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 Indiaâs 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 âHindutvaâ 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 âHindutvaâ propagandists?
Question 4: In a 1995 paper, you wrote: âThe first appearance of [the invading Aryansâ] 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.â [*1] That is exactly the colonial paradigm of the invasion theory in all its military splendour. Yet in 2001, you wrote, âWhy, then, should all immigration, or even mere transhumance trickling in, be excluded in the single case of the Indo-Aryans ⦠? Just one âAfghanâ 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 âstatus kitâ ⦠to its neighbors.â [*2] It is the complete absence of archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence for the âhardâ version of the Aryan invasion which forced you to dilute it to a mere âtrickling inâ? 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, âEarly Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres,â 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, âAutochthonous Aryans ? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Textsâ, 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, âRgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities,â 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, âTracing the Vedic Dialectsâ. In Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes, Publications de lâInstitut de civilisation indienne, Série in-8, Fascicule 55, ed. by C. Caillat (Diffusion de Boccard: Paris 1989).
[*5] - Romila Thaparâs lecture titled âThe Aryan Question Revisitedâ, 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/
âCalifornia Text Bookâ 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.
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 âHindutvaâ 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 âHindutvaâ propagandists?
Question 4: In a 1995 paper, you wrote: âThe first appearance of [the invading Aryansâ] 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.â [*1] That is exactly the colonial paradigm of the invasion theory in all its military splendour. Yet in 2001, you wrote, âWhy, then, should all immigration, or even mere transhumance trickling in, be excluded in the single case of the Indo-Aryans ⦠? Just one âAfghanâ 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 âstatus kitâ ⦠to its neighbors.â [*2] It is the complete absence of archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence for the âhardâ version of the Aryan invasion which forced you to dilute it to a mere âtrickling inâ? 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, âEarly Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres,â 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, âAutochthonous Aryans ? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Textsâ, 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, âRgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities,â 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, âTracing the Vedic Dialectsâ. In Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes, Publications de lâInstitut de civilisation indienne, Série in-8, Fascicule 55, ed. by C. Caillat (Diffusion de Boccard: Paris 1989).
[*5] - Romila Thaparâs lecture titled âThe Aryan Question Revisitedâ, 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/
âCalifornia Text Bookâ 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.