioned in the Rigveda should be located in Afghanistan! 11 For the anti-Indian bias of Maurizio Tosi, refer Dilip Chakrabarti’s Colonial Indology (1997), Munshiram Manoharlal: New Delhi, 167ff. Chakrabarti has also cited several relevant examples from Tosi’s writings in the above book. For instance, in a 1992 paper [TOSI, M. 1992. “The Harappan Civilization beyond the Indian Subcontinent”, in Gregory L. Possehl ed., Harappan Civilization, Delhi, pp. 365-378], Tosi argues: “……it is relevant to establish whether the investments in people and resources the Indus civilization would deserve should compare with those directed in the past to the study of ancient Mesopotamia and, more recently, pre-Columbian Meso-America.” If Tosi is so unconcerned about the Indian past, then why did he bother signing the Witzel letter in the first place? It is not out of place to mention here that a week ago, Dr Kalyanaraman wrote an open letter to 47 signatories, including Tosi, who had urged the State Board to ignore the suggestions of Hindu groups. In response, Tosi sent a most shameless, xenophobic letter that one would not normally expect of a seasoned scholar. 5 1000 people in Gujarat, and whose friends in India routinely discriminate against millions of Indian minority members and Dalits! Witzel and three other ‘world class specialists’ were invited by a panicked SBE to offer their own comments on the edits proposed by Hindu groups. In response, Witzel et al submitted 58 objections, many of which were clearly derogatory to Hindus. For instance, where the Hindu group proposed a correction of the statement that the ‘Mahabharata was written earlier than Ramayana’, Witzel and team remarked: “How does a sixth grade student care which text was ‘written’ earlier”! Understandably, one of the state commissioners Dr Metzenberg was appalled and said that this is offensive to Hindus because it obviously matters to them.12 The entire episode has caused a lot of consternation in the Hindu American and Indian American communities, and articles13 and online petitions have been initiated to expose alleged prejudices14, faulty scholarship and political connections15 of these scholars. It is still uncertain whether Witzel and his cohorts have even seen the disputed textbooks in the last 8 weeks. At least one does not see any evidence of his familiarity with them. In fact, the edits of the Vedic Foundation (one of the Hindu groups that approached) are not even public to this day and yet Witzel and Farmer have been maligning them on the basis of what they may have submitted! 2.4 Rudeness towards Indian Americans and Indians: Many Indians, who have interacted with him for several years, have not failed to notice that in his discussions with Indians, Witzel routinely employs condescending remarks, sarcasms, put- downs, boorish and arrogant statements, and outright insults against them16. Such statements are too numerous to reproduce here and literally litter the Internet. While Witzel accuses Indians and Hindus of fundamentalism and nationalism on the fly, he never ever expresses his concern for Hindu victims of terrorism and bigotry perpetrated by followers of other religions. 3.0. Statements Stereotyping scholarship in India and Indians in general 3.1 Direct attacks by Witzel- In an adverse and abusive online review17 of the work of an Indian scholar, Professor Witzel proceeds to make extraneous remarks characterizing entire Sanskrit scholarship in India: “In sum, amusing reading, like so many of the decipherment books. (More of them, and other Aryan fantasies, will be reviewed here, in due course). The only real surprise remaining then is this: M. Mishra (author of several Indo-Aryan grammars) was for many years the "Assistant and Deputy Director (academic) of the Rasthriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Delhi (1973-93)." One would like to know what other cutting edge, innovative, thought provoking, seminal and trend setting research is carried out by academic (ex)members of this Government financed institution?” 12 “California School Board Accepts Most Hindu Changes to Sixth Grade Textbooks”, Hindu Press International, ezine dated December 4th, 2005. 13 See for instance the following article by Professor Ramesh Rao at http://www.indiareacts.com/columns/full_column16.htm 14 See http://www.petitiononline.com/stopIER/petition.html Within four days, despite the holiday season, more than 1000 people have signed this petition, showing how widespread is the sentiment against Witzel. 15 See for instance Dr S Kalyanraman’s essay at http://www.india-forum.com/articles/55/1/Harvard-professor- launches-anti-Hindu-Crusade 16 Ramesh Rao, ‘Whose Religion is it Anyways’ at http://www.indiareacts.com/columns/full_column16.htm 17 Witzel, Michael. 2001. “Little Words with Profound Meaning” at http://northshore.shore.net/%7Eindia/ejvs/ejvs0701/ejvs0701.txt 6 He has made similar derogatory remarks against other institutes of Sanskrit learning in India. And while India is acknowledged as an emerging technology power, one can do a quick google search to find numerous derogatory remarks made by Witzel against Indian science and engineering institutes, which could impact how Americans perceive the technical competence of the Indian American immigrant minority. 3.2: Indians are uncomfortable with changing opinions: In criticizing a Greek scholar Nicholas Kazanas (!), Witzel cannot resist the temptation to make another side swipe at Indians. He says18: "Of course, this is not really part of the Indian tradition or ethos: change of opinion often is regarded as "defeat." We want to learn from such conversations. There is a serious cultural difference here, usually not noted. But very important in our context. As one Indian colleague told me, some 20 years ago, proudly: "I never change my opinion". Well, good for him! " So a grand-total of one data point is used to condemn and stereotype all Indians. Such behavior is quite typical of Witzel, and reflects poorly on how he has used textual data to draw his conclusions in his academic papers. In fact, it is Witzel who refused to ‘change his opinion’ and accept his mistranslation of a Vedic text. Instead, he went on to give several mutually conflicting explanations19, even blaming the editor of the book in question with creating that misprint! Perhaps Witzel would like to call it the polluting influence of ‘hiina’ Indian Americans in his midst. 3.3: Defending other ethnocentrics: Not only does Witzel denigrate Indians himself, he willingly and approvingly participates in internet discussions where Indians are stereotyped. Sometimes, he even defends others who have denigrated Indians. Let me give a few examples. In his preface to a book by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer20 (another signatory to Witzel petition), Richard Meadow (another signatory to the Witzel Petition) makes the following remark: “This picture represents one man’s view of the past informed by 23 years of archaeological and ethnographic research in Pakistan and India and by 18 years of growing up in India. But the paints, often applied with a broad brush necessarily in an impressionist manner, are tempered by Western academic skepticism. Thus we do not see those wild flights of fancy or long leaps of faith that characterize some literature of the region. What flights and leaps are there do not require a suspension of disbelief to entertain.” The statement by Meadow contrasts Indian scholarship unfavorably with Western scholarship stereotypically and clearly smacks of ethno-centrism. And yet, Witzel went on to defend Meadow quite openly and shamelessly by arguing that the word ‘region’ denotes not the geographic region of South Asia but rather the academic area of studies on Harappan culture!21 In the Indo-Eurasian_Research (IER) group moderated by Witzel and Steve Farmer, the “western scholars”, were contrasted favorably with the “natives” (a fall back on racist anthropology), and it is often alleged that the ‘natives’ are often swayed by nationalisms and other ‘isms’ which 18 http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Kazanas.htm 19 “The Aryan Migration Theory, Fabricating literary evidence” by Vishal Agarwal at http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/indhistory/amt/index.htm 20 Ancient Cities of the Indian Civilization, Oxford University Press (Karachi), 1998 21 Message 1848 dated Nov 11, 2000 on the IndicTraditions yahoogroup 7 makes their research findings questionable, and less objective than those of respectable “western scholars”. In fact in the IndicTraditions yahoogroup, Witzel’s close collaborator Steve Farmer has sometimes dismissed historical interpretations by Indians on the grounds that no “respectable western scholar” would accept them. I would leave it to the reader to decide what this means. As an another example, let us look at what happened on the Liverpool Indology list, there were 650 members, of which an overwhelming majority were Americans and Europeans. From March 1999 to April 2001, the moderator Dominik Wujastyk (another signatory of the Witzel Petition) expelled about 15 members, all of whom were Indians. This itself would be deemed as racism by the usual 4/5th rule in the United States. The Indians were expelled for any imaginable reason – rudeness, excessive posts, lengthy posts, advertising and what not. In fact, such flaws for which Indians were expelled, could be seen to a much greater extent demonstrably in the posts of European/American Indologists, notably Robert Zydenbos, Michael Witzel, Lars Martin Fosse (another signatory of Witzel petition) – their posts were often filled with abuses (‘fascist’. ‘liar’ etc. used for other list members) but these people were never touched; or mildly rebuked at the most. In contrast, Indians and others sympathetic to Hindus (e.g. Subhash Kak, Koenraad Elst for e.g.) were harassed so much by Western Indologists (many of them signatories to Witzel Petition) with the perfect connivance of Dominik for their views that they had to leave the list. These people had maintained their politeness till the end but the harassment and name-calling became unbearable. Moreover, Dominik tolerated 250 posts from Western Indologists deriding the level of science and engineering in India in a period of two months (this is strange because Indologists have little appreciation of science themselves!) in late 2000, another 250 posts using sarcastic and totally un-academic language on Indus script decipherment of Rajaram et al (who was not present to defend himself) but expelled Indians left and right when they protested against insults to Indians in general. Needless to say, Witzel was not found wanting and played a leading role in this fracas22. 3.4 Indians and dogs are not allowed: Likewise, on the Indology Yahoogroup, in behavior reminiscent of colonial signs reading “Indians and Dogs are not allowed”, some Indologists proposed using languages (such as French and German) in which Indians are normally not proficient for their internet discussion. To prevent Indians not knowing German and French from participating in discussions, German Indologist Roland Steiner23 started his posts in German. This was approved by Lars Martin Fosse24 and of course by Michael Witzel25. 4.0. Statements lampooning scholars with different opinions Witzel’s critics have shown that he has written adverse reviews and comments on their books even without reading them! 26 Obviously, Witzel will be even more vindictive and vicious when he actually reviews their works after reading them. 22 While people holding a particular set of opinions were derided as Hindu fanatics, all other varieties of ideologues like Dravidian Nationalists, Islamists, Marxists were given total freedom and even encouragement by some [For instance Zydenbos said that he advocated the splitting up of India into several nations!]. Eventually, the list became an Indian vs non-Indian mudslinging group and had to be closed on April 14, 2001. The list was re-opened after a few months but with new requirements that effectively eliminated the Indian membership. This new list was moderated by a committee of about 10 scholars now, none of whom is Indian. 23 See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDOLOGY/message/1029 24 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDOLOGY/message/1030 25 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INDOLOGY/message/1032 26 See for instance pp. 430-432 in Shrikant Talageri, The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis. Aditya Prakashan: New Delhi (2000). Also available online at http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch9.htm 8 4.1 Loutish and unscholarly behavior in academic journals- The following is only a brief sample of the irrelevant and inappropriate remarks that permeate just one published paper27 of Michael Witzel. Page. 107, fn. 2: “Or, as Kazanas suggests – since he seems secretly proud of the “revisionist” label….” Page 108: “Hardly by coincidence, this makes the RV the oldest text in the world – a doctrine routinely expressed in Hindu fundamentalist circles, but not one accepted by any serious scholar. Kazanas is hardly the first (or best-known) “revisionist” in recent decades to revive these views of Indo-European and South Asian history, which can be found with trivial modifications in the works of Elst, Danino, Frawley, Kak, Klostermaier, S. S. Misra, Rajaram, Sethna, and so on. Kazanas’ arguments are even less sublte than those of most of his predecessors….” Page 109: “Kazanas’ claim about a fourth millennium (or earlier!) Rgveda, which is again repeated in Indian fundamentalist circles… Page 109, fn. 5: “In the fundamentalist/nationalistic circles from, which Kazanas draws support – despite his pretense of political naivete…. Page 110, fn. 7: “…thus copied with the consistent misspelling introduced by another “specialist” of Ancient India, the former Manila ADB Bank employee S. Kalyanaraman.” Page 111: “The spiritual center, Omilos Meleton, that Kazanas runs in Athens derives its inspiration “from numerous spiritual traditions of mankind – Indian, ancient Greek, Buddhist, Christian Gnostic, and so on” – all dumped in one New Age basket. Views like this put Kazanas in the same class as his better known confrère David Frawley (aka Pandit Vamadeva Shastri), whose Vedic Institute in New Mexico offers correspondence courses in Vedic Astrology..” Page 112: “All this is the mark of a zealous neo-convert clinging to firmly held beliefs – which, despite his claims, can be connected both to fundamentalist Hindu views and associated political movements in India.” Page 115: “But resources like this which are indispensable in Vedic scholarship, are not part of Kazanas’ repertoire…Again we find that Kazanas is guided by the methodology of the courtroom lawyer or scholastic disputant...” Page 117: “But these are, of course, mere empirical data, which cannot stand against Kazanas’ neo-convert’s faith.” Page 120: “Maybe Kazanas has an English debating club or an assembly of medieval disputers in mind. But in this case at hand, one would hope that a verdict would rest on more than the horse sense of an English gentleman or the disputational skills of a medieval pandit.” Page 122: “Kazanas’ other uses of “historical records” are no less absurd. Manifold contradictions show up in his paper, adopted wholesale from earlier mythologizers of Indian history..The theater of the absurd of Kazanas and his forerunners could be best dismissed with laughter, if it were not for the serious damage that accompanies these black comedies…” “It is not necessary to dwell on Kazanas’ motives in producing his work, beyond pointing to his obvious affinities to other South Asian and Western writers linked to Indian fundamentalist movements.” Page 126: “Other writers in Kazanas’ class, including D. Frawley, K. Elst, and N. S. Rajaram, have already caused significant damage to linguistics, philology, Indology, archaeology, and history. This damage is especially evident in Indian universities, where researchers are increasingly being pushed to embrace mythological approaches to writing Indian history.” Page 127: “The only lasting value in Kazanas’ work is in the material that his work and that of his colleagues will provide future Ph.D. students interested in the ties between so-called “revisionist” history and fundamentalist/political movements in twenty-first century India.” Page 134: “If Kazanas had done some comparative research…” Page 147: “Talageri is a bank employee and may be excused; the Sanskritist Kazanas cannot.” Page 152: “…his fellow “revisionist” K. Elst…” 4.2 Slander in his own cottage journals (co-edited by other Witzel Petition signatories) 27 ‘Ein Fremdling im Rgveda’ (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31, No.1-2: pp.107-185, 2003) 9 Or let us consider another example where he wrote a ‘review’28 of a dissenting scholar Shrikant Talageri’s book29. Nearly every paragraph of Witzel’s article contains references to things that Talageri does not “know” (although they are “well known” “since the 19th century” to everybody, “but not to Talageri”), do not “mention”, do not “discuss”, do not “acknowledge”, do not “refer” to, do not “reveal”, am “unaware” of or “oblivious” to, “miss” out on, do not “bother” about, do not “point out”, etc. etc. The things Talageri is “ignorant” of, according to Witzel, include - “Sanskrit–let alone…. the obscure Old Vedic forms of the RV”, “any modern scholarly language besides English”, “Old Vedic, Old Iranian, and other ancient Indo-European languages”, “archaic forms of Sanskrit (Old Vedic) and closely related languages”, “Old Vedic”, “Linguistics”, “pre-pANinean grammar and …. disputed Rgvedic words”, “linguistic evidence”, “philological knowledge”, “scholarly linguistic and philological skills”, “linguistic and dialectical variants, meters, substrate words, grammatical innovations, linguistic archaisms and so on,” “myriad well-known linguistic, zoological and archaeological data”, “historical, technological, zoological and archaeological details”, “requisite language skills, scholarly acumen, or historical and political objectivity”, “linguistic rigor, independence from purANic-like worldviews… political integrity”, “climate”, “geography”, “geographical facts such as the nature of Panjab rivers”, “zoological details”, “critical zoological and archaeological evidence, horse and two-wheeled chariot… river dolphins in the Indus”, “the habitat of the Gangetic dolphins”, “South Asian zoological facts”, “archaeology”, “the evidence of archaeology”, “comparative Indo-European mythology”, “realia of the RV period … workings of tribal societies, early states”, “social questions… vast comparative literature on semi-nomadic peoples”, “semi- nomadic transhumance life or the workings of early pre-state tribal societies”, “standard scholarly research”, “all the detailed work that has been conducted over the past 200 years”, (and) “discussed for more than a hundred years, although T. is not apparently aware of the discussions”, “any of the vast scholarly literature from the past 150 years”, “over a century and a half of research”, “known details regarding the redaction history of the family books”, “known complications in the codification of the RV ascribed to zAkalya” “the redaction of the RV”, “RV stratigraphy”, “well-known structural details in the nucleus of the RV”, “the redaction history of the RV” which is “well-known”, a long list of books and authors about whom I “do not leave a clue” that “I am aware that these works exist”, including “Oldenberg (1888)… Macdonell (1886) and Scheftelowitz (1922) … Tokunaga (1997)”, “KF Geldner (1951…) L. Renou (1955-1969..) and …. T. Elizarenkova (1989-99)” “K.R. Potdar (1945)… van den Bosch (1985)”, etc. etc. etc. Consequently, Talageri’s book is, among countless other things – “imaginary”, “a patriotic or chauvinistic, ultimately pre-enlightenment enterprise”, “garbage in, garbage out”, “like his old one…a purANa-like fantasy”, etc. – containing “frustrating contradictions”, “amateurish errors”, things “haphazardly draw(n) from a handful of… works” (without “anything approaching a serious grasp of the subject”) “scholarly pretensions”, “myriad of factual errors”, “undisciplined etymologizing”, “most ridiculous claims”, “impossible chronological ideas”, “obvious anachronisms”, “historical fantasies”, “purANa-inspired fictions”, “Hindutva fantasies”, “fantastic claims”, “hodge-podge of linguistic facts and fictions”, “familiar Hindutva myths”, “absurdities”, “morass of unverified charts and lists”, “intellectual detours”, “countless examples of methodological laxness”, etc. etc. etc. The overflowing chaff in Witzel’s ‘review’ appears to be intended to serve three distinct purposes: a) To make the “review article” look voluminous and detailed. b) To give vent to Witzel’s spite. 28 http://nautilus.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf 29 Shrikant Talageri, The Rigveda a Historical Analysis, Aditya Prakashan: New Delhi (2000) 10