California Textbooks - 2

narayanan · 09-06-2006, 01:16 AM

Not bad for a desi-Angreji media report. From PTI

http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/05hindu.htm

narayanan · (This post was last modified: 09-06-2006, 01:23 AM by narayanan.)

QUOTEseminar/conf at Uty of Mass at Dartmouth on AIT in late June 06 and Rajaram presented papers on this demolishing the AIT. 

I think the Ari Saja article linked to a report on that conference. Here it is:

http://www.umassd.edu/indic/press/origin_pr.cfm

As I heard it, this was quite an event. Witzel was invited, but hid out in Boston and sent some flunkie. Said flunkie got laughed off. Then Witzel drove down there, and proved what everyone else already knows. That he is an ass. As Churchill said:

QUOTE Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone wonder whether you are an idiot, than to open it like Witzel and remove all doubt

Witzel did remove all doubt at Dartmouth. Went around generally raving and ranting and hurling abuse at all and sundry, women and children included.

09-06-2006, 01:22 AM

Two more reports
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS....0306033329
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1...050001.htm

Witzel at Dartmouth:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=53166

09-06-2006, 01:45 AM

Atleast HT is calling it "flawed Hinduism textbooks" otherwise HT had become mouthpiece of Communist and FOSA and LTTE.

narayanan · (This post was last modified: 09-06-2006, 03:49 AM by narayanan.)

I know. First article in HT that did not require *****action******. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tv_feliz.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tv_feliz.gif' />

Wonder what their airhead correspondent commie in U. Arizona is saying now. Probably we will see them return to their usual Pakiness tomorrow.

09-06-2006, 06:02 AM

deleted. duplicate post.

09-06-2006, 11:24 AM

Problem is far widespread in California than just text books. Where is FOSA now?
QUOTEContra Costa Times
Aug. 27, 2006

Sikh leader objects to pamphlet
By Tom Lochner

A Contra Costa Sikh leader is denouncing a pamphlet from an El Sobrante
church that tells Sikhs their holy book is wrong and warns them they face eternal
hell unless they receive Jesus as their savior.

"Please Consider These Words of Love My SIKH Friend," by Pastor Kent
Brandenburg of Bethel Baptist Church, combines faith-based arguments with the logic
that because its prophecies "come true 100 percent," the Bible can be nothing
else but the absolute truth.

The 10 gurus who are the pillars of Sikhism "died and stayed dead," whereas
Jesus Christ defeated death, Brandenburg wrote. "His resurrection, witnessed by
over 500 people, sealed the fact that Jesus Christ is God."

"Without believing in Jesus Christ, you, my Sikh friend, will die in your
sins, and in so doing, will be condemned to Hell forever," reads the pamphlet,
which church members distributed last month at a Sikh Spiritual Peace March
through El Sobrante in memory of the fifth guru, Arjan Dev, who was martyred 400
years ago.

The pamphlet calls on Sikhs to repudiate their religion. "First, admit you
are a sinner. Second, admit you deserve Hell for your sin. Third, call on the
Lord Jesus Christ to save you from your sin while giving your life to him."

J.P. Singh, president of El Sobrante Gurdwara Sahib, the Sikh Center of the
San Francisco Bay Area, said the pamphlet is objectionable because "it
belittles another religion."

"To coexist in this country in love and peace, I think there has to be an
acceptance of other people's religions," Singh said.

The temple has responded to Brandenburg's missive with passages from the Sikh
holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, on the sickness of ego as an impediment to
achieving oneness with God, and on the worship of a common God as reflected in
the holy books of many religions.

"The world is like a flower and God is the gardener. He cares for all and
ignores none. Each flower has the fragrance that the gardener has put in it," the
Sikh response says.

Brandenburg said he has distributed the pamphlet off and on for eight or 10
years and that the message it conveys is hardly new. He said he was surprised
to receive an e-mail from a local non-Sikh merchant characterizing it as "hate
speech."

"That message has been around for 2,000 years -- now it's hate speech?"
Brandenburg said.

He said the pamphlet is a message of love -- one of "tough love," akin to a
stern warning to a loved one to desist from destructive behavior. Disseminating
it fulfills the "Parable of the Sower" in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 in the New
Testament, in which Jesus tells his followers to spread the Gospel, Brandenburg
said.

The timing -- July 23, a Sunday -- was spontaneous, he said.

"There was a parade," Brandenburg said. "I didn't know about it until it was
happening. Toward the end of our service, there was loud chanting in a
non-English language, probably Punjabi, over a microphone going down Appian Way.

"I have no problem with that," Brandenburg said, "but we also have the right
to go down the street and give out our literature. We said nice things to the
people as we handed it to them."

Bethel Baptist Church is off Appian Way, along the July 23 peace march route.

Singh said the peace march was not the right time to seek converts -- if ever
there is one.

"I feel it would be offensive, if the Christians were having an event, to
pass out Sikh literature," Singh said.

"We don't believe in converting people," Singh continued. "Sikhism ...
believes that all religions are equal at God's door. You can achieve salvation being
truthful to whatever religion you choose to practice.

"The Sikh Golden Rule from Guru Granth Sahib is 'No one is enemy. No one is
stranger. I get along with All,'" he said.

The Sikh religion originated in the Punjab region of India in 1469 with the
birth of Guru Nanak Dev. The 10th guru, Gobind Singh, died in 1708.

Sikhism, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is monotheistic.

Adam Kruggel, executive director of Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting
Community Organization, which is made up of more than two dozen Christian
congregations, said he has met with Sikh leaders in Pittsburg and found that "our faith
traditions have so much in common."

"We are much more interested in working together and acting on our common
values than worrying about differences that may divide us," Kruggel said. "We
find that understanding and relating to other traditions has deepened people's
appreciation of their faith. Our approach is not to put aside our faiths but to
put them in context."

agnivayu · (This post was last modified: 09-06-2006, 07:31 PM by agnivayu.)

The Indian population in Sunnyvale and Fremont is over 10%, and most of them are Hindus. Maybe, the focus until the next 6 year state review could be to atleast get change in these 2 school districts.
Indians usually lift up the quality of the school district, and pay a higher % of taxes than their % of the population (Indians in Sunnyvale pay 30% of the city's taxes being just 10% of the population).

http://www.hellosunnyvale.com/Census.Cfm

http://www.city-data.com/city/Sunnyvale-California.html

09-08-2006, 01:27 AM

Here's one that goes with AIT:
US professors claim 9/11 was an inside job
Question: Who are these professors, anyone here know or can guess? UCLA Bruin's 30? We know our some ultra liberals like Lal are Taliban apologists. I was even forwarded Steve Farmer video in support of Hezbollaha or some anti-Israel rally in California.

Anyone with more info on this?

09-08-2006, 02:34 AM

Reliable reports indicate that Prof. Romilla Thapar is one, since this is Hysterics, and she is one of World's Top 100 Hysterians. Also, most of FOSA's members are among Top 75 Hysterians.

Dr. Malini Schuler of U. Florida is bound to be one - according to her theories, WTC would have collapsed because it was taller than WC (Windsor Castle). Also, they allowed Hindutva into the restaurant at the top level, and that is good enough reason for her to bring down the building.

Dr. Anuradha Needham of Oberlin is surely one, since the Oberlin Shansi Foundation KNOWS who did it.

These Top 75 are even more expert in their field than the World's Top 45.35 Indologists are:

QUOTEScott Meredith (AM)

Â Â Theoretical Linguistics,Â High technology 21 years 

What is "high" technology for a linguist? A hookah?

agnivayu · 09-08-2006, 06:46 PM

QUOTE(abdul_bin_mao @ Sep 8 2006, 02:34 AM)Dr. Malini Schuler of U. Florida is bound to be one - according to her theories, WTC would have collapsed because it was taller than WC (Windsor Castle). Also, they allowed Hindutva into the restaurant at the top level, and that is good enough reason for her to bring down the building.



A [edited] like that should be thrown in jail and left to rot there for her terrorist activities.

I found this on the internet. There is a Diana Eck, who is quoted as saying : "To be Hindu in America is much more an intentional choice than it is in India," said Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion and Indian studies and director of The Pluralism Project at Harvard University".
Is she with the Witzel crowd ?

http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2...3f355800876.txt

Bharatvarsh · 09-09-2006, 02:30 AM

QUOTEUS text row resolved by Indian
Akshaya Mukul
[ 9 Sep, 2006 0124hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

NEW DELHI: In India, a sharply divided community of historians has failed to resolve the controversy about history textbooks.

But in a similar controversy in US, a crucial affidavit by eminent historian and president of the Indian History Congress, D N Jha, in the superior court of the state of California played a major role in the court dismissing the petition of Hindu American Foundation against the California State Board of Education (CSBE).

The matter in US relates to the Class 6 ancient history textbook. When the book came out, HAF protested against the content relating to the caste system, women and deities, origin of Aryans apart from alleging that the book was generally anti-Hindu.

One of the main points of contention by HAF was that the textbook should give equal weightage to the theory that Aryans originated in India, as they do to the Aryan migration theory.

Opposed to HAF, Friends of South Asia (FSA), another US-based organisation, supported the contents of the book. CSBE first set up a curriculum review committee of Michael Witzel (Harvard), Stanley Wolpert (UCLA) and James Heitzman (UC Davis). Based on their recommendation, when CSBE did not entertain HAF's protest, the latter sued the education board.

A host of organisations like FSA, Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace and others filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the court.

Jha filed the affidavit on behalf of amicus and confined himself to the Aryan origin controversy. Jeffery D Long of Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, filed the affidavit on behalf of HAF...

In his affidavit, Jha said, "The evidence on whether the Aryans came to India from outside or were the indigenous people is drawn mainly from linguistics and archaeology, and recently from archaeogenetics."

Arguing that the mature phase of the Harappan civilisation lasted from 2500 BC to 1900 BC â "much earlier than the Rigveda whose composition is placed around 1500 BC" â Jha said: "The technology, crafts and commerce of the Harappans are also not reflected in the Rigveda, nor does it bear testimony to the existence of their planned urban settlements and large structures built of burnt bricks."

Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to "demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture"

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/article...421,curpg-2.cms

09-09-2006, 02:43 AM

What a lie?
Jha should be ashamed of himself.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 09-09-2006, 02:54 AM by acharya.)

Giving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to "demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture"

But who are the Aryans. Nobody knows who are the Aryans and so where is the case that they are indegenous or from outside.

Nobody knows who really are the Aryans.

09-09-2006, 02:49 AM

QUOTEGiving a hint of the Aryan origin debate in India, Jha asked the court not to fall for the "indigenous Aryan" claim since it has led to "demonisation of Muslims and Christians as foreigners and to the near denial of the contributions of non-Hindus to Indian culture"

So there Aryan's weren't indigenous some 3000+BC because someone in 2000AD feels the need to be politically correct? How about demonisations of Brahmins with sops of reservations and Witzel screening Hindus/Harjans clean toilet video?

09-09-2006, 02:56 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 8 2006, 05:13 PM)What a lie?
Jha should be ashamed of himself.
[right][snapback]57045[/snapback][/right]


Mudy, you ought to read Shourie's book called Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud . An entire chapter is dedicated to this Jha character. He not only lies but he's abusive towards Hindu icons and deities. Had he uttered same carp with respect to other religions, he'd be on streets by now. Of course that's the right kind of qualifications to rise up the ICHR ladder.

His shoddy research and scholarly work is say on par with that of Witzel and Wolpert. I am even surprised that HAF didn't contest this guy's presence - affidavit or no affidavit.

A friend has borrowed this book, I'll post excerpts from there when I get the book back. Some sample of Jha's work:
QUOTE"Lord Indra is rowdy and amoral (pg. 18). The God Krishna has a rather questionable personal record (pg. 91). Lord Shiva is just a development of Phallic cults (pg. 90). Bhakti is just the reflection of the complete
dependence of the serfs or tenants on the landowners in the context of Indian feudal society (pg.xvii)."

09-09-2006, 03:19 AM

duh !!!

From Ari Saja's article at..

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/145/1/...stile-academics

one gets the actual court order..

http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/truling...--06cs00386.doc

The opening paragraph infact in the "Preliminary Procedural and EVIDENTIARY issues" , which is the first section - kind of like the 10th line.. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' />

QUOTEThe Application of Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, et al., for leave to file brief as Amici Curiae in support of respondentâs opposition to petition for writ of mandate, filed August 16, 2006, is denied.Â The parties filing the application have not demonstrated that their proposed briefing will assist the Court in deciding the matter, particularly in light of the fact that the issues in this case have been briefed thoroughly and competently by counsel for the parties.Â Moreover, the proposed amicus brief is accompanied by several declarations and a Request for Judicial Notice, through which the parties submitting the application seek to place additional evidence before the Court.Â No authority has been cited that permits a party appearing as an amicus curiae to submit evidence or otherwise act as a party to the case. The evidence accompanying the application therefore has not been considered by the Court for any purpose.

09-09-2006, 03:19 AM

Jha reconstructed here by Vishal Agarwal, hopefully it's the same Vishal who wrote some good articles on this CA episode.

This is from 2002
QUOTEHerewith, I start a detailed refutation of Jha's historiography,Â which is being endorsed by Witzel and Doniger. Following is Part I
****

JHA, D. N. 1998. Ancient India, In Historical Outline (2nd edition).
Manohar Publishers and Distributors: New Delhi.

PREFACE:
The Context and the Subtext of Marxist Historiography With a Special Reference to D. N. Jha's "Ancient India in HistoricalÂ Outline"

A newspaper article ("Holy Cow a Myth? An Indian Finds the Kick isÂ Real", by Emily Eakin, in The New York Times, dt. 17 August 2002),Â quotes Professor Michael Witzel of the Harvard University in theÂ following words â
"Indeed, until the Bharatiya Janata Party (sic!) came to power,Â said Michael Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit at HarvardÂ University, much of the history Mr. Jha records was taught in IndianÂ schools."

Witzel's endorsement of the work of a Marxist historian such as D. N.Â Jha, and his dig at a member of the ruling coalition of India,Â betrays the former's political agenda, and puts a question mark onÂ the validity and objectivity of all his recent writings on AncientÂ India. But more fundamentally, it motivates one to examine criticallyÂ the historiography of Jha, which was substantially the same as whatÂ has been taught to students in India all along.

This multi-part review does precisely that. It highlights, chapter byÂ chapter, some of the major flaws in the most popular and influentialÂ history text (title at the top) authored by D. N. Jha, all alongÂ exposing the political subtext and context of his work.

1. The Marxist Affiliations of D. N. Jha -

Jha is quoted as one of the several 'Marxist Historians' in theÂ entry 'Hinduism' of 'A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought' (Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard University Press, p. 204). There areÂ numerous other Indian Publications, wherein Jha HIMSELF refers toÂ himself as a Marxist Historian (references can be provided).

Thus, Dwijendra Narayana Jha belongs to a group (or a `cabal' as hisÂ critics prefer to say) of historians who are better known as "EminentÂ Historians". Most of these historians are either Marxists, or theirÂ fellow travelers. After the demise of Communism in Soviet Union, itÂ is no longer fashionable to be a Marxist, and so many of them haveÂ assumed titles like `progressive historians', `liberal historians'Â and the like. Conversely, anyone who differs from these historians,Â is labeled by the Eminent Historians and their supporters in theÂ elitist English media of India as `Hindu fanatics', `HinduÂ Nazis', `Hindu Talibans' etc.

These Marxist academicians have often succeeded in conveying anÂ impression of their being `objective', `professional', `progressive'Â historians writing dispassionate history to western researchers.Â Within India however, their Marxist credentials are well known, andÂ are even acknowledged by the historians themselves, as well as byÂ their supporters.

It is extremely important to expose the Marxist affiliations of Jha,Â not in order to ostracize or condemn him, but in order to promote anÂ understanding of where his views of Ancient India are coming from. Jha's text on Ancient India is not a dispassionate, `objective' narrative. Rather, it is a Marxist view of our past. This view decries Indian Nationalism, past or present. It downplays the role ofÂ religion in the formation of Indian culture. In particular, it bears a hostile attitude towards all Indian religious traditions, Hinduism in particular, vis-Ã -vis a more conciliatory attitude towards Islam and Christianity. Marxist Historiography perceives itself as a corrective to colonial historiography on India. In reality, Marxist Historians have internalized all the prejudices of colonial historians, and have only added their own. They do not hesitate to politicize the past, to manipulate the present.

In the last few centuries, the European civilization has seen numerous episodes of outrageous acts motivated by religious and political ideologies â Nazi war-crimes, Fascism in Spain and Italy, religious wars between Protestants and Catholics leading to wholesale massacres, and finally, the exploitation of Africans, Asians and Latin Americans by the Imperialist regimes in the age of Colonialism.
With such a background of slaughter and loot, it is not surprising, that conscientious Western intellectuals and academics have a phobia of a revival of such ideologies in their native lands, and in any other part of the world for that matter.

The Marxist and other `progressive' Historians of India manipulate these fears of Western Indologists and intellectuals to further their own political agendas back in India, to curry favor with them, suppress dissenting voices back home or even obtain funding for their own international jaunts. Highly abusive epithets like `Nazis', `Fascists', `fanatics', with which Western academics can relate to very easily, are hurled at their Indian dissenters by these Marxist historians during during their foreign jaunts. These Marxist historians tend to underplay their own political affiliations, agendas and motivations when interacting with westerners, and project themselves as objective, harmless scholars being victimized by `fascists' and `fanatics' back at home in order to gain favor and support in the West. This explains partly the currently strengthening nexus between Western Indology and Indian Communism. The reality however is that Marxist historians have managed to control, appropriate and corner Indian government's patronage for the last 35 years now, stifling dissent (acknowledged even by Ramachandra Guha) and retarding the development of growth and development their own academic discipline.

As a part of this pattern, D. N. Jha has also employed these underhanded techniques to curry favor with his western sponsors and brow-beat his critics back home. In particular, he has been extended cooperation by a Professor at the Harvard University (notorious for his arrogant remarks against India and Indians) and by some westernized researchers of Japan. The preface of the revised edition of 'ancient India' expresses gratitude for Professor Shingo Einoo because he `found time to discuss with me the various aspects of brahminical rituals and their social context'. The same Japanese professor is also thanked for help with Indian texts in Jha's preface to his 'Beef Eating' book, making one wonder why he has to go all the way to Japan for his research, when the basic texts and their scholars are both available within India.

Within India, the Marxist historians, with their professedly anti-Imperialist stance, were expected to counter and to overthrow these biased narratives of India's past. They refuse to take recent discoveries into account, dismissing them as the rants of `part time historians' or `amateurs' and `dilettantes' because it would overturn their own pet theses. They have even branded the entire establishment of Indian archaeologists as `saffronist' â a pejorative term that is used by the elitist English media in India for people they wish to brand as Hindu fanatics. The reason for this animosity of Marxist historians towards archaeologists is very clear. Archaeological discoveries over the last 2 decades or so now compel us to revisit our perceptions of India's past.

An open minded historian, for whom archaeological artifacts constitute one of the major sources of primary data, would have no difficulty in revising his interpretations and present a fresh analysis in conjunction with literary, epigraphic and other sources of historical evidence. However, the historiography of Marxist historians was not always objective and dispassionate. Rather, they have invested a lot of effort in weaving outdated colonial interpretations of India's past, with a Marxist jargon, to present their own `state-of-the-art' analysis. Needless to say, it is not easy now for them to re-weave a dying political ideology with masses of new data emerging every day. This partly explains why they refer to archaeologists and dissenting historians and scholars contemptuously as `revisionists' and `Hindu Talibans' etc.

While most Western Indologists might support Indian Marxist Historians out of an innocent but misplaced fear that India is getting swamped by `Hindu fanatics', the intentions of some of them are not all that innocent. Colonial/Racist prejudices in the presentation of India, its traditions, religions, culture and history still prevail in the mainstream western academia, out of academic inertia, or genuine racism. And as stated above, the Marxist historians have actually emerged as one of the greatest protagonists of the colonial paradigms of Indian history. Therefore there is a convergence of interests between a section of the Western Academia and Indian Marxist Historians. The former co-operate with the latter to perpetuate the dogmas of Western Indology and prove their own `objectivity' to anyone who might accuse them of racism and Orientalism. The Marxists use the western scholars to gain material benefits, emotional support, legitimacy for their own slanted writings, and maintain their hegemony over state institutions and media in India.

Many western Indologists are actually well aware that they are supporting Marxists, who are the followers of a failed political ideology. While some Indologists themselves might have Leftist sympathies, why do the others support Communists and Marxists within India, especially when Communism is not very well tolerated in the Capitalist West? Is their support to an outdated ideology in India akin to the dumping of outdated technologies by the Developed Countries into 3rd world countries?

It is well known how Indologists in the past have actively colluded with, or have provided a scholarly prop to despicable ideologies of Nazism, Colonialism and Racism. Perhaps, an uncritical support to anyone who pretends to be an `opponent of fascism in India' gives these Indologists a good feeling and helps in ameliorating their collective guilt. Perhaps, the Indologists are fighting their own ghosts in their imaginary crusade against the `fascist forces' in India.

While the Marxist historians are playing to the gallery by hurling abuses like `fascists', `fanatics' at their own countrymen, not concerned about basic honesty - moral or academic, one does wonder at the credulity of western Indologists in thinking that they are doing any tangible good to the Indian masses. India is inhabited by one billion people, and I daresay that we are no longer the white man's burden. We can decide and guide our own destiny, and do not need to be warned or coached by ivory tower academics (or their Marxist informers) living thousands of miles away from India.

If we take a macro-view of the entire situation, it will appear that the colonial era has not really ended in `South Asian' Studies. The Marxist Professors and ideologues are new `informants' for the `white man'.

The Waltenshauung of of Marxist historians vis a vis ancient India has been summed up well by SHOURIE [Eminent Historians, 1998, p. x] in the following words -

""They have made India out to have been an empty land â filled by successive invaders. They have made present-day India, and Hinduism even more so, out to be a zoo â an agglomeration of assorted, disparate specimens. No such thing as "India", just a geographical expression, just a construct of the British; no such thing as Hinduism, just a word used by Arabs to describe the assortment they encountered, just an invention of the communalists to impose a uniformity â that has been their stance. For this they have blackened the Hindu period of our history, and as we shall see, strained to whitewash the Islamic period. They have denounced ancient India's social system as the epitomy of oppression, and made totalitarian ideologies out to be egalitarian and just."

****

END OF PART I

09-09-2006, 03:22 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Sep 8 2006, 05:49 PM)duh !!!

From Ari Saja's article at..

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/145/1/...stile-academics

one gets the actual court order..

http://www.saccourt.com/courtrooms/truling...--06cs00386.doc

The opening paragraph infact in the "Preliminary Procedural and EVIDENTIARY issues" , which is the first section - kind of like the 10th line..Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' />

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEThe Application of Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, et al., for leave to file brief as Amici Curiae in support of respondentâs opposition to petition for writ of mandate, filed August 16, 2006, is denied.Â The parties filing the application have not demonstrated that their proposed briefing will assist the Court in deciding the matter, particularly in light of the fact that the issues in this case have been briefed thoroughly and competently by counsel for the parties.Â Moreover, the proposed amicus brief is accompanied by several declarations and a Request for Judicial Notice, through which the parties submitting the application seek to place additional evidence before the Court.Â No authority has been cited that permits a party appearing as an amicus curiae to submit evidence or otherwise act as a party to the case. The evidence accompanying the application therefore has not been considered by the Court for any purpose. 
[right][snapback]57049[/snapback][/right]
</div>

So Times of India LIED. What a surprise!!

09-09-2006, 03:27 AM

A better reconstruction of the Indologists (Asianists in general) is done in the following paper..

http://www.tobiashubinette.se/asianists.pdf

Login




Remember me Lost Password?