Info On Witzel Pronouncements

[Guest]

from [some personal emails/details edited]
date Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:30 AM
subject GDA to gather evidence against Witzel in a historic, first of its kind lawsuit against Witzel, Donziger, Kripal etc.
mailed-by xx.com



Reply

Follow up message
Dear all,

I am pleased to announce that the GDA legal cell has begun collecting
capeem depositions, recent speech in chennai and depositions and
testimonies of credible persons such as Prof. Balagangadhar and Dr.
Kosla Vepa. Any others who are interested in testifying either based on
academic credentials or direct knowledge, pls email us. We will be
able to move forward on this quickly.

Additionally, it appears that certain ISI sponsored sites in Texas
appear to be working covertly to use the cover of empowering Dalits
and with money influence on certain politicians appear to be the real
reason to push the reservation quota.

We will look to additional evidence to book Witzel and his
conspirators along w those politicians using dalit support to cover
criminal proselytization and sacrilege with appearance of being pro
Dalit. In reality, it appears these ISI supported activities may be
found to substantially anti national and may be covered by the NSA.

Thank you for spreading GDA,s call for evidence and testimonies.

[Guest]

What is GDA?

[Guest]

The meeting and how Witzel attended Chennai Meets, and how badly our Indian Academicians act to protect these pirates.


http://vedaprakash.indiainteracts.in/2008/...-the-hindu-too/

[acharya]

Posted on July 9th, 2009

The Second Conference of Michael Witzel at Madras University

The so-called second conference[1] of Michael Witzel has been arranged at the Auditorium of the Madras University, Marina campus. Before the auditorium, there was a Police jeep with 8 police men and women!

When I entered by 11 am, there were only 8 or 9 persons. In the first row Michael Witzel was sitting with Iravatham Mahadevan. Prof Dass, HOD of Sanskrit Department was looking at the entrance anxiously. I sat in the last row and a police in plain cloth was starring at me.

Prof Dass, HOD, Sanskrit department (11.05 to 11.15): Then by 11.05 am, he decided to start the “Conference” and thus Witzel and Mahadevan went to the podium and sat. Prof Dass started introducing Witzel, as he was coming there after 6 years. Pointing to Iravatham Mahadevan, he recalled his paper presented at “The International Seminar on Indian Knowledge System”, that was organized there. Then he proceeded to eulogizes him in his own way: “MW needs no introduction, as he is well known from Harvard University. Harvard University Professor is the most elite in the world……………. He visited the department only for the purpose of seeing the manuscripts[2]. He also observed our activity of `catalogum catalogue’ of manuscripts project going on there. We request the professor guidance for it. I assure that it would be completed by 2012. Witzel would talk about important topic. I end with a saying from Mahabhasya, where it is said that one should not live / leave with a doubt. ……..If you do not understand (Phylogeny and Epigenetics) , it does not mean it is ugly…whatever lecture, he gives, and we should understand and continue our research”.

Iravatham Mahadevan (11.15 to 11.25 a.m): “Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Gurudevo Maheswara; Guru sakshat Parabrahma tasmai sri kuruve Namaha” reciting this sloka[3], he started speaking: “WItzel has been the greatest expert in Vedic Sanskrit particularly in Rigvedic. …..I met him six years back at the Harvard University in connection with my publication of the book[4] and at that time, he received me and took me to go around the University[5] and the great library. To be frank with you, I do know about the topic, “Phylogeny[6] and Epigenetics and origin of languages”. From “gen”, I could understand that it is something connected with “production” or “origin” = to born, to produce…..I think he is going to show the unity of Indo-European languages.

“There has been misunderstanding about Michael Witzel and his work. Some two days ago, when Prof Witzel was invited to deliver his lecture at Madras Sanskrit College, some misguided elements tried to disturb the meeting and they distributed handouts. Of course, we have difference of opinion, but we should not resort to such methods. There could be difference of opinion, but we should respect our guests, as we believe in “Adhiti devo bhava” (treating / honoring the guests). I too have difference with him about his fundamental view that Indus script was not a system of writing at all, but I cannot take a gun and shoot him…….Indian culture is pluralistic and tolerant………We believe in Ekam sat bhauta vadhanti…..Such was our attitude. In the west, there was conflict between the Church and the State…. But in India we have great leaders. Buddha taught band showed a different way ………In south, we have Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Each wrote his own Bhasya, but their followers co-existed. “Therefore, such intolerant attitude is anti-Indian and anti-Hindu and they do disservice to our nation. Such elements are confined to the fringe of our society…..In this context, I should tell few words about Ashoka who lived 2300 years ago. I request the Sanskrit scholars to read Pali verses of the inscription and memorize in the heart. I read what the Girnar inscription says[7] –

[”The individual morality that Asoka hoped to foster included respect (//susrusa// ) towards parents, elders, teachers, friends, servants, ascetics and brahmins — behavior that accords with the advice given to Sigala by the Buddha (Digha Nikaya, Discourse No. 31). He encouraged generosity (//dana//) to the poor (//kapana valaka//), to ascetics and brahmins, and to friends and relatives. Not surprisingly, Asoka encouraged harmlessness towards all life (//avihisa bhutanam//). In conformity with the Buddha’s advice in the Anguttara Nikaya, II:282, he also considered moderation in spending and moderation in saving to be good (//apa vyayata apa bhadata//). Treating people properly (//samya pratipati//) , he suggested, was much more important than performing ceremonies that were supposed to bring good luck. Because it helped promote tolerance and mutual respect, Asoka desired that people should be well-learned (//bahu sruta//) in the good doctrines (//kalanagama/ /) of other people’s religions. The qualities of heart that are recommended by Asoka in the edicts indicate his deep spirituality. They include kindness (//daya//), self-examination (//palikhaya/ /), truthfulness (//sace//), gratitude (//katamnata/ /), purity of heart (//bhava sudhi//), enthusiasm (//usahena// ), strong loyalty (//dadha bhatita//), self-control (//sayame//) and love of the Dhamma (//Dhamma kamata//).”][8]

“Thus, I conclude; “Om Sahaba bavatu, sahanam bunaktu, saha viryamm karvavahai; tejastu navathi thamastu ma vidhyi savahai, Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti hi.”

Prof Miuchael Wizel: 11.25-12.30: “I came here visiting several places. I visited Mahabalipuram and several institutions… ..I saw the catalogue work………… My colleagues have also come down here[9]…….When I met Raghavan, he was wearing the traditional dress…. In connection with Silver Jubliee, I was invited by the Hyderabad people. .I try to avoid the emotional and political content of my topic…………My topic is about the history of development of languages. It involves several fields – biology, genetics, etc……I have already given this talk………(at Bangalore / Hyderabad). ………….When I ask shepherd how does he call a goat, he says “meka”, but that word looks like Danish. Some may be thinking that Sanskrit is the oldest language, but it is seriously questioned based on scientific study………..the speech of men was compared with that of Chimpanzee. However, Chimpanzee could produce about 150 signs, but not all like man. The words of each language have specific use and connotation. In Indian languages, “Rama gives book” would be of “Rama book gives” type (He was showing PP hurriedly and skipping. He was showing the skull and jaw portions of Neanderthal and other man-types).

“Chimpanzee & ANM Human (Liberman)” 75 – 65 kya[10] some people stayed here (in India), some went to SEA and some to Australia. How can we say about the language spoken at that time? For that I have a scheme.

“Indo-European Reconstruction: Taking few words, I explain this. Father Heaven is found in IE languages as follows:

Sanskrit Dyau-pitr Pitaram
German Zeus pitar Pitram
Latin In-piper patram
Greek In pira
PIE Dieus putr

Similarly hasti-haesti- asti-esti- sti-is (he/she/it is) comes like this. So also “They are” can be explained.

Even in numbers different words are used. For example, the following words are used in Indian languages and thus, what Punjabi is speaking is not understood by Tamil.

Hindi Tamil Munda
Ek Onru
Do Irandu
Thin Munru
Char Nangu
Panch Ainthu
Cha Aru
Sat Ezhu
At Ettu
Nau Onpathu
das pattu

“Thus, the Indian lanuages have diversity and such system is not understood by others…..

“[The presence in Vedic Sanskrit of a number of phonetic, morphological and syntactical features alien to other Indo-European languages but common to the Burushaski[citation needed], Dravidian and Munda languages, as well as the presence of non-Indo-European vocabulary, is generally held by scholars to be due to a local substratum of Dravidian, Munda, a combination of both[1], another, lost prefixing language (”Para-Munda” , Witzel 1999) as well as proto-Burushaski [2] and some other lost languages spoken around 1000 BCE in northwestern and northern South Asia. Prominent examples, adduced by Kuiper (1967, 1991) include: phonologically, there is the introduction of retroflexes, which alternate with dentals; morphologically there are the gerunds; and syntactically there is the use of a quotative marker (”iti”).[3] A few words in the Rigveda and progressively more words in later Vedic texts were identified as being loanwords principally from Dravidian but with some forms traceable to Munda,[1] Proto-Burushaski,[2] and many to neither of these language families, thus indicating a source in one or more lost languages, such as Para-Munda (Witzel 1999).]

“Proto-human language (Ruhlen)[11]: Here, how certain words are found common in different lanuages. He was showing a table (as shown in the reference below in the foot notes. But he was explaing with the first 6 columns):
Language Who? What? Two Water One/Finger ,

“Out of African movement: According to Metspalu 2005, there is “out of Africa movement” is there (he was showing a drawn map). [Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa. mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro- Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended. The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents – and that it originated in a small East African population. The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents – and that it originated in a small East African population[12].]

“A fairly large number of words have been tentatively traced back to the ancestor language, based on the occurrence of similar sound-and-meaning forms in languages across the globe. The best-known such vocabulary list is that of John Bengtson and Merritt Ruhlen (1994), who identify 27 “global etymologies” . The following table, adapted from Ruhlen (1994b), lists a selection of these forms. (he showed another picture from Scientific American[13]).

“Different language groups existed thus in different areas (showing a map through PP). Dravidian languages were spoken in the Southern area (showing the four states – Tamilnadu, AP, Kerala and Karnataka), “Former Dravidian areas” (showing Maharastra), Indus (Sindhu area), Lanuage-X (UP), Khasi ( Assam ), ……..”Former Austro-Asiatic Areas?” (was shown in between the UP and MP from IVC / Rajasthan to Orissa)…..Based on “Place-names” , some scholars have shown more Dravidian words were spoken in the “Former Dravidian areas” and it is shown accordingly.

“In the case of Sri Lanka, though it appears Indo-Aryan superficially, the substratum has been Munda language. This pattern could be seen in other areas also.

“One scholar took words used in UPO area which are used for agriculture taking from Hindi and found that none of the words are from Hindi or any other Indian language, so he assigned Language-X to it. In fact, he should have taken all languages into account in his study.

Dravdian words are not my study. As Travatham Mahadevan pointed out, we can decide it amicably. So I give some references. Based on Krishnaswamy 2003 book, the Dravidian languages have been like this (showing a Dravidian language family) – various Dravidian languages.

“SARVA project[14] going on in Japan (He has given the following website showing a chart. http://www.aa. tufs.ac.jp/ sarva/entrance. html, but it asks a password).

“N-S Cline of Autosomal Data: This is based on the study done by Hyderabad people. And it is unpublished. They have brought out data on such genetic studies about the people of India. Their data represented show that the south Indian tribals and Kashmir Brahmins belonged to the same stock. But still, you can find some groups are left out or fall outside the pattern represented. Who are those people? They are from Assam, Nagas and others.

“Epigenetics[15] - (showing a plain map featuring Central Asia at the centre). Kupier discussed about the epigenetics of the language formation starting at the central Asia and spreading out.

(He showed his concluding PP as follows):

Reflexes (pronounced by bending the tongue back) as in ta, ta, na, ca etc.
Found in most Indian languages, but originally not in Tibeto-Burmese and in Munda (ex.d)
Heaviest concentration in the north-west even with palatals, c, ch, jh and vowels [Kalashup]
It is regional pattern……………………(he removed the slide).

Thus, I conclude my speech.

A professor, Calcutta: First, one professor from Calcutta asked about the migration and MW answered that linguistic migration is different.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao: I am Ramakrishna Rao from Chennai, an independent researcher. I would like to ask specific questions. With reference to the diagram, where the languages are shown with stratum, substratum, layered formation, overlapping etc., the following specific questions are asked:

1. How the same stratum pattern is not formed in all parts of India?

2. How such language stratum forming pattern could be correlated and corroborated with the strategraphical studies in the archaeological and linguistic contexts?

3. What are all material evidences to prove such pattern formation exactly as you try to postulate?

4. Can it be applicable to the study in the context of script, language and literature?

5. How much time it takes to happen for such pattern?

Michael Witzel: The archaeological evidences do not support such pattern formation……….. Discussion is based on the available material evidences………. As I told, Hun is found in the European languages now only………….. There would be 1000 years variation in determination of dates.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao: Then, why you make conclusive statements? Do not force your views on others.

Michael Witzel: The study is based on scientific method.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao: Yes, what I am asking is also on scientific basis only. But, the same stuff is repeated again and again that was told some sixty years ago. You are also telling the same thing differently like Max Mueller.

Michael Witzel: Max Mueller belonged to 18th century, but we are in 21st century.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao: Yes. But you are also talking like him[16] about dolicocephalic dictionary, brachycephaic linguists etc.

Michael Witzel: My study is based on scientific data and information.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao: I am also asking on the basis of scientific principles only. I give one more example – When Pingala could have evolved about binary numbers some 2000 years ago, how the same has been repeated again now?

Then I propose a simple experiment. Call one Sanskrit Pundit here. Let him recite a Sanskrit sloka. You are a Sanskrit Professor, you repeat it. Here is our scholar, Iravatham Mahadevan, let him also recite it. I do not know Sanskrit, but I will also recite it. You record the sounds. And then can you explain the differences based on your study [phylogenetics or epigenetics] ?

Here, Iravatham Mahadevan intervened standing up.

K. V. Ramakrishna Rao: Sir, morning you were telling about the incidence happened two days back. Now the question is about intellectual discussion. It is only academic. Intellectual issues are to be faced intellectually, academic issues are to be faced academically [IM was moving towards the podium].

[There was some discussion between Witzel’s assistant and Rao, who were sitting in the second row. I could not listen to from sitting from the last row]

Iravatham Mahadevan (from the podium): The intellectual discussion could continue, but as the President of the meeting, let it be concluded with a vote of Thanks.

Prof. Das: Mr Rao, we will arrange a conference, where we can discuss about it.

However, two persons asked questions asking whether his findings were against Darwinian principle and so on.

Vote of Thanks: [The lady, who was making some comments in between and even asked questions and doubts in between Witzel’s lecture, delivered the vote of Thanks[17]]

Then the Sanskrit department staff and students posed for a photograph on the podium.

I came out. I saw Haran collecting a folder from the police. Later I understood that brought the handouts for distribution, but the Police took and allowed him inside to listen the lecture.

Really, it is surprising that for such a meager audience, Iravatham Mahadevan should have brought two loads for police to protect the Harvard Sanskrit Professor, in the secular India.

While he talks about the pluralist India and all in the context of non-violence, how he could have conceived wrongly about the Madras / Chennai audience, who could react “violently” against Witzel?

With that meager audience for such a BIG Harvard Universiry Professor of Sanskrit, they could have brought van-load or even lorry-loads of audience as per the present sampradhaya[18] of Tamils or Indians, so that Witzel’s honour could have been saved!

The Harvard Elite Sanskrit Professor could not face the Chennai audience or answer questions.

Witzel has been evasive in answering questions.

In fact, he did not answer the questions directly, though specific and pointed answers were asked [as per the directions of IM].

As on 06-07-2009 []Madras Sanskrit College], he did not answer one of two questions, here on 08-07-2009 [Sanskrit Department, Madras University], virtually he did not answer at all.

Let us have more conferences.

Note: This has been prepared based on the notes noted down during the meeting. There are some points to be clarified. And therefore, certain points may be added or amended accordingly later. Here, the entire proceedings have been taped and the tape would give more details. Therefore, anybody wants to check up the proceedings, they could verify from the tape available with the Sanskrit Department, Madras University. Unfortunately, the proceedings were not videographed [also in Sanskrit college], as otherwise, it could have been an evidence to prove the capabilities of Prof Witzel.

Vedaprakash
09-07-2009

________________________________________
[1] The number may change, as Wizel is going obn having Conferences at different places as our Indian collaborators have been so accommodative to the American friends, they are having “conferences” that too, one or two in a day! Already, he was at Bangalore / Hyderabad presenting the paper of the same title “Phylogenetics or Epigenetics…………”. On 07-07-2009 , he was at Pondicherry . Yesterday ( 08-07-2009 ) afternoon, there was a conference at Roja Mutthaiah Hall, Tharamani and today ( 09-07-2009 ) he is speaking at Indian Heritage Centre / JNU.
[2] To what extent he is still interested in Indian manuscripts is to be noted.
[3] Really, it is surprising that he started with a Sanskrit sloka, as he pretends to be a pucca secularist!
[4] Iravatham Mahadevan, Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the Earliest to the Sixth Century A. D, Cre-A: Chennai and the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University , USA , 2003.
[5] IM has recorded in his book: “I received an offer from Prof. Michael Witzel, the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, USA, to have the work published in the Harvard Oriental Series (HOS). I thank him for honour and I am also grateful to my friend, Mr N. Ram, Frontline, Chennai, who had earlier introduced me to Prof. Witzel”, p.x of PREFACE.
[6] Evolution is regarded as a branching process, whereby populations are altered over time and may speciate into separate branches, hybridize together, or terminate by extinction. This may be visualized in a phylogenetic tree. The problem posed by phylogenetics is that genetic data are only available for the present, and fossil records (osteometric data) are sporadic and less reliable. Our knowledge of how evolution operates is used to reconstruct the full tree.[3] Thus, a phylogenetic tree is based on a hypothesis of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed to have occurred.
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Phylogenetics
[7] http://www.cs. colostate. edu/~malaiya/ ashoka.htmlv
[8] As he read out fastly, I could not take down and hence quoting from the reference given. And that is why this paragraph is given in the brackets.
[9] However, he has not naed “his colleagues” who have come down to Chennai or any other place of India . It is also not known who are they, where are they, what Conferences they are going to conduct etc., and other details.
[10] Ky = Kilo years = 1000 years; thus 75 kya = 75,000 years ago YBP
[11] The term Proto-Human is one of a number of terms sometimes used to designate the hypothetical most recent common ancestor of all the world’s spoken languages. It has been used by the linguists Harold Fleming [2] and John Bengtson (2007).
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Proto-World_ Language
[12] http://www.geocitie s.com/nilevalley peoples/nilevall eynews.htm
[13] Scientific American, April 1991, p. 145.
[14] The SARVA (South Asia Residual Vocabulary Assemblage) Project, http://www.aa. tufs.ac.jp/ sarva/SARVA. pdf
[15] Kupier, Epigenetics? , 1967.
Epigenetics (as in “epigenetic landscape”) was coined by C. H. Waddington in 1942 as a portmanteau of the words genetics and epigenesis.[5] Epigenesis (see contrasting principle of preformationism) is an older word to describe the differentiation of cells from their initial totipotent state in embryonic development. When Waddington coined the term the physical nature of genes and their role in heredity was not known; he used it as a conceptual model of how genes might interact with their surroundings to produce a phenotype.
[16] Incidentally, Sankaranarayanan compared him with Max Mueller singing a Sanskrit sloka. Therefore, the concept of Max Mueller to Michael Wizel to attack India has been significant. The only difference is that the former did not see India , but later had lived in India , with Indians and understood the weakness of the Indians, so that they would go oin arrange “conferences” . After going to Harvard, they would publish books through Cambridge and Oxford declaring that the Sanskrit Pundits of India fell at his feet and acknowledged thair defeat. They even honoured him with a title - “…….” Conferred on him at the Sanskrit College Madras by a great Sanskrit Pundit. Of course, soon or later, some Sanskrit Professor of Madras would get a chance to fly to Harvard and he would be treated nicely by the Americans.
[17] She might be another Professor of the Sanskrit Department.
[18] Just like “secularism” , “communalism” etc., now Witzel has taught us about and introducing “sampradhaya” . So let us use it in his context.

[acharya]

Question 1: You will agree that no culture or civilization is perfect, and we Indians are quite aware of the imperfections of our society. At the same time, most of us are proud of belonging to this land. Many Western thinkers and Indologists have also expressed great admiration for Indian culture and for India’s intellectual heritage in particular. You must have seen testimonies by people like Emerson, Thoreau, Durant, Toynbee, Renou, Filliozat or Kramrish. How is it that, by contrast, you do not seem to find anything good to say about Indian culture, and have often hinted, especially on Internet lists, that it is something barbaric or primitive? Would you not like to spend some time travelling through India, since you are now among us, so as to judge this culture firsthand and decide?

Question 2: In the recent noisy controversy over history textbooks prepared by the California State Board of Education, and in Internet debates, it is often made out that those opposing the teaching of the theory of an Aryan invasion of, or migration into, India are a bunch of dangerous “Hindutva” fanatics. This completely eclipses the fact that the strongest opponents of this theory have been Western scholars: U.S. archaeologists George Dales, Jim Shaffer, U.S. anthropologist K.A.R. Kennedy, British archaeologist Colin Renfrew, French archaeologists Jean-Paul Demoule, Jean-François Jarrige, Henri-Paul Francfort, Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, and many more. Why is this never openly acknowledged and debated in a fair and civilized manner?

Question 3: Why is, instead, the Aryan invasion or migration theory pushed down the throats of Indian schoolchildren (and now U.S. ones!), even as everyone knows fully well that this colonial theory was used to divide Indian society, leaving wounds that have remained unhealed to this day? What do learned scholars like yourself gain by perpetuating the colonial game of division and demonizing those who oppose this theory as “Hindutva” propagandists?

Question 4: In a 1995 paper, you wrote: “The first appearance of [the invading Aryans’] thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse-riding Spaniards.” [*1] That is exactly the colonial paradigm of the invasion theory in all its military splendour. Yet in 2001, you wrote, “Why, then, should all immigration, or even mere transhumance trickling in, be excluded in the single case of the Indo-Aryans … ? Just one ‘Afghan’ Indo-Aryan tribe that did not return to the highlands but stayed in their Panjab winter quarters in spring was needed to set off a wave of acculturation in the plains, by transmitting its ’status kit’ … to its neighbors.” [*2] It is the complete absence of archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence for the “hard” version of the Aryan invasion which forced you to dilute it to a mere “trickling in”? And is it conceivable that a single overstaying Afghan tribe could have set off a process of radical linguistic and cultural change over the whole of North India?

[*1] - Michael Witzel, “Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres,” in The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, ed. George Erdosy (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), p. 114.

[*2] - Michael Witzel, “Autochthonous Aryans ? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts”, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, Vol. 7 (2001), issue 3 (May 25).

Question 5: In a 1995 paper,[*3] in an attempt to find evidence for the Aryan migration theory in Sanskrit literature, you quoted an excerpt of the Baudhâyana Shrauta Sûtra in your own translation. This translation was proved wrong (by Koenraad Elst in 1999, more recently by Prof. B.B. Lal), and the mistranslation was no accident, since it figured in an earlier paper of yours.[*4] We all know, of course, that the best scholars are not immune from error, and this is true of all disciplines. Yet you did not have the grace to acknowledge your error and retract the mistranslation. Instead, we have since seen historians (for instance Romila Thapar,[*5] R.S. Sharma [*6]) quote this mistranslation in support of the Aryan migration theory. Would you kindly issue a statement to stop such misuse of your mistranslation?

[*3] - Michael Witzel, “Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities,” in The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, ed. George Erdosy (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), pp. 320-321.

[*4] - Michael Witzel, “Tracing the Vedic Dialects”. In Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes, Publications de l’Institut de civilisation indienne, Série in-8, Fascicule 55, ed. by C. Caillat (Diffusion de Boccard: Paris 1989).

[*5] - Romila Thapar’s lecture titled “The Aryan Question Revisited”, available online at http://members.tripod.com/ascjnu/aryan.html

[*6] - R.S. Sharma, Advent of the Aryans in India (Manohar: New Delhi, 1999), pp. 87-89.


http://www.tamilhindu.com/2009/07/question...michael-witzel/


“California Text Book” case is a very important discussion and approach to the presentation of history through the America judiciary. Honorable Mr. Witzel had been on the forefront to make sure that the history is presented satisfactorily to the church.

No church will invite the hindu leaders who stand against Mr. Witzel to speak in their churches or in their institutes. Because their theology shapes their actions and reactions.

But, we, the hindus, invite a person to give a speech to his victims, we invite he who has been doing everything he can to destroy hinduism. Because, our philosophy shapes our actions and responses.

Being respected, will Mr. Witzel respond a similar courtesy to our invitation? Will he participate in the dialogue that we, the hindus, want to have with him (unlike his conglomeration)?

Will he give answers instead of statements to these questions? Will he be open to a dialogue like the hindus?

Dear Tamil Hindu, we are very eager, so much eagerly, to know his reactions to our response.

Please tell us.

We await crossing our fingers awaiting a report on the reactions of those who are crossed against us and have crossed across continents for the sake of that cross.

[HareKrishna]

[quote]Kazanas criticizes Witzel for having �explain[ed] why the Sarasvati is not really the Sarasvati but some river�.in Afghanistan�.or Milky Way.

Well for Witzel Sarasvati could be even on another planet anywere in the universe,but not in India.Thats a no no for Schnitzel.

[Guest]

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=715

<b>Michael Witzel: rattled rat at IIC</b>
Bhagwan Singh
22 July 2009

I was really sorry for Prof. Michael Witzel. After all, he was our honoured guest! Dr. Singh should not have pounced on him so mercilessly, playing the cat and the rat game – the cat looking ascetically resigned tossing the rat, the rat pretending to be dead, breathlessly looking from the corner of his eye to judge the cat’s next move, running for his life, only to be pounced upon and tossed up again. The Chair kept smiling all through at this plight of the powerful brainy Harvard Professor of Sanskrit!

Frankly, I enjoyed the wild play. Prof. Witzel was in a state of trauma: nervous, edgy, twitching his lips, dropping his eyelids recurrently, looking askance to avoid his interlocutor, constantly using his hanky to rub his nose, <b>murmuring something inaudible to explain his errors, occasionally seeking help from his votaries who were present in good number, but more ignorant than their demi-god, and hence themselves dazed. Singh smiled all the way, his smile mischievous, eyes sadistically aglitter, untrue to his true nature, but true to the occasion</b>.

<b>Rgveda</b>

The occasion was a lecture on the Rgveda by Prof. Michael Witzel, at the India International Centre, on 10 July 2009. Presided over by Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan, it was attended by scholars of different hues and expectations. <b>No one suspected that Witzel with his claim to be a ranking Vedic scholar knew so little that he could not answer a single query. Indeed, he appeared blank as far as the Rgveda was concerned. He rose nervously to speak on the Veda, but actually spoke on the Aryan migration from Afghanistan to Punjab!</b>

The lecture merely reiterated what Prof. Witzel has written years ago: that north-western India was populated by Munda speaking people when Indo-Aryan speakers arrived on the scene. Old Indo-Aryan was influenced by the substrate Proto-Munda. He proposed a time bracket of 1500-1250 BC for composition of the Rgveda and suggested Book IV and Book VI were the oldest, advantage Book IV.

Witzel painted Rgvedic society as nomadic pastoralist, illiterate and with little interest in agriculture and sedentary life. <b>There was virtually nothing in his speech that was not lifted from nineteenth century archives. He showed no awareness of recent researches in archaeology, anthropology, literature or historical linguistics, and presented even Kuiper with his pathological distortions</b>.

Many archaeologists and professors of history attended the lecture, including your writer, Vedic scholar Bhagwan Singh. When the floor was thrown open for discussions, <b>Bhagwan Singh introduced himself as the author of The Vedic Harappans, and said that his data contradicted each and every statement made by Witzel; he sought permission to exchange notes on a few issues.</b> With the Chair’s permission, Singh said:

- You have reordered the Rgvedic strata, rating IV and VI to be the oldest and the rest belonging to intermediate and late stages. I have no objection to your sequence, but find your chronology miserably on the lower side. There is a reference to white pottery in one verse in Book IV (4.27.5). <b>White pottery is a distinctive feature of Hakra Ware dated to 3000 BC. This goes against your dating of 1500-1250 BC for the Rgveda.</b>

Witzel was dumbstruck. He murmured something inaudible, avoiding the audience, looking sideways. He tried to explain that the sequence arranged by him <b>was based on the number of verses in a book, the smallest being the oldest. It caused Kapila ji and others to smile openly. I could not make out the reason and reminded him that Book IV is shorter than Book VI; but the shortest book is Book II! So here again, he was caught on the wrong foot.</b>

He hesitantly managed, “There is no evidence of chariot or horse in India earlier than the mid-second millennium.”

- But Professor, the aśva in Rgveda, whatever could it have been, was brought from sea bound areas, even the aśva in the horse sacrifice, mentioned in Book I, hymn 163.

Prof. Witzel had no choice but to bite his lips in desperation.

- You say that the wheel and chariot were invented by Aryans when they were in Central Asia, but in the Book IV itself, Bhr.gus are given the credit for manufacturing wheels (4.16.20). <b>Chariot and wheel was therefore not Aryan, but a Dravidian invention.</b>

<b>Witzel pretended that the inventors might have been Aryans and manufacturers Dravidians! He now forgot the antiquity of Book IV, which according to his suggestion, could have been written in Central Asia, older even than Book VI, composed entirely in Northern Afghanistan; Dravidian speakers must have been there as well.</b>

- You talk of substrate effect of Proto-Munda and suggest no role of Proto-Dravidian at the early stage. But Kipper had concluded that three ethnic groups participated in a cultural process. The three are conspicuously present in the Rgveda, Bhr.gus Dravidian, Angirasas Mundari, besides the Sanskrit speakers.

Prof. Witzel mumbled something for a minute; his nervousness was apparent in his evasive gestures.

Kapila ji must have taken pity at his visible discomfort. She invited others to raise doubts, if they had any. Someone at the extreme end of the hall asked a question on the distorted reading of the Sankhyayan Śrautasutra, which had exposed his culpability half a decade back. <b>Witzel responded by referring to an article written by him, without telling us what his defence was!</b>

After a few worthless queries, the debate shrunk back to Michael Witzel, Kapila Vatsyayan, and Bhagwan Singh.


- <b>The problem with you, Professor, is that you are not familiar with the content of Book IV even. Hymn 57 of Book IV gives a graphic depiction of advanced agriculture, with a plough almost similar to the one that was common in India up to the mid-twentieth century, drawn by a pair of bullocks and driven by a ploughman in service. And in one of the Ŗics, the poet talks of milking the earth as a cow, year after year. It testifies to advanced agricultural activities with sedentary population and belies the myth of nomadism, pastoralism, and barbarity.</b>

The Chair could not hold her laughter; Witzel shook in dismay.

The last nail was hammered by Kapila ji herself. In a jocular vein, she said, “The theme of the lecture was Rgveda. Vedic poetry is known for its sublimity and rare beauty. I expected Prof. Witzel to speak something on it, but he did not say even a word on the theme.”

Witzel agreed that the Hymns on Uşā are really beautiful.

I interjected, “not only Uşā Sūktas professor, the entire Rgveda. Some of it could never be surpassed, such as the Nāsdīya Sūkta, with such expression as tama āsīt tamasā gūlhmagre, darkness was entrapped within darkness.

All in all, it was an interesting evening, if not for the presentation by Prof. Witzel, then for his discomfiture.

<i>Prof. Bhagwan Singh is a Marxist scholar who accepted the archaeological evidence against the theory of Aryan invasion of India </i>

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Michael Witzel
To: Sandhya Jain
Cc: Michael Witzel ; Madhavan Palat ; M R Venkatesh ; M D Srinivas ; Kuna Mohanty ; Krishen Kak ; Koenraad Elst ; Koenraad Elst ; Kamal Malhotra ; K G Suresh ; Panchjanya-Editor ; kalyan97@yahoo.com ; Padma & V Sundaram ; N S Rajaram ; Mukul Kanitkar ; Michel Danino ; Michael Witzel, Prof ; Michael Schwartz ; Maloy Krishna Dhar ; Mahesh Chandrashekaran
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:56 AM

Subject: Re: Michael Witzel: rattled rat at IIC-Bhagwan Singh-22 July 2009


What a nice fairy tale!  And, thanks for the kind words...

Bhagwan Singh should change his 'profession' and go on to write another modern Pancatantra/Hitopadesa, like "Haroon's Tales."


Virtually nothing that he has to say in his fantasized  write-up bears any similarity to what actually occurred.


But, I will not waste my time with this and similar imaginative and vivid "accounts" (such as those of Kalyanaraman, who was not present at *any* of my talks) as I know that whatever I say will be distorted to no end by "argumentative Indians"  (per Amartya Sen).


Have fun in your fantasy world!  Reality -- even in Indian politics ^<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> --  and of course serious scholarship do not take note of it.


Ity alam. No more comments to anybody.


Now back to my book on Early Indian History: you will have a lot of fun with it early next year...


MW

PS: Sandhya, where are your many long-promised write-ups on the CA schoolbook debacle? No trace of them. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Witzel, nice to hear from you. I have become more and more India and Hindu-centred, hence I am not too bothered about the rest of the world, except when it directly impacts us here. There is already more a body can handle on that score, so...

Pleased to know you are following me with interest, thanks.

As for your claims about the fairy tale - there are enough witnesses to the day, so don't press it too far. Your India trip would also have given you an idea of your true status intellectually and with the discerning public, so I don't imagine you or the likes of Wendy Doniger, James Laine, Clooney etc will be in a great hurry to come to India again.

Martha Nussbaum was rubbished by me when she came, and neither she or James Laine had the courtesy to acknowledge my columns on them.
I will say this - you are at least different in that respect (please forward this to them).

I am sorry I missed your Delhi talk, but I had labour repairing my roof and simply could not leave that day, otherwise I would have given my own take on the incident. But I would not try to shake the credibility of Dr Bhagwan Singh in India. Your JNU crowd and that foolish Mridula Mukerjee do not add up to his toe-nail.

Warm regards
Sandhya Jain

Editor
www.vijayvaani.com<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Jay Bhattacharjee <jay.bhattacharjee@>
Date: 2009/7/22
Subject: Witzel : You Need a Serious and Complete Make-Over - or 6 of the Best

To: witzel@fas.harvard.edu

Herr Professor (?) Michael Witzel
Harvard University
Cambridge (Mass)
USA


Witzel :                                                                      22 July 2009

Sandhya Jain was kind  enough to forward to me her recent exchange of  messages (E-Mails)  with you.

Normally, I do not wade into debates and dialogues between third parties. However, your scurrilous and intemperate letter to SJ has prompted me to write to you, although I find it most distasteful to write to persons of your level and mental make-up.

Sandhya is quite capable of engaging in a debate with you, but what upsets me is the offensive and gutter language you have used. You have the chutzpah to cast aspersions on other scholars who do not share your warped, distorted, perverted and concocted vision of Indian history and culture.

The problem, my boy, is that you are a contemporary version of an SS Schütze (broadly the equivalent of our Sepoy / Aircraftsman).

These chaps were the lowest echelons of that horrendous band of murderers and goons - their speciality was mass murder and mayhem. They are the ones who actually carried out the massacres and then pleaded "Ein Befehl ist ein Befehl"  ("A command  is a command") or some such piffle. I am sure your level and your intrinsic capabilities would not have enabled you to rise higher than this bottom-rung.. 

If you want to know more about  the principal contribution  of your fellow - Germans to world civilisation in the recent past, kindly read your Harvard colleague Daniel Goldhagen's seminal book "Hitler's Willing Executioners".  Professor Goldhagen has an infinitely better justification for being a Harvard professor than a crypto - Nazi like you. However, I will let that pass.

Why don't you crawl back underneath the woodwork from where you emerged and leave Indian civilisation and its roots to deserving scholars and researchers ?  While you are about to do your Stalingrad surrender act, why not take your desi henchmen and henchwomen with you ?  You are truly dégoûtant - there is no English equivalent that conveys the distaste that civilised people feel for characters like you. 

I am dismayed that a university founded by an ex-Cambridge man should allow poseurs and frauds like you to flourish and spread your venom from its portals.  You have recently had your derrière whipped in the California text-book case - why don't you take some rest and lick your wounds ?  Only a complete yahoo like you will claim that the CAPEEM judgement was in your favour. This is because your basic English comprehension and grasp are poor  - a German translation for you, perhaps ? That can be arranged.

I would strongly recommend some serious introspection on your part. The same goes for your desi acolytes.  A propos Smt. (Kumari)  Thapar, I had asked Malcolm Bowie, Professor of French Literary History and the former Master of my college (Christ's)  in 2003, whether it was possible for a person who knew no Greek and Latin to become a Professor of Ancient European History in any normal educational system in Europe and North America.

You can guess what his answer was. He wanted to know the context - when he was given the details, he was sad. The man was a genuine Indophile, unlike some others.

Just spare us your garbage and vinegar - I can suggest many areas of research in Germanic history that will occupy you and your Sancho Panza, Steve Farmer, for years. ( A caveat - the clown may not know your native tongue, but that should not be a problem for you lot).

Jay Bhattacharjee
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Och. That must have hurt. Maybe we should encourage Herr Witzel to frequent India more often so that poor guy can finally learn a bit.

[ramana]

X-posted....

Shravan posted....

<b>Witzel conference on Rigveda in Delhi a farce</b>

Witzel needs an introduction: Witzel calls himself a ‘well-known scientist’ in press releases about his trips. In fact, he is a church agent, more specifically from Dalit Freedom Network of Colorado church (proved in the CAPEEM california textbook trial).

Witzel has admitted that he and his cohorts were part of White Nationalist Church in USA and in contact with one or more of Fetna's members in the California textbook (Harvard Donkey Trial) matter, just as with many other Indians/NRIs and members of many other Indian organizations. FETNA is a front for LTTE. It is extraordinary that a Harvard academic should be associating with members of such an organization. FETNA in their letter of Feb. 19, 2006 to California State Board of Education wrote thanking Witzel for the efforts in proposing edits in pursuance of the Colorado evangelical church agenda, denigrating the hindu heritage to promote Japhetic biblical creationism theories and to achieve conversions of poor people dubbed 'dalits' by the church.

Here is Anoop’s report of July 19, 2009 on the meet at IIC, Delhi on July 10, 2009:

<b>[quote]</b>

I attended the session, and I feel it was not exactly a good experience for Witzel there at IIC.

<b>The main points are:</b>

Kapila Vatsyayan, who chaired the talk, stated many views which were indirectly aimed at Witzel and his designs.

Kapila Vatsyayan gave her opinion after the question hour by taking atleast 10 minutes (very lightly with her trade mark pleasing smile). The main points she made were:

1. Witzel and all of the academic community working on the AIT are concentrating mainly on comparitive mythology. If myths are dissected for the purpose of finding parallels between civilizations, and historical conclusions are drawn out of them, then myths cease to be 'myths'.

2. The main background of RgVeda is subjects like cosmology etc.(do not confuse the word cosmology with religion!!). Your studies never highlight that aspect. To create a voluminous text and start a revolution of intellectual work based on very tough subjects like cosmology, just imagination is not enough. We have to accept that. We should study how the Vedic people were able to work in such a higher intellectual plain which can't be seen anywhere else.

3. RgVeda is poetry of very high level. And such a high level poetry, and that too with a very difficult subject as its base, cannot be made by a people who do not have a good intellectual lineage and practice.

4. It is not acceptable that history is tried to be proved just by using comparative mythology, linguistics or one or two other streams. There should be a multi-disciplinary approach towards learning history.
And the most interesting point she made was:

5. Everyone of us recites the Vedas to Upanishads daily without thinking who made it or where it originated. Whether it belong to Mesopotamia, or Greece or India, it never matters much to us..jo research ho raha hai..hone do..we never care for that. Because we understand the reason why we are reciting it. So please take note of this when you do the research.

People including Devendra Swarup ji, and many others attended the programme.

I felt from the audience that the people in India (the fence sitters) have started a general dissatisfaction with the repeated promotion of the Invasion theory by these academics. Kapila ji's opinions were well enough to boost them.

<b>Anoop [unquote]</b>

He wrote on 19 July 2009, about his ‘conference’ in IIC, Delhi and Dr. Bhagwan Singh’s questions as follows: ‘…Nothing untoward happened, except that the infamous Hindutvavadin Bhagwan Singh (who has identified the Indus and the Vedic civilizations) refused to give his name in the question period. He did so only after the chair, Kapila Vatsyayana, had insisted 3 times. His aim: he wanted me to publicly revoke a one line sentence in an old, 1995 paper. I merely referred him to a paper of mine of 2001, end of discussion. -- This talk at the India International Centre was well attended by the general public. However I saw a watchman there too.’
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasia...h/message/12741
Now read on the exquisite report of Dr. Bhagwan Singh on Witzel’s pathetic plight in the IIC meet:

[quote]

Michael Witzel: rattled rat at IIC

Bhagwan Singh
22 July 2009

I was really sorry for Prof. Michael Witzel. After all, he was our honoured guest! Dr. Singh should not have pounced on him so mercilessly, playing the cat and the rat game – the cat looking ascetically resigned tossing the rat, the rat pretending to be dead, breathlessly looking from the corner of his eye to judge the cat’s next move, running for his life, only to be pounced upon and tossed up again. The Chair kept smiling all through at this plight of the powerful brainy Harvard Professor of Sanskrit!

Frankly, I enjoyed the wild play. Prof. Witzel was in a state of trauma: nervous, edgy, twitching his lips, dropping his eyelids recurrently, looking askance to avoid his interlocutor, constantly using his hanky to rub his nose, murmuring something inaudible to explain his errors, occasionally seeking help from his votaries who were present in good number, but more ignorant than their demi-god, and hence themselves dazed. Singh smiled all the way, his smile mischievous, eyes sadistically aglitter, untrue to his true nature, but true to the occasion.

Rgveda

The occasion was a lecture on the Rgveda by Prof. Michael Witzel, at the India International Centre, on 10 July 2009. Presided over by Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan, it was attended by scholars of different hues and expectations. No one suspected that Witzel with his claim to be a ranking Vedic scholar knew so little that he could not answer a single query. Indeed, he appeared blank as far as the Rgvedawas concerned. He rose nervously to speak on the Veda, but actually spoke on the Aryan migration from Afghanistan to Punjab!

The lecture merely reiterated what Prof. Witzel has written years ago: that north-western India was populated by Munda speaking people when Indo-Aryan speakers arrived on the scene. Old Indo-Aryan was influenced by the substrate Proto-Munda. He proposed a time bracket of 1500-1250 BC for composition of theRgveda and suggested Book IV and Book VI were the oldest, advantage Book IV.

Witzel painted Rgvedic society as nomadic pastoralist, illiterate and with little interest in agriculture and sedentary life. There was virtually nothing in his speech that was not lifted from nineteenth century archives. He showed no awareness of recent researches in archaeology, anthropology, literature or historical linguistics, and presented even Kuiper with his pathological distortions.

Many archaeologists and professors of history attended the lecture, including your writer, Vedic scholar Bhagwan Singh. When the floor was thrown open for discussions, Bhagwan Singh introduced himself as the author of The Vedic Harappans, and said that his data contradicted each and every statement made by Witzel; he sought permission to exchange notes on a few issues. With the Chair’s permission, Singh said:

- You have reordered the Rgvedic strata, rating IV and VI to be the oldest and the rest belonging to intermediate and late stages. I have no objection to your sequence, but find your chronology miserably on the lower side. There is a reference to white pottery in one verse in Book IV (4.27.5). White pottery is a distinctive feature of Hakra Ware dated to 3000 BC. This goes against your dating of 1500-1250 BC for the Rgveda.

Witzel was dumbstruck. He murmured something inaudible, avoiding the audience, looking sideways. He tried to explain that the sequence arranged by him was based on the number of verses in a book, the smallest being the oldest. It caused Kapila ji and others to smile openly. I could not make out the reason and reminded him that Book IV is shorter than Book VI; but the shortest book is Book II! So here again, he was caught on the wrong foot.

He hesitantly managed, “There is no evidence of chariot or horse in India earlier than the mid-second millennium.”

- But Professor, the aśva in Rgveda, whatever could it have been, was brought from sea bound areas, even the aśva in the horse sacrifice, mentioned in Book I, hymn 163.

Prof. Witzel had no choice but to bite his lips in desperation.

- You say that the wheel and chariot were invented by Aryans when they were in Central Asia, but in the Book IV itself, Bhr.gus are given the credit for manufacturing wheels (4.16.20). Chariot and wheel was therefore not Aryan, but a Dravidian invention.

Witzel pretended that the inventors might have been Aryans and manufacturers Dravidians! He now forgot the antiquity of Book IV, which according to his suggestion, could have been written in Central Asia, older even than Book VI, composed entirely in Northern Afghanistan; Dravidian speakers must have been there as well.

- You talk of substrate effect of Proto-Munda and suggest no role of Proto-Dravidian at the early stage. But Kipper had concluded that three ethnic groups participated in a cultural process. The three are conspicuously present in the Rgveda, Bhr.gus Dravidian, Angirasas Mundari, besides the Sanskrit speakers.

Prof. Witzel mumbled something for a minute; his nervousness was apparent in his evasive gestures.

Kapila ji must have taken pity at his visible discomfort. She invited others to raise doubts, if they had any. Someone at the extreme end of the hall asked a question on the distorted reading of the Sankhyayan Śrautasutra, which had exposed his culpability half a decade back. Witzel responded by referring to an article written by him, without telling us what his defence was!

After a few worthless queries, the debate shrunk back to Michael Witzel, Kapila Vatsyayan, and Bhagwan Singh.

- The problem with you, Professor, is that you are not familiar with the content of Book IV even. Hymn 57 of Book IV gives a graphic depiction of advanced agriculture, with a plough almost similar to the one that was common in India up to the mid-twentieth century, drawn by a pair of bullocks and driven by a ploughman in service. And in one of the Ŗics, the poet talks of milking the earth as a cow, year after year. It testifies to advanced agricultural activities with sedentary population and belies the myth of nomadism, pastoralism, and barbarity.

The Chair could not hold her laughter; Witzel shook in dismay.

The last nail was hammered by Kapila ji herself. In a jocular vein, she said, “The theme of the lecture was Rgveda. Vedic poetry is known for its sublimity and rare beauty. I expected Prof. Witzel to speak something on it, but he did not say even a word on the theme.”

Witzel agreed that the Hymns on Uşā are really beautiful.

I interjected, “not only Uşā Sūktas professor, the entire Rgveda. Some of it could never be surpassed, such as the Nāsdīya Sūkta, with such expression as tama āsīt tamasā gūlhmagre, darkness was entrapped within darkness.

All in all, it was an interesting evening, if not for the presentation by Prof. Witzel, then for his discomfiture.

Prof. Bhagwan Singh is a Marxist scholar who accepted the archaeological evidence against the theory of Aryan invasion of India

Kapila Vatsayan is a national treasure. Hope she will stay on in the Rajya Sabha and enhance it with her grace.

[Guest]

HARVARD PROFESSOR WITZEL'S FOLLIES
by Dr. Seshachalam Dutta

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 27 2009, 10:31 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 27 2009, 10:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->HARVARD PROFESSOR WITZEL'S FOLLIES
by Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
[right][snapback]99989[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

HERE IS MY LETTER TO kAPILA JI WRITTERN ON jULY 8 PRIOR TOTHE icici MTG

Dear Dr. Vatsyayan, I was shocked to hear that you are chairing the session with Prof Michael Witzel as speaker , on July 10 at the IIC. This is the man who mocked Indian parents in America who encouraged their daughters to learn Indian dance, with offensive remarks on their status as temple dancers in ancient India. But that is the least of the negative things that can be said about him. I have never heard him say a good word about Hinduism or any Hindu for that matter.
Why on earth would you want to honor this man by your presence .
Please reconsider your decision as i am convinced this would be a major blunder on your part. I am attaching a dossier on Witzel that has been compiled by the indian american community.

Let me assure you that this has nothing to do with being a Hindutva. This individual is not only ignorant about our traditions , but is imbued with a high degree of contempt for all Hindus. Pl. do not do this i implore you,
With regards

Kosla Vepa

wwELL THE NET RESULT OF ALL OF THIS, IS THAt Kapila ji , while not acceding to my request was sufficienty harsh on him to make the debate a meaningful one despite Herr Witzel's faux pas . The net of all of this is to create an atmosphere that is he will . am enclosing the letter i wrote about his shenanigans.


Dossier on Witzel
Cancel Spinner_small

* Download
* Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
* Plain Text (.txt)
*
* Print
*
*
* Fullscreen
* Edit
*
* Delete

Ipaper_share_embed_24hr_2


View Mode
Zoom

1 / 27




Close

Read in classic mode
We've highlighted your search query ''. Click here to turn off highlighting.
You've turned off search term highlighting. Turn highlighting back on.
KoslaVepa

by KoslaVepa

21 Followers
Down_arrowMore from this Publisher

* A Column on TOLERANCE and Its Role in a Fu...
51 views
* Dossier on Witzel
284 views
* How did the Milky Way Galaxy get its name
480 views
* Pictures of Earth
17028 views
* Selections from Resources for Historical ...
271 views
* Annotated excerpt from MAx Mueller's Hist...
333 views
* Why History is Important
500 views
* RULERS OF THE UPPER INDUS VALLEY CIVILISA...
404 views
* Stone - Work, Art, Architecture, Style and...
1150 views
* Identification of Historical Dates From Pu...
353 views
* Some facts about Varahamihira
388 views
* Yavanas Are Not Greeks
300 views
* proc15
278 views
* Philosophy and Motivations of ICIH 2009
198 views
* The Hymns of Dirghatamas in the Rig Veda ...
461 views
* Bhu Dev SHARMA - Origins of Math in Vedas
547 views
* Ancient indian Mathematics and Astronomy b...
577 views
* The interconnectioon b etweeen Mudras , He...
468 views
* Proposed skeleton of Chronology of the In...
338 views
* The Historicity of Vikramaditya and Saliva...
445 views
* B.B. Lal Distortions in Indian history
368 views
* Tilting at Windmills
159 views
* Chairman's Address at ICIH2009 by Prof Sh...
221 views
* Apropos of Wilfred Skawen Blunt
114 views
* Kosla Vepa PhD
187 views

Side_arrowMore from this Publisher
Down_arrow Related Documents

* witzel3pages
31 reads
* knowwitzel
49 reads
* CAPEEM - Witzel Deposition
189 reads

Side_arrow Related Documents

* Stats
* Views

Value This
Doc Scribd
Average

Pages: 27 43
Words: 15240 13640
Characters: 99452 81678
Lines: 332 623


Letters per word: 6.53 5.99
Words per line: 45.9 21.89
Words per page: 564.44 317.21
Document Information

You just added this document to your favorites.
X
Flag This Document

Please select the reason(s) for reporting this document
Spam or junk
Porn adult content
Hateful or offensive

Cancel

If you are the copyright owner of this document and want to report it, please follow these directions to submit a copyright infringement notice.

* Add to Favorites Unadd to Favorites
* I Like This Unlike This

293 Reads | 26 Downloads | 2 Likes | 0 Comments | 0 Favorites
Added By
Kosal_in_yosemite_thumbnail

KoslaVepa (27,728)
Description Pencil

It is an annoying habit of Prof Witzel of dismissing any inconvenient statement with a wave of his hand, that makes his participation in discussion devoid of any redeeming value

For instance I am aghast that a putative scholar would make the broad stereotyping inherent in a statement of the type

"there are many canards and there is much misinformation on this list. Not to speak of absolute fantasy with regard to dates that are in fact interconnecting worldwide (Near East/Greece, China), but that are artificially made older by nationalists here."

His use of the word canard implies malice , but where does malice come in when we are talking about our own history. His standard riposte is that these statements are made by nationalists. I ask this for the umpteenth time what is wrong with being a nationalist. Winston Churchill was a staunch British nationalist throughout his long career and certainly would not have objected to such an appellation when he wrote the history of the English speaking peoples , but few would ignore what he says because he is a nationalist. The same remarks can be made with respect to Charles de Gaulle or Bismarck or Matternich or Talleyrond . So the real crime here is not that the people making these statements are nationalists, but the real crime according to Herr Prof Witzel is that they are Hindu nationalists, which he often subsumes under the term Hindutva. A few years ago I daresay he would not have known the difference between a Hottentot and a Hindutva even if his life depended on it. But he has latched on to the domestic discourse on this topic and that a section of the Indian public considers the use of the word Hindutva as pejorative and has used the word in a very derisive comment on the conference that i organized in Delhi during January 2009 , and in many other instances. He doesn't seem to understand that this an issue of domestic politics and that it really does not concern him , in his role as a a putative scholar, and that this broad stereotyping of people into narrow political boxes is an insult to a Hindu who values his individuality . A human being is a multifaceted entity and any attempt to reduce the dimensionality of a human being can truly be termed as a highly bigoted and racist endeavor , that usually results in categorizing humanity into simplistic, reductionist but erroneous categories, as a prelude to demonizing them. So I request Prof Witzel to refrain from ad hominem remarks and restrict himself to what is wrong with the arguments. If he does not have the time to do that , he seems to be implying that such arguments are complex and cannot be dismissed in a jiffy with a wave of one’s hand. The issue is not one of being a Hindutva but whether one is competent in the field of endeavor. Prof Witzel rarely make the attempt to establish the lack of competency of those who challenge him, while his own competency to make such statements remain severely under duress.

I am posting this response in my blog, sinc the moderators of the Indo Euerasian yahoo group will not afford me the right of rebuttal at their site. What are they afraid of ?
It is interesting that the notion that 6 people with a science background should turn their attention to history in a land of 1 billion , should be a cause for such derisiveness and scorn on the part of the Professor of Sanskrit from Harvard

Apparently it is not permitted for even 6 people out of a billion , over a sixty year period to claim some degree of scholarship in the field after spending their lifetime studying it. So much so that, even when such a low number as 6*10**-9 is involved, ( a number that will not register as a statistically significant quantity and is below the 6 Sigma number used by engineers to define a process with an incidence of errors that is for all practical purposes, is equal to 0), Prof Witzel feels compelled to remark that it is just a hop step and a jump away from saying anybody can become a historian. He also ignores the fact that each of the six brings impressive credentials to the task, and that if anything such a small number in fact indicates how hard it is to be taken seriously as a Historian of India, especially if one is not an Occidental

The more important point to make is that if we use Prof Witzel’s criterion almost every occidental historian (and philologist of India in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century) should have disqualified himself, from writing or commenting on India. Almost all the original sanskritists were self taught, with very little independent verification of their credentials. That includes Franz Bopp and Bernouff. Max Mueller never got his PhD degree( it is in fact doubtful whether he completed the course requirements for a Masters) and his ability to converse or understand a single sentence of spoken Sanskrit was abysmal. One suspects he never went to India, and subject himself to a debate with a Sanskrit pundit because he knew that the resulting ignominy would expose him for what he truly was , a charlatan claiming expertise in a language, in which his mastery was sophomoric at best. In fact it was Schopenauer who had the perspicacity to say that the much vaunted sanskrit knowledge of these so called Sanskritists was worse than the knowledge of a high school graduate in Latin.
It is the civilizational historians like Arnold Toynbee and Will Durant that have taken the contrarian viewpoint. The rest have been content to make the assumption that The European is naturally superior and therefore everything he says should be accepted without questioning. The entire dialog between India and the occident has been one long circular argument, where Michael Witzel of Harvard maintains that i do not have the right to be taken seriously because I am a Hindutva. There are several assumptions that are implicit in such a stereotyping

1. I am a member of an unspeakably evil or senseless group of people called Hindutva, every member of which is beyond the pale of human civilization, simply because he is a Hindutva
2. That therefore. I forfeit the right to have an informed opinion.
3. That No Indian has the right to become a historian unless he is anointed as such by an occidental and that conversely every Occidental has the right to call himself a historian of India , simply because he spends a couple of years in the subcontinent. Most British Historians of India have had no formal training in History much less Indian History. No occidental has challenged the credentials of the host of British and occidental writers from Sir James Mills to Sir William Jones ,Vincent Smith,Sir Penderel Moon or Frank Pargiter, none of whom were Professional historians but the very same Occidental has the absolute hubris to judge whether I possess the credential to write about my own civilization

Alas, I am challenged more frequently by Indians than I am by Occidentals , who (the Indics) are horrifed that i dare to question the conventional wisdom as propounded by a member of the conquering race .
--- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com, Michael Witzel wrote:
>
> For your weekend amusement, though the repeated insistence on
> "rewriting" of Indian history is really ... boring:
>
> See:
> "US-based engineer turned historian, Dr Vepa" says it all...
>
> Like our long time friends mathematician Rajaram, bank employees Dr.
> K. and Talageri, electric engineering Prof. S. Kak, medical
> technician V. Agarwal (M.Sc.), astrologers like David Fawley
> ("Vamedeva") etc. etc. Likewise, K. Vepa: he has a PhD of the
> University of Waterloo in Engineering Sciences & applied mechanics,
> studied there 1968 � 1972.
>
> *Anybody* in the Indian orbit can turn historian overnight, at the
> drop of a hat.
> Preferably, after retirement...
>
> Yesterday a conference on this topic has begun in Delhi:
> 39258>
>
> tiny URL:
>
> Interestingly, even IER/Westerner-baiter Sandhya Jain (rabid
> columnist in the chauvinistic paper, the Organizer), had to comment:
> "NONE of the persons mentioned is a historian!"
>
> Sure, it is a *political* event that she should actually welcome :^)
>
> ----------
> Quote :
>
>
> International meet on Indian history
>

[ramana]

Are you back?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Aug 6 2009, 11:49 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 6 2009, 11:49 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you back?
[right][snapback]100173[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes, I returned yesterday