Harvard Ethics: An Oxymoron

[Guest]

Wasnt there a FOILie 'charity' that was right in Bersin's alley ? I forgot what the name was.

[Guest]

Two days ago in Brooklyn, New York, a police car was torched by Jews. Read details here:
N.Y. Jews Want Police Apology
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> many civilians heard Chief of Department Joseph Esposito yell "[obscenity] the Jews!" and "[obscenity] the community!" while officers struggled to tame an unruly crowd Tuesday night in Borough Park. The politician and other community leaders were demanding an apology.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

At Harvard, this guy probabily would have been promoted!

[Guest]

Bersin Audit: No One Misses
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The audit of former superintendent Alan Bersin's discretionary fund was finally released to the public by the San Diego Unified School District after numerous appeals, including a public records request made by voiceofsandiego.org. It reveals -- drum roll, please -- anything you want to see, depending on your filter.

Those who regard Bersin as a villain will find damning evidence of wrong-doing, while those who view him as an effective change agent for school reform will find nothing of consequence. Objectivity when the fiery former superintendent is involved is hard to come by.

The report, weighing in at five pounds, is two full inches high and contains over 800 pages of information. Its completion represents $75,000 worth of outside attorneys' fees and hundreds of hours of district staff time.

"The total [spent] probably exceeds the $43,000 of greatest concern," said SDUSD communications consultant Dick Van Der Laan. "But if we can prevent conflict of interest in the future, then it's worth the investment."

The amount of time it takes to read through the five-pound audit is considerable. In an attempt to summarize the detailed information, the school district kindly prepared a two-page brief to inform readers of its greatest concerns -- notably, the $43,871 Bersin spent from the private fund on business-related travel and meals, including alcohol.

"It's an accurate representation of the district's position and a majority of the board," said Ver Der Laan, of the summary's critical tone.

However, the district's summary -- clearly biased against Bersin, perhaps to justify the monumental effort and expense of the project -- provides only one small slice of the facts uncovered in the audit and should be disregarded by the media and any individuals searching for the complete picture.

To take the district's condensed presentation of the data at face value is lazy at best, deceptive at worst. Only a deeper review of all the material can place the isolated incidents in greater context, if one is to judge the true scope of the alleged misdeeds.

Accepting the audit's accusations of misconduct would be as wrong as believing Bersin's assertion that every single dime spent was properly accounted for. There is gray -- both sides have valid points. The issue is whether the questionable activity was serious enough to warrant such a full-blown investigation.

Following the Money

The Superintendent's Fund, technically called the San Diego City Schools Superintendent's Fund for School Innovation, was an independent discretionary fund run by Bersin during his seven-year tenure from 1998 to 2005. This fund received about $574,000 in money obtained through private donations from philanthropists, foundations, businesses and corporations, according to Bob Kelly, president of the nonprofit San Diego Foundation which administered the fund.

The purpose of the fund was to provide grants for charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes. The money was distributed at Bersin's discretion -- no school board oversight was required. He recommended organizations to receive grants, and the San Diego Foundation awarded the grants. Each recommendation included the name of the organization to receive the grant, the amount and the purpose of the grant.

Because money in the San Diego Foundation Superintendent's Fund could only be paid out in the form of grants, about $122,000 was transferred into another fund that could make payments directly to individuals. This fund was called the Education Superintendent's Account, which operated under the umbrella of the San Diego Education Fund (http://www.sdef.org/history.html), a nonprofit, charitable organization established in 1954 to provide scholarships for teachers.

The SDEF is run by Vance Mills, a former employee of the school district who worked as its director of math, science and technology, until he retired in 1999 after he was advised  "that Alan Bersin had decided that Mr. Mills was to be removed from his position," reads the district's audit.

The school district investigated both funds at the request of school board member Mitz Lee.

The Allegations

Specifically, the district asserts that <b>Bersin received $43,871 in reimbursements from the Education Superintendent's Account for submitted expenses that were unaccompanied by receipts.</b> Bersin said receipts were not required by the SDEF. But this just seems like bad business practice and is a valid issue -- better internal controls should be implemented.

The district also objects that <b>Bersin bought alcohol for dinner guests (apparently, drinking a glass of wine with dinner at a business gathering is a huge no-no at the puritanical school district). Bersin said that is precisely why he used the fund -- and private money -- rather than taxpayer money to pay for alcoholic beverages.</b>

Allegations that Bersin double-charged for some meals were explained by his assistant Karen Heinrich in an email. "In each case, the total bill was split between the district (food portion) and the foundation (wine/spirits)," she wrote. "These were not duplicate billings as implied by the auditors."

Allegations that <b>Bersin charged for meals in cities that did not correspond to his travel itinerary were also explained by Heinrich. In many cases, "the credit card posting date did not reflect the actual transaction date,"</b>  <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> she wrote.

Allegations that Bersin sometimes charged for multiple meals on the same day were true but justified, Heinrich wrote. "It is not uncommon to stretch the work day by using meal times to conduct business, which is exactly what Mr. Bersin did," she wrote. "All persons hosted at the meals in question were related to district business, no exceptions. Non-district related expenses were never submitted for reimbursement."

Heinrich did admit to three bookkeeping mistakes, totaling $410.21. Bersin said he will reimburse the district.

Beyond the $43,871, checks that turned out to be signing bonuses were issued to three individuals for reasons the auditors couldn't identify. "The district had previously paid such signing bonuses to a few senior executives, but because of the severe budget situation at the time, Mr. Bersin decided to provide the funds through the Superintendent's Fund," Heinrich explained.

Then there were the three expensive retirement parties paid for by the fund -- one for former chief administrative officer Henry Hurley, one for the finance division's executive director Rick Knott and one for 19 retiring finance division employees. Hurley's party cost over $20,000, Knott's party cost over $17,000 and the retirees' party cost just under $5,000.

A good portion of the costs was offset by party-goers who paid a fee to attend the parties. The rest of the money was donated by private corporations, including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and A.G. Edwards & Sons.

The audit implies that there may have been a quid pro quo arrangement or conflict of interest with the corporate donors, but no evidence is offered to support this. Bersin said there was nothing wrong with companies contributing to a party to honor two retirees with whom they had a warm business relationship for many years.

Another issue involved one donor who contributed over $200,000 to the Superintendent's Fund but wished to remain anonymous, frustrating district efforts to uncover the name and giving rise to suggestions by the district of improper actions.

Kelly said anonymous donors are common at the San Diego Foundation, and their privacy must be respected "unless there is criminal wrong-doing." He said the district was unable to provide him with any such evidence.

"There is a code of ethics," Kelly said. "We said we'd be happy to give you the name if you will sign a confidentiality agreement. But they wouldn't sign. We're not hiding anything and want to cooperate. But we need to protect these individuals."

Clouding the audit is the chilling effect it may have on future charitable giving. Will people be more or less inclined to donate money to school districts when they run the risk of having their motives questioned and groundless suggestions of impropriety raised?

The district questions a number of expenses but does not challenge the legitimacy of the remaining hundreds of thousands of dollars -- again, of private money -- spent on projects, people and causes that advanced the school district's educational mission as Bersin, superintendent at the time, saw it. One might disagree with Bersin's vision for City Schools, but that issue is not relevant to this report.

Some of these expenses include money spent for principal and staff training, sending a group of students to chess camp, prizes and rewards for schools that improved academically, awards dinners for successful staff members and other legitimate causes.

One program Bersin funded was with City Club of San Diego whose president, George Mitrovich, was paid $1,000 a month for a year to develop and promote a high school program aimed at educating teens about civic responsibility and involving them and their advisors in the City Club's forums on topics of public interest.

Confirmation Hearings

Some have suggested that the release of the audit was timed to coincide with the Senate confirmation hearings for Bersin's appointment to a seat on the State Board of Education, scheduled for April 19.

If Bersin opponents want to derail his confirmation, they should forget trumped-up charges and raise legitimate issues relevant to his views on education. What are his educational philosophies? Are they good for the children of California? How is he working to improve the state's accountability system? Is he effective in helping districts hire and retain good teachers? Is he a strong leader? Can he bring people together? Is he focused and committed to improving the quality of education in California?

Oppose the appointment if you wish, but do it for solid reasons, not over insinuations and unsupported allegations of financial misconduct.

There are valid concerns brought to light by the audit, but let's put these issues in perspective. Most have to do with tightening internal controls and instituting better policies and procedures. Whether the audit's discoveries are serious enough or large enough in scope to justify the time and money spent, and all the righteous indignation, is doubtful.

[The entire audit is available to the public at the SDUSD offices at 4100 Normal Street, in the legal counsel's department.]

Marsha Sutton writes about education and children's issues. She can be reached at marsha.sutton@voiceofsandiego.org.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

xposting from dalit thread..

http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?roo...9&filetype=html

From Sept 2003 EPW..

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dalit or Harijan?

Self-Naming by Scheduled Caste Interviewees

The terms harijan and dalit have evolved over the last many decades, with the latter more or less replacing the former in published works of recent years. What do members of the scheduled castes call themselves?
Alan Marriott

The most socially and politically acceptable name for the most disadvantaged members of Indian society has changed over the years. Outcaste and untouchable have become unacceptable (although, sadly, still having some descriptive validity). They were replaced, chronologically, by harijan in the middle of the 20th century and subsequently dalit in last decade or two of the century. These names are closely associated with M K Gandhi and B S Ambedkar, respectively and the shift in the status of the names is linked with changed attitudes in the broader political environment as the relative standing of Gandhi and Ambedkar has altered. However, although these changes in usage have clearly occurred among politically aware commentators it is not so apparent what members of the least privileged social groups in Indian society (officially, and perhaps neutrally identified as scheduled castes) call themselves. This study examines the results of a survey in which interviewees were asked to give the name of their caste.

...................

Dalit is now almost universally preferred among researchers and writers. In the Economic and Political Weekly, for example, there has been a marked increase in the number of papers with dalit in their title from the 1980s. There were just 13 papers between 1981 and 1990 compared with 62 in the following decade – including a veritable rush of 33 papers in 1995-97. Harajan appeared in just two titles – in 1981 and 1986.

...................

<b>While most of the scheduled caste respondents gave their jati, a proportion recorded a generic name, but while harijan (or harizan or some other spelling) was used by 1351 respondents in 18 different states, and a number of respondents used scheduled caste, not one respondent chose dalit. </b>In addition some respondents gave harijan qualified by their jati, e g, harijan parayar in Tamil Nadu

...................

Whatever the reservations about the data the scale of the difference in the use of dalit and harijan suggests that there is a real contrast in the preferred name chosen by external commentators and SC people themselves. Ambedkar may be winning the posthumous rivalry among the scribbling classes but Gandhi remains the dominant opinion-former among the SCs themsleves.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<i>Articles by Rajeev Srinivasan</i>

<b>Leading the pack: the honorable Harvard professor</b>

<b>The theory that refuses to die: "Aryan" invasion or migration or influx or tourists?</b>

<b>In which Snow-White Witzel and 45 ½ others sign a petition</b>

[Guest]

Hiina..

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512817

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Student Reports Racial Epithets
After Hungama dance, student says she was harassed outside Lowell
Published On Tuesday, April 18, 2006  4:25 AM
By LIZ C. GOODWIN and REED B. RAYMAN
Crimson Staff Writers

In an incident that has sparked concern among Hindu students on campus, a Harvard undergraduate said she was grabbed by the shoulders and called racial slurs late Saturday night after leaving a dance sponsored by Dharma, Harvard’s Hindu Students Association.

In an interview last night, the student said she left the dance—held in Lowell House dining hall—at 1:15 a.m. with two female friends and was met outside Lowell’s front gate by one female and three or four white males who "were screaming racial slurs."

The student said she then addressed the group, at which point one male grabbed her shoulders and pulled her in the opposite direction from the group. She said the assailant then pointed to one of the other males in his group and said, "That guy over there said he wants to slaughter your people."

The student, who spoke under condition of anonymity because she said she was concerned for her safety, also said the group mocked Native Americans, saying words like "feathers" and "Injuns." At one point, one male told her, "We just wanted to poke fun at the PC nature of Harvard."

The student said the group was dressed in "preppy" clothes, and appeared between 18 and 20 years of age. She said she did not know whether they were Harvard students.

The student said she filed reports with Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) and Lowell House officials yesterday. HUPD did not return requests for comment yesterday.

Diana L. Eck, Lowell House Master, said that she had heard of the incident after the dance from the student’s resident dean.

"I checked in on the event as it was closing down, and everyone had a fabulous time," she said. "I haven’t heard much beyond the first initial communication. But if [the incident] did happen, it’s very, very serious."


In an e-mail sent to a member of the Dharma executive board on Sunday and obtained by The Crimson, Ryan Spoering, the Lowell House resident dean, said that he had received reports of an incident following the Dharma dance.

"A student has reported that there was a group of people outside Lowell after the dance yelling racial slurs at departing students," he wrote.

"It’s just upsetting that this happened," Spoering said yesterday. "This is something that’s extremely serious."

Dharma Co-President Shyam K. Tanguturi ’07 said he was told that several students were met with racial slurs as they walked out of Lowell House onto Holyoke Place.

In an e-mail sent out Sunday to the open list of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, Tanguturi wrote, "Last night after the dance, Lowell House received reports of a group of people standing outside yelling racial slurs at departing students...Dharma is working along with Lowell House to investigate the situation and to support students who might have been affected."

All members of the Dharma executive board referred questions to the group’s co-presidents.

Vijay Yanamadala ’07, Dharma’s other co-president, said that he and other members of Dharma were worried about the larger implications implied by the alleged attacks on Saturday night.

"Such religiously and ethically motivated incidents of intolerance and hate, while uncommon on our campus, indicate to us that there is still need for better cultural awareness and understanding," he wrote in an e-mail.

According to Yanamadala, Dharma throws the Hungama Dance every semester as part of an effort to "raise awareness of the art, culture, and religion of India." He estimated that 200 people attended the event on Saturday night.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Harvard student pulls a Witzel-Farmer ?

[Guest]

Michael Witzel the impostor?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: "Hinduworld"
Subject: Witzel in Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 01 May 06 02:37:34 IST

Regarding your latest post about Witzel on Wikipedia, please see Witzel own user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Witzel

The moderators at Wikipedia have warned him to stop editing his own page to remove material that is critical of him:

Michael, I first thought that you were an impostor (somebody posing as MW, and therefore using an inappropriate username). It would be appreciated if you would stop editing the Michael Witzel article, as it's strongly discouraged that editors should edit pages about themselves; and in particular, please don't delete valid references or external links. It might help you to read some of our guidelines and policies before continuing. Some of these are: Wikipedia:Five pillars , Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please let me know if I can do anything else to help. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cheers.

-- Machaon 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

* * *

From: yvetterosser
Subject: Re: Wikipedia- Bias in South Asian Studies: Michael Witzel
Date: Mon, 01 May 06 07:26:19 IST

Yes, but the fact that even mainstream Wikipedia has pages on Wizel's anti-Hindu bias, speaks volumes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_in_Sou...an_Studies

* * *

Also Read:

Witzel as revealed by Wikipedia
http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2006/04/witzel
-as-revealed-by-wikipedia.html

* * *

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

This is not related to the textbook controversy but is from Havard and so I thought I will post it here:

The Pitfalls of Pluralism

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pitfalls of Pluralism
Talibanization and Saffronization in India
From Religion, Vol. 25 (4) - Winter 2004
N. J. Demerath III is Professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Gujarat is India’s westernmost state, and the home of the subcontinent’s two great leaders in the movement for independence from British imperialism: India’s Mohandas Gandhi and Pakistan’s Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But the last two years have been anything but kind. In January 2001, the state was devastated by a massive earthquake that took some 40,000 lives. A little more than a year later, Gujarat was the site of a different kind of disaster. On February 27, 2002, a train car filled with politically active Hindu devotees returning from the Ram temple in Ayodyah was set on fire by Muslim extremists, and 58 people burned to death. Hindu extremists responded violently. Over the next week, anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat’s capital of Ahmedabad and other cities took 700 lives by official counts and more than 2,000 by unofficial estimates.

The figures are eerily similar to those of earlier riots in Gujarat in 1969. But more shocking than the number of deaths was the nature of the killings. The brutality seemed to mock all civilized norms as rioters attacked women and children and mutilated the dead. Even more shocking, the events occurred as the police and military stood by and watched under orders from the state’s Chief Minister, Narendra Modi. Modi is a member of the right-wing “Hindutva” Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is now in power at the head of a somewhat precarious parliamentary coalition. <b>Rather than disciplining or reprimanding Modi, the BJP leadership in New Delhi implicitly supported him by featuring him as a campaigner in upcoming elections around the country.</b>

Sociologists often find themselves analytically unraveling civilizations. <b>But India seems to be a civilization that is coming apart in reality. What are some of the factors behind these disturbing developments? It is important to consider four overriding themes: the fallacy of a truly united India, the victimization of Muslims within Indian society, the problems of identity faced by many Hindus, particularly among the middle classes, and the conflicts unfolding as religious politics develop into a religious state.</b>
India as a Construct Deconstructing

<b>To say that India is coming apart suggests that it was once a seamless whole—and uniformly Hindu at that. But this notion is more revisionist myth than reality. </b>Any unity that India experienced prior to its independence in 1947 was due at least as much to Buddhist emperors, Muslim moghuls, and the Christian British Raj, as to Hindus themselves. Hinduism’s co-existence with Islam is longstanding. However, while the early Muslims came from the west, most later Muslims, as well as Christians and Buddhists, have been converts from the ranks of the “untouchables.” “Dalit” is now the politically correct term for this group, and in deference to the change, the Indian press now often refers to “ex-untouchables,” a term that conveys unwarranted implications of mobility to an untutored outsider. There have long been many Indias representing diverse cultural constructions and diverse points of view. This is also true of other states, including the United States, where negative “diversity” has been reconceptualized as positive “pluralism” with self-congratulatory smugness. Realistically, conflicted diversity falls far short of tolerant pluralism on the subcontinent. Immediately following India’s independence from Britain in 1947, <b>the predominantly Hindu India officially separated from the Muslim West and East Pakistan (Bangladesh)</b>. This produced one of the most grotesque episodes of the 20th century, when streams of Muslims heading north and Hindus heading south used the same roads and the same train stations, resulting in some 500,000 deaths due to collisions. The recurring Hindu-Muslim violence in cities such as Mumbai (formerly Bombay), Hyderabad, and Gujarat’s Ahmedabad, signals a refusal to put this history of altercations to rest.

In the intervening years, there have been three full-scale wars between India and Pakistan, and the continuing dispute over Jammu-Kashmir has left both sides perpetually poised against each other—with more than a million troops and both Hindu and Muslim nuclear bombs at the ready. Meanwhile, extremists <b>on both sides</b> exacerbate tensions, <b>especially in India</b>, the third largest Muslim society in the world with some 120 million believers. There is particularly tension in Gujarat, which shares a leaky border with Pakistan. Consequently, an attack on the Indian Parliament in New Delhi by a small group of Muslim extremists did not aid Hindu- Muslim relations across the rest of the country.

But in a globalized world, there are no more wars that can be easily classified into regional, local, or civil; the stakes are higher and more dangerous. After more than 50 years of continuing disputes and abortive negotiations over Kashmir, it is clear that India and Pakistan cannot resolve their differences. While Pakistani politicians are eager to negotiate because they can rely on Kashmir’s overwhelmingly Muslim population, this advantage makes their Indian counterparts quick to refuse negotiations. By now it seems that any realistic solution will require pressure from international powers.

Muslims as Victims

There are two common mistakes in estimating religion’s role in violence. The first is underestimating it, as many of my secular colleagues in sociology are inclined to do. The second is overestimating it, as do my colleagues in religious circles. There is little question that religion is important, in part because many Hindus regard conversion out of the faith as a betrayal both of the faith and of the cosmos itself. But religion alone does not provide a sufficient explanation for violence; it generally requires other, more secular correlates. In this case, both Muslims and Hindus have grievances that go beyond their faith. <b>While Muslims are seen as religious extremists elsewhere in the world, in India they have primarily been victims</b>. Especially in areas like Gujarat, Muslims are not only of low caste, but also of low income. Many members of the Muslim elite moved to Pakistan just after the partition, and replacing them has been difficult in a country whose educational infrastructure is stunted.

Meanwhile, the Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, extended a major concession to Muslims by allowing them to conduct their personal affairs involving such matters as marriage, divorce, and inheritance according to the shari’a (Islam law) rather than India’s new civil law. The traditional Hindu community was granted no corresponding religious privileges; <b>if anything, it was constrained by secular reforms intended to soften its sharper edges, such as its treatment of “untouchables.”</b> Right-wing Hindus have harbored simmering resentment ever since. By the mid-1980s, the then-ruling Congress Party found itself in a cycle of quid pro quo favors extended alternately to conservative Muslims and Hindus. This culminated in Ayodyah in 1992, when BJP extremists tore down the 16th century Babri Masjid mosque because it is built on the <b>alleged </b>birth site of the god Rama.

Hindu Undoings

One of religion’s best protections against extremism is a structure of authority within the faith that can ward off opportunistic visionaries and demagogues who want to mobilize the faithful for purposes that are not always full of faith. Such an overarching system of authority is lacking in both Hinduism and the Sunni Islam that predominates in South Asia. This means both are subject to the kind of politicization that can be seen within “Hindutva,” (the right-wing flank of Indian Hinduism, including the <b>BJP) and Al Qaeda</b>.

Religions are also more inclined to extremism when they are troubled than when they are flourishing. Many Hindus—like many Muslims—have reason to be uneasy about waves of modernization, secularization, urbanization, and what Dipankar Gupta likes to call “Westoxication,” looming as threats to religious traditions. Caste and religion are becoming increasingly separate dimensions of Hinduism, and many now see the possibility of being loyal to one but not the other. For some, caste is becoming less a reincarnated place in a <b>divine Brahmanic hierarchy </b>than a horizontal status marker that is subject to politics and mobility. Inter-caste resentment, conflict, and violence is rising. It is no longer uncommon for low-caste vigilantes to seek redress of grievances from higher caste oppressors, and lowcaste violence inflicted on no-caste dalits is also increasing. One very publicized case in the past year involved a community in Haryana where a group of men from the low but locally dominant “jat” caste killed five dalits for skinning a cow while it was allegedly still alive and hence to be revered. Their account had little credibility, but the truth remained stubbornly difficult to publicize. Newspapers do carry frontpage stories of ill-fated Brahmin-dalit romances that end in suicide when the respective parents disapprove. But the stories now include a sense of shame and regret on the part of the parents themselves, who would have intervened in the tragedy “if we’d only known how serious they were.”

Meanwhile, problems have emerged from India’s policy of job “reservations” for untouchables, dalits, and members of the “scheduled caste”—another euphemism inherited from the British, who started the reservations policy. While remaining at the bottom of the caste system, some have experienced considerable class mobility; now caste and class rankings may differ. Many of India’s high-caste Hindus object to the “affirmative action” afforded to dalits whose middleclass educational and economic advantages have turned them into a privileged group that remains eligible for reserved positions even though they may not need them.

Even the more conventional Hindu middle class in places like Gujarat faces major identity problems. When I inquired into why the urban middle class was a strong source of support for the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), and other faces of Hindutva extremism <b>rather than for the forms of tolerance and enlightenment with which the middle class is associated in the West</b>, the answer seemed to be syllogistic. First, this is not wholly a middle class in the Western sense. It is a “shallow middle class” both quantitatively and qualitatively—one whose lower ranks lack the kind of education that is associated with the middle class in the West. Furthermore, with caste and class increasingly out of synch, real problems of identity are on the upswing. Hindutva also offers an identity kit, one that ties the individual to the grand traditions of faith, nation, and civilization <b>through its revisionist historical claims</b>.

Religious Politics in a Religious State

Many explanations have been offered in regard to India’s ongoing patterns of violence. Two opposing interpretations stand out—one bottom-up and the other top-down, one involving what might be termed spontaneous combustion, and the other involving political arson.

The bottom-up model of spontaneous combustion argues that when social circumstances are the equivalent of a drought-dried forest tinder box, an inferno may be generated from the underbrush. Given the circumstances among both Muslims and Hindus, it is no surprise that few areas in India have been immune to violence—especially in cities where the two communities live cheek by jowl with clenched fists at the ready. When there are so many suspicions of wrongdoing, long-time friends can suddenly become enemies, and violence feeds upon itself. Original causes of violent cycles blur, and history becomes subject to willful and revisionist construction. As a result, grievances are attributed to race, ethnicity, and religion, which are frequently mere proxies for the true causes. After examining a series of violent episodes and conducting interviews with surviving participants on both sides, the sociologist and psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar finds a remarkable similarity between the charges that the contesting communities hurl against the other.

<b>The top-down model of political arson is offered by political scientist Paul Brass. According to his analysis, case after case of Hindu-Muslim violence has been carefully plotted and forcefully instigated by political leaders within the Hindutva movement and the BJP</b>. Incidents tend to occur in the run-up to important political campaigns preceding critical elections. This was not only true of the riots that followed the destruction of the Ayodha mosque in 1992, but also of the recent riots in Gujarat.

Rather than choosing between these two models or scenarios of India’s religious violence, it makes more sense to reconcile them. Even the most fire-prone circumstances can escape conflagration if there is no spark. However, there is little doubt that one form of lightning involves religion’s relationship to power. But here one must tread carefully. An important distinction lurks not only for India but for the United States and every other country.

On the one hand, religion has a rightful place in politics and would be virtually impossible to remove from the political arena. On the other hand, religion has no place in the political state itself, and secular neutrality can be secured through constitutions and other rule-defining charters such as the US First Amendment—especially its “establishment clause.” This means not only insuring that one religion does not gain established sway over others, but also that the state balances association with religion and non-religion. The government should constitute a level playing field for all faiths, or lack a faith. Even if the majority rules in a democracy’s voting booth, the minority must be protected by its legal system. <b>Many people fail to understand that both the US democratic state and its religions have thrived because they have been kept generally separate, not in spite of it.</b>

India observed such principles for its first 30 years of independence, though it did make some previously mentioned exceptions that earlier breached the separation. But since 1980, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, her successor son, Rajiv Gandhi, and the currently-ruling BJP have all played the religion game. There is now talk of Hinduizing the state and its constitution because, after all, “India has always been a Hindu civilization and its population has an overwhelming 80 percent Hindu majority.” Following the BJP’s surprising victory in Gujarat led by the infamous Modi, it announced a three-fold platform for campaigning in future elections.

<b>The platform includes a “ban on religious conversions” aimed primarily at non-Hindus, including North American Christians, who would woo dalits away from their religious birthright; a “uniform civil code” aimed at eliminating the longstanding Muslim exemption, though more intended to restore a sense of Hindu dominance than to correct a religion-based state policy; and a revocation of the Indian Constitution’s Article 370, which makes mostly Muslim Kashmir out-of-bounds to Hindus interested in purchasing land or starting businesses.</b> All three measures would add kerosene to fires already well underway.

Fanning the Flames

<b>India is now faced with the dual threats of “Talibanization” in bordering Pakistan and Kashmir and “Saffronization” by the BJP and Hindutva at home.</b> Hindu-Muslim violence is a function of mutual mistrust and stereotypes. In many ways, the violence feeds upon itself as each episode triggers a new response, and the ultimate causes are lost in the miasma of a history that is dialectically construed. Interestingly, the Indian national flag is composed of three stripes: orange for the saffron of Hinduism, green for Islam, and a stripe of white in the middle. The white is a neutral symbol of the kind of secular state that is so crucial to India’s future. As I tiptoed across India’s religious “mindfield,” my fingers were crossed in the hope that wiser heads would prevail. Talk of a constitutional change to “Hinduize”<b> India has abated temporarily, but another resounding victory by the BJP would no doubt bring it back. As an officially Hindu state, India would see violence on an unimaginable scale. When minefields explode, the toll can be catastrophic.</b>
© 2003-2006 <b>The Harvard International Review</b>. All rights reserved. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One of religion’s best protections against extremism is a structure of authority within the faith that can ward off opportunistic visionaries and demagogues who want to mobilize the faithful for purposes that are not always full of faith. Such an overarching system of authority is lacking in both Hinduism and the Sunni Islam that predominates in South Asia. This means both are subject to the kind of politicization that can be seen within “Hindutva,” (the right-wing flank of Indian Hinduism, including the BJP) and Al Qaeda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is pretty hilarious. I wonder if this guy is Catholic and rooting for a Pope.. But then going by his 'logic' it more looks like this is just another humanities 'research' (as in IER) argument. Too bad there are engg who dont buy this BS. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Amber G.]

X- posted from the other thread ...


M. Witzel has been one of the key organizers of the annual "The International Conference on Dowry and Bride-Burning in India" started in 1995.

Kid you not, but why would Harvard Law school would sponsor this conference?
see:
http://www.asiatica.org/jsaws/vol2_no2/ednote.php
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In this issue we will publish three papers: Sati was not Enforced in Ancient Nepal, by Jayaraj Acharya; The Daughters and Hindu Rites, by Bandita Phukan; Practical Steps Towards Saving the Lives of 25,000 Potential Victims of Dowry and Bride-Burning in India in the Next Four Years, by Himendra B. Thakur.
<b>
These papers have been written for the International Conference on Dowry and Bride-Burning in India held at the Harvard Law School, Sept. 30 - Oct. 2, 1995. It was organized by Mr. H. Thakur (ISADBBI) and Prof. M. Witzel (Harvard University, USA). </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]51358[/snapback][/right]

[Guest]

The Battle of HINAs Vs. HINIs
By: Dr. T. R. N. Rao

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+May 24 2006, 08:37 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ May 24 2006, 08:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Battle of HINAs Vs. HINIs
By: Dr. T. R. N. Rao
[right][snapback]51668[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<b>"Witzel-FOSA Starts IER chapter in New Jersey"</b>
This is after all what they have been striving to achieve by obstructing textbook reform in California.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies
July 3, 2006
Press Release

<b>Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization</b>

Comprehensive population genetics data along with archeological and astronomical evidence presented at June 23-25, 2006 conference in Dartmouth, MA, overwhelmingly concluded that Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous.

<b>In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia</b>.

Leading evidences come from population genetics, which were presented by two leading researchers in the field, Dr. V. K. Kashyap, National Institute of Biologicals, India, and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University in California. Their results generally contradict the notion Aryan invasion/migration theory for the origin of Indian civilization.

Underhill concluded "the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India", referring to a Y chromosome marker. He, however, put several caveats before interpreting genetic data, including "Y-ancestry may not always reflect the ancestry of the rest of the genome"

Dr. Kashyap, on the other hand, with the most comprehensive set of genetic data was quite emphatic in his assertion that there is "no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."

Michael Witzel, a Harvard linguist, who is known to lead the idea of Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory in more recent times, continued to question genetic evidence on the basis that it does not provide the time resolution to explain events that may have been involved in Aryan presence in India.

Dr. Kashyap's reply was that even though the time resolution needs further work, the fact that there are clear and <b>distinct differences in the gene pools of Indian population and those of Central Asian and European groups, the evidence nevertheless negates any Aryan invasion or migration into Indian Subcontinent.</b>

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Witzel though refused to present his own data and evidence for his theories despite being invited to do so was nevertheless present in the conference and raised many questions.</span>  <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->  <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->  <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Some of his commentaries questioning the credibility of scholars evoked sharp responses from other participants.

<b>Rig Veda has been dated to 1,500 BC by those who use linguistics to claim its origin Aryans coming out of Central Asia and Europe</b>. Archaeologist B.B. Lal and scientist and historian N.S. Rajaram disagreed with the position of linguists, in particular Witzel who claimed literary and linguistic evidence for the non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization.

Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from University of Memphis clearly showed with <b>astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people</b>.

Interestingly, <b>Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory.</b>

<b>Dr. Bal Ram Singh, Director, Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth, which organized the conference was appalled at the level of visceral feelings Witzel holds against some of the scholars in the field</b>, but felt satisfied with the overall outcome of the conference.

"I am glad to see people who have been scholarly shooting at each other for about a decade are finally in one room, this is a progress", said Singh.

The conference was able to bring together in one room for the first time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics, anthropology, history, and philosophy. A proceedings of the conference is expected to come out soon, detailing various arguments on the origin of Indian civilization.

Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Indic Studies
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
285 Old Westport Road
Dartmouth, MA 02747<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Witzel's research debunked. <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

1.0 Background

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), rooted (to a great extent) on the white supremacist and colonialist paradigms of the 19th century, states that sometime in the second millennium BCE, hordes of Indo-Europeans descended from somewhere in Central Asia and subjugated the black skinned, stub nosed, Dravidian speaking natives of India through a military conquest and thereby, occupied entire North India, Pakistan, Bangladesh in course of time. The Indus Valley Culture (IVC), straddling over an area of 800,000 square kilometers, is supposed to be the Dravidian civilization that was overwhelmed by these ‘fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed, sharp-nosed’ invaders. In the process, the Dravidian inhabitants were supposedly pushed to the southern parts of peninsular India. As decades of research has failed to yield a shred of archaeological [Ref. 1,2], anthropological [Ref. 3,], genetic and literary [Ref. 4,5] evidence, and the linguistic evidence in support of AIT is also tenuous at the most [Ref.5,6,7], Indologists (who are largely linguists and philologists outside India) have proposed a new model called the ‘Aryan Migration Theory’ (AMT).

This model, as of yet, is rather confused and seems to be just a euphemistic nomenclature for AIT [See Note 1]. I say so because AMT still incorporates notions like the military use of ‘thundering chariots’ as ‘Vedic tanks’ by the ‘migrating’ Aryans, the scare caused by neighing horses of Aryans to the IVC inhabitants [see Notes 2-4], and the reduction of the native Indian population to serfdom [See Note 5] for rice cultivation through elite domination. In AMT, the ‘migrating’ groups are still postulated to resemble the (relatively fairer) present day Iranians and Afghans, and the Aryan migrations are explained with the examples of later ‘migrations’ (in reality, clear cut invasions) of Huns, Shakas etc. to India. [see Note 6]

While the only large scale migration attested archaeologically in the relevant time frame is that from the Indus basin to the more easterly Gangetic basin and to greater Gujarat, and there is no clear cut evidence for any other one way migration into India from outside in the time period in question, literary evidence is now being searched from ‘inside the Vedic texts’ to buttress the case of AMT.

The present article reviews one such attempt by Professor Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University. Witzel was born in and studied at Germany, and has thereafter worked in Nepal, Netherlands and in other countries.

2.0 The Literary ‘Evidence’

When the AIT was accepted as gospel truth, the invasionists (= proponents of AIT) mis-interpreted passage after passage, verse after verse of the Vedic texts to ‘prove’ their notions of the Aryan Invasion of India. This becomes amply clear when one reads the translations of or annotations on the Rigveda by Griffith, Keith, Oldenberg, Macdonell and so many other old and new Western scholars as well as their followers in India. Critiques of these invasionist translations started appearing simultaneously in India in the writings of Dayanand Sarasvati, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekanda, Suryakanta, Bhagavad Datta, Ramagopal Shastri and many others but were ignored by the adherents of the ‘scholarly consensus’. However, the AIT has become unfashionable now, and even certain Western Indologists like Hans Heinrich Hock (an eminent linguist) have come to acknowledge that the earlier invasionist interpretations of the Rigveda were in error [Ref. 9] and that the Rigveda does not allude to any invasions from Central Asia to India.

With invasions out, and migrations in, literary evidence from the Vedic texts must necessarily be found and retrofitted into the theoretical migration models. Witzel has written several pioneering, noteworthy and widely read articles in this regard. Two of them [Ref. 10, 11] appear in Erdosy’s volume (first published in 1995) on the proceedings of a conference at Toronto on October 4-6, 1991, and the third in the proceedings (edited by Bronkhorst, Johannes and Deshpande, Madhav) of the 1995 conference at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor on October 25-27, 1996 [Ref. 12] that was published in 1999. In his recent book [Ref. 13], Talageri has critiqued the articles by Witzel in Erdosy’s volume very extensively and has shown how the data presented by Witzel actually proves an East to West migration within South Asia, and not otherwise as claimed by Witzel. Talageri has also demonstrated how the internal chronology of Rigvedic hymns itself militates against the scenario of Aryan migration from out of India in the stated time frame. This critique is now available on-line and Witzel’s abusive response to a portion of the book is also on the web.

In his rather long article on the ‘textual evidence’ from the Vedic texts, Witzel has produced a mere solitary passage as proof of the AMT thesis [Ref. 11, pg. 320-321]. I quote the relevant passage:

Taking a look at the data relating to the immigration of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is stuck by the number of vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the Rgveda, in spite repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature. Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (the admittedly much later) BSS (=Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra) 18.44:397.9 sqq which has once again been overlooked, not having been translated yet: “Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru Panchala and the Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)” (Witzel 1989a: 235).

The reference (Witzel 1989a: 235) at the end is to an earlier article by Witzel, which is in publication that is rather difficult to obtain [Ref. 14]. We will come back to this publication later. In a footnote, Witzel also reproduces the original Sanskrit passage from the text in question.
<b>
That the above passage from a Vedic text is the sole ‘direct’ evidence for the AMT is clarified by Witzel later [Ref. 11, pg, 321]:

“Indirect references to the immigration of Indo-Aryan speakers include reminiscences of Iran….”</b>




5.0 Cover Ups?

The diversity of the numerous mutually incompatible explanations given by Witzel to account for his (mis-)translation (and ‘interpretation’) of the passage from the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra leaves one wondering- which is the correct explanation? Is the mistranslation due to editorial slips on part of Erdosy, the misplacement of a bracket, the ‘nirukta like use’ of words on the passage or is it simply a case of mistranslation?

The issue becomes serious when one considers the reference “(Witzel 1989a: 235)” in the original paper in Erdosy. The earlier publication referred [Ref. 14] to by Witzel is actually difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, I was able to get hold of a copy and found the following on pg. 325 of Witzel’s article of the text:

In the case of ancient N. India, we do not know anything about the immigration of various tribes and clans, except for a few elusive remarks in the RV (= Rigveda), SB (= Shatapatha Brahmana) or BSS ( = Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra). This text retains at 18.44 :397.9 sqq. The most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two groups: pran Ayuh pravavraja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah Kasi-Videha ity. Etad Ayavam pravrajam. Pratyan amavasus. Tasyaite Gandharvarayas Parsavo ‘ratta ity. Etad Amavasavam. “Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancala and the Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava migration. (His other people) stayed at home in the West. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)”. [see Note 10]

Witzel further comments:

…the text makes a differentiation between the peoples of the Panjab and the territories West of it on one hand, and the “properly Vedic” tribes of Madhyadesa and the adjacent country East of it.

Witzel then brings in a discussion on Eastern Vratyas and I leave it to the reader to refer the original article by Witzel for further details. The edition of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra referenced by Witzel is the one by W. Caland [Ref. 30]

However, the following observations can indeed be made safely when the above citation from Witzel’s 1989 article is compared with that in Erdosy’s book:

· The translation in the 1995 Erdosy volume is identical to Witzel’s translation in his earlier publication of 1989. Therefore, the translation in Erdosy’s 1995 volume is entirely Witzel’s since Erdosy was nowhere in the picture in the 1989 volume published from Paris. Hence, Witzel’s attempt to confuse the issue by attributing the error to Erdosy’s editorial slips is of no consequence to this specific case. Erdosy’s carelessness might have resulted in other errors in Witzel’s article, but not this one. It was therefore, extremely unethical on the part of Witzel to blame a professional colleague in a public forum for a fault which was purely his own.

· The ‘revised’ translation and interpretation of the passage by Witzel is not significantly different from the one in Erdosy’s book in so far as its implications for the Aryan Migration Theory are concerned.

· Witzel has highlighted the centrality of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra passage both in his 1989 publication (‘The most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two groups.’) and also in his 1995 article (see section 2.0 above). Understandably then, the non-tenability of Witzel’s translation of the passage actually deprives the AMT of its primary textual evidence.

· Internet lists such as the Indology List and the Indian Civilization list, are much more affordable and accessible to scholars and to non-professional Indologists than the expensive volume by Erdosy (even its Indian reprint) and (especially) the volume published in 1989 from Paris. Unfortunately, although Witzel referred to his 1989 article in Erdosy’s volume, he has completely refrained from doing so in his numerous replies on the issue on the Internet. While I do not want to impute a deliberate effort at concealment on the part of Witzel (in his hope that readers will not check the original sources) here, the omission did potentially mislead 100’s of readers, who read merely the false accusations against Erdosy and also numerous other misleading statements made by Witzel. Without checking the book published in 1989 personally, one can only blame Erdosy for distorting Witzel’s actual translation.

· No where in his two translations/interpretations of the passage does Witzel indicate the ‘nirukta like interpretations as verbs’- which seems only a later ploy to defend his stance. Nor does Witzel indicate the difficulty in translating this passage in his articles- an argument that he has brought up only later.

· Nor does one understand Witzel’s self-defense that he had merely misplaced a bracket. I suggest that readers try relocating a parenthesis in his statement at other places in his translation and see if that makes any significant difference. If Witzel had erred in the placement of the parenthesis in Erdosy’s article (so not an editorial slip of Erdosy!), he committed the same mistake in his earlier article as well. In any case, how does the misplacement of a parenthesis explain his clear conclusion on the implications of this passage for the AMT?

· Interestingly, while the article in Erdosy’s volume says that the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra is admittedly a late text, the revised version of Witzel contains a different (albeit correct) emphasis by specifying that it is a passage from the Brahmana period. The Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra is considered very close to the Brahmana texts in time by scholarly consensus and the relevant sections are of the form of an Anvakhyana Brahmana. Nevertheless, Witzel should have still prefixed the word ‘late’ to the word ‘Brahmana’ in his revised translation). Was this the result of Elst’s critique that Witzel has been able to produce only one passage from a late Vedic text to substantiate his AMT paradigms? Second, while Indologists often reject even the Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda as texts that are too late to study the immigration/invasion of Aryans into India, is it appropriate to use an even much later Kalpasutra text for this purpose?




6.0 Conclusion

Despite 150 years of research by legions of Indologists, the picture of pre-Buddhist India is largely hazy and therefore adherence to dogmas conforming to one’s pet theories is not desirable. It is clear that the pioneering attempt to retrofit literary evidence from the Vedic texts into the Aryan Migration model has ended in a fiasco. The attempt is reminiscent of earlier efforts of proving the AIT from the Vedic texts- with the difference that the attempt to seek evidence for AMT in the Vedic texts is even more desperate.

To be charitable to Dr. Witzel, let us assume that he was right and Cardona, Hock, Elst, Kalyanaraman are all in error. Does that still entitle him to make false, misleading and defamatory statements?

While even Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University, is entitled to make elementary mistakes in the translation of Sanskrit passages, it was not appropriate for him to have made misleading statements made not once, but many times, and in front of more than 600 specialists in the field. On the possible cause for the same, I leave it to the reader to use his own judgment for arriving at a decision on this matter after consulting Witzel’s writings and also the evidence presented here. Elst’s relevant comment [Ref 31] is however, certainly not out of place here:

…The same is true of Michael Witzel's "Piltdown translation" of the Ayu/Amavasu passage of the Baudhayana Shrautasutra ("debunked", in Farmer's parlance, on p.164-5 of my Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate and on my website). It is so obviously wrong that one wonders how a student of Sanskrit, let alone a Harvard professor of Sanskrit, could put his name under it. And yet, Witzel being just a human being, I accept that he was subject to the over-eagerness which made him see what he hoped to see…..

In a recent publication [Ref. 32], Witzel and co-author Steve Farmer pontificate, lashing out at one of their opponents:

The historical fantasies of writers like Rajaram must be exposed for what they are: propaganda issuing from the ugliest corners of the pre-scientific mind. The fact that many of the most unbelievable of these fantasies are the product of highly trained engineers should give Indian educational planners deep concern.

Much of Rajaram’s training in engineering has been in the United States, contrary to the authors’ implied assumption! As a new parent, I get concerned about our education system when an American academician indulges in the inappropriate behavior that we have just discussed in this article – and all the more because he is a Professor at the Harvard University.





7.0 Epilogue

Indology is one of the few areas of specialization in which several 19th century colonial and racist paradigms are still accepted as gospel truth [Ref. 33, 34]. Understandably then, specialists in other areas like geology, archaeology, anthropology, archaeo-metallurgy and even scientists/physicists (and members of other professions) who are ardent students of Indological topics have often challenged the sacred dogmas of Indology. Some Indologists, largely linguists and philologists, have hit back, often in the most distasteful manner. For instance, in their recent publication [Ref. 32], Witzel (as well as his co-author) lampoons the people who have critiqued his (and those of others holding similar opinions) writings in the most condescending manner:

Ironically many those expressing anti-migration views are migrants themselves, engineers or technocrats like N. S. Rajaram. S. Kak, and S. Kalyanaraman, who ship their ideas to India from the U.S. shores. They find allies in a broader assortment of home grown nationalists including university professors, bank employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K. D. Sethna, S. P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A. Shourie, S. R. Goel). They have gained a small or vocal following in the west among “New Age” writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Klostermaier, and K. Elst. Whole publishing firms, such as the Voice of India, and Aditya Prakashan, are devoted to propagating their ideas.

Witzel is not the only Indologist who demonizes those that question the dogmas of Indology. In his hit list above, Frawley (a Hindu), Elst (a secular humanist) and Klostermaier (an ordained Catholic priest and a celebrated Professor Emeritus at a mainstream University of Canada) are not ‘New Agers’, S. Kalyanaraman lives very much in India, while S. S. Misra, M. Shendge, K. D. Sethna (born a Parsi), A. Shourie and S. R. Goel (has a graduate degree in History) are definitely not ‘nationalists’ in the parochial sense of the word. S. P. Gupta is an archaeologist, Bh. Gidwani is a novel writer, M. Shendge is an Indologist, K. Elst has a doctoral degree in Indology, Bh. Singh is said to have been a Marxist and Misra is a renowned mainstream Sanskritist/linguist. Aditya Prakashan is an old publishing house that has brought out dozens of books that have nothing to do with ‘propagating their ideas’. In fact, some of the above (eg. Arun Shourie, S. R. Goel) have not even written anything significant on AIT or related matters. Nevertheless, this example shows the extent to which some academicians can stoop to lampoon those who disagree with them - or with their Marxist colleagues in India (as is the case with Shourie and Goel, who have criticized Marxist Indologists in India).

[Guest]

Was emailed to our Editorial board:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear friend,



This survey was emailed to all academics who signed the famous Witzel petition. Any help on follow-up via the Indian (or Hindu) NRI community on this will be highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

- Indology Fan Club

====================================================================





Dear Sir/Madam,

You are one of a group of people who have been listed as scholars of international repute in petition filed with California Board of Education.

I am compiling and publishing the facts surrounding the California middle school textbook corrections which you opposed. As you may recall, you signed your name, and your institutional affiliation, to lend credibility to a letter written by the Friends of South Asia / Mr. Michael Witzel addressed to the California State Board of Education (See http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewit...letter.pdf ), alleging various intents and ascribing various motives to the parents who were trying to get the texts corrected.


I would like to try to be accurate in describing your actions. So please provide answers to the following questions.


1. Before you signed that letter, did you read the complete set of edits approved by the Ad Hoc Content Review Panel appointed by the CSBE, on Hinduism and India?


2. If you answered Yes to #1, please attach a copy of an email that you wrote after reading them, but before you signed that letter, indicating that you had read them. Obviously this is a critical issue, since you signed to the effect that you had familiarized yourself with the edits - and were described as a "world expert" on the matters where the letter claimed competence.

3. If you answered Yes to #1, did you compare the scope, extent, and sources of the edits proposed on Hinduism and India, to those on Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Christianity? Please provide evidence of this comparison done before you endorsed the letter.

In the following, please describe your expertise in the matter of middle-school textbook content on India, Hinduism, and ancient Indian civilization. Please list subject areas, year and institution where you achieved degrees in related subject areas, and your work since then which supports the claim of expertise.

4. Have you been outside an airplane/airport in India in the past 10 years? (Please note: Nepal is NOT in India)
5. Please list the Indian languages you can read/write at least at a tenth-grade Indian state curriculum level.

6. Have you actually passed Sanskrit at the 6th-grade Indian Central Schools Curriculum (or equivalent, please specify) level?

7. Have you read any of Kalidasa's major works (can you name 4?)in the following in the original Sanskit?
8. Have you read the textbooks used in California's middle schools today, including the parts discussing India? Please name the books with which you are familiar.
9. Do you endorse Mr. Witzel's assertion that the Mahabharatha was written before the Ramayana?
10. Do you believe U. Chicago Pornographer Wendy Doniger's assertion that the Mahabharatha was written by Vyasa per dictation from Shri Ganesha?
11. If "no" to the above, do you believe the Mahabharatha was written by
a) Valmiki per dictation from Krishna
b) no one, since Dr. S.A. Farmer claims that the early Indians did not have any written script until they were educated by Alexander the Great, who learned Sanskrit from the 900 Theses of Pico in Rome.

The next questions relate to the logic you used.
12. What was Valmiki's caste?
13. How did Valmiki learn to write, given that you believe that several castes were kept illiterate in ancient India?
14. What was the caste of Thunjath Ezhuttassan (what work is he famous for?) What does the "caste" name "Ezhuthassan" mean?
15. In the Ramayana, who was Mr. Seeth to Ms. Rama?

16. What is "Marumakattaayam"?
a. A South Indian dessert
b. A system of inheritance
c. A form of gay marriage among the fascist right-wing Hindutva

17. Please describe your acquaintance / working relationship with Mr. Witzel, Mr. S. Farmer, and other entities involved in this matter. Specify how Mr. Witzel is acquainted with your expertise in order to have described it in the letter.

18. Do you deny that you are a member of the Yahoo Group, "IndoEurasian Research", run by Mr. Witzel from Harvard, and Mr. Farmer, that has been widely and repeatedly quoted as making racist hate speech ?

19. Do you deny that you are a member of the Friends of South Asia (a.ka. Pakistan-American Alliance, a.k.a. Inter Services Intelligence, a.k.a. Lashkar-e-Toiba)? The Forum of Inquilabi/ Indian Leftists, a.k.a. Communist Party of India (Marxist - Liberation)? Babbar Khalsa a.k.a. Khalistan? Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam, a.k.a. Federation of Tamils in America?

20. Are you acquainted with Mr. Arun B. Vajpayee, the brave graduate student in California whom Mr. Witzel described as having alerted him to the impending dangers of the textbooks being corrected? If so, please state how you are acquainted with him.


The following relate to your positions on the textbooks:

21. Are you a practising believer in the Hindu faith?

22. Do you agree with the Harvard PhD and UC Berkeley faculty member who claims that one has to be born a Hindu to be a practising Hindu?

23. Can you name 5 Hindu religious holidays?

24. Do you agree that these holidays should be given equal importance to Jewish, Christian and Islamic holidays?

25. Your letter specifically threatened CSBE's Ruth Green with an "international scandal" unless she stopped the textbook process and inserted Mr. Witzel and his consulting pals into the process. Could you explain this threat?

26. Were you perhaps threatening to expose Commissioner Alan Bersin's financial dealings in his former job, or his current conflict of interest?

27. Do you deny knowing that Mr. Bersin is a Harvard Overseer / Trustee charged with fundraising for Harvard, while hiring a Harvard professor as a consultant to a position where he can direct the multi-hundred-million-dollar California textbook budget to Harvard?

28. Did you disagree with Mr. Witzel's and Mr. Farmer's attempts to put pictures of latrine-cleaning in middle school textbooks to humiliate Indian-American children?

29. Did you object to Mr. Witzel's declaration that Indian-American Hindus are "HIINAs" and that their daughters study Indian dance because of poor morals?

30. Do you think it is uacceptable ethics at your university for a professor to go and change his /her teaching evaluations on a website to read all glowing and identical?

Thank you for your answers in advance.

Yours truly,
- Indology Club<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Is it possible for us to enter into survey?
This survey looks very interesting, I can bet all these so-called scholars will never fill feedback form, because they have no ethic.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Indian Studies 121. Hindutva: Sources, Methods, Implications for Research
and Teaching] - (New Course)
Catalog Number: 0362
Michael Witzel and Parimal G. Patil
Half course (fall term). Hours to be arranged.
Course presents a survey of early Hindutva writings and recent developments,
especially the repercussions on the interpretation of Sanskrit texts and on
the writing of Indian history.
Note: Expected to be given in 2007-08.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Here you go. This is Witzel strategy to make impact on 2009 India's election. He will give course work to students to insult Hindus.