Kumar claims Shourie is a propagandist and then compares him with a leader of a terrorist organization. Yet till date he has not given a single evidence for his claims. When asked for specifics, he employs diversions – long lectures on how scholarship is practiced worldwide, details about peer review, how history is a very vast subject and assorted blah blahs about repute, recognition awards etc. When making an allegation – he is very specific but when asked for proof he starts stating truisms like mother’s milk is good for the baby. After all this, it is really tiresome to hear sermons on importance of ‘evidence’, peer review and scholarly approach. But what integrity can you expect from liberals who attack authors without reading their work!

>>I ask something specific using....

Oops. I should have said "Pitambar asks something specific...". I was writing on the Guha article thread and copied the passage. Sorry.

>> 1. What is AIT? Is it true or false?
>> 2. Did Islamic rulers in India destroy many Hindu temples?

>>>What is AIT/AMT etc, you can search and read it on internet. Whether it is 'true' or 'false', what are the evidences, what is the level of confidence with which we can assert one way or their other etc should be left to the historians/scientists to debate and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Same is the case with things like destruction of Hindu temples, inquisition, dalit atrocities etc.

Pitambar's point is proven. You never admit being wrong. You also do not admit ignorance or lack of confidence.

You dare not answer the questions with your own findings. You use dust-in-the-eyes verbiage to hide your lack of confidence. You can do all the things you have said above, instead of leaving it to your beloved best historians, and to your debate opponents! Now you'll say, "You please show it to me". Then you'll repeat more such phrases. Easy work, eh? You should study this character.

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-01-16/
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-01-08/
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-01-07/

>>>> 3. Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?

>>That’s like asking did scientists ever go wrong. Of course they do go wrong.

See how you play with words. I ask something specific using specific words and you use other words to colour them honest. You dare not answer the question.

>> 4. Who are the respectable, best class historians/ scientists? Please give names.
>> 5. Who are the rabble-rousing historians? What are instances of rabble-rousing?

>>Well, you yourself can go through the resumes, number of PHds, number of international awards, critical acclaim >>received by peers
.
Why don't you do it? It is too much of work. Or you are not capable of it?

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-12-18/

>> Well, you yourself can go through the resumes, number of PHds, number of international awards, critical acclaim received by peers worldwide etc.

That is a place to start. However, ultimately, the quality of a work has to be determined based on the work itself; the evidence it is based on, coherence of though and logic that leads to the stated conclusions. It doesn't matter if the author(s) have no degrees. The so called reputation is worthless if it doesn't meet the basic tests of evidence and logic.

And of course, those who have been caught plagiarizing, have no reputation to speak of, at least not the good type. You of course, shall refuse to acknowledge that.

>>>>Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?

>> That’s like asking did scientists ever go wrong.

No, it is not. And the above statement shows that you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

>> History is not about AIT/AMT alone.

Nor is this discussion. This was just an example of the blatant disregard of the scholarly principles you rant about, but refuse to accept in practice.

And of course, you won't answer that why should people, who object to Goan inquisition or instances of temple destruction/forced conversion to be included in books on religious grounds, be not called communalists/Jihadists/fascists, if people opposing inclusion of Vedic people eating beef etc. can be called communal/Sanghi etc.

>> Well, one of the points should be to not stack panels with experts from one field, or one organization. There shall be too many yes men/women

I agree. So it is not about an individual or even one organization. It has to be about the worldwide community of mainstream scholars/researchers/scientists/historians. In the panels, the more the diversity the better (as long as they are well-renowned/well-respected worldwide).

>> Have they been taken to task for peddling AIT all these years?
>> That they dared to speak the truth, which was inconvenient to the bosses at ICHR, does not make them wrong or less scholarly ..

History is not about AIT/AMT alone. That is not where we begin. We begin by identifying the best from their resumes, their work, international awards, acclaim etc. Within that framework, a diversity of left/right/center/human rights activists/women’s activists/dalit activists etc is good. As long as we agree to this principle, and assert it repeatedly, all other aberrations are short term. It only gets better and better (as long the principle is affirmed by all). Looking at the resumes, people can judge who are the best in the field. So, that brings a natural pressure on part of govts (if the govt of the day publicly affirms the above stated principle) to choose only the best of worldwide mainstream reputation who present themselves to be reviewed and answerable to the scholarly community.

>> 1. What is AIT? Is it true or false?
>> 2. Did Islamic rulers in India destroy many Hindu temples?

What is AIT/AMT etc, you can search and read it on internet. Whether it is 'true' or 'false', what are the evidences, what is the level of confidence with which we can assert one way or their other etc should be left to the historians/scientists to debate and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Same is the case with things like destruction of Hindu temples, inquisition, dalit atrocities etc. There is no point in getting overtly emotional.

>> 3. Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?

That’s like asking did scientists ever go wrong. Of course they do go wrong. But the best available means we have to know truth is for the world-wide scholars/researchers publish their work and critically review, debate and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

>> 4. Who are the respectable, best class historians/ scientists? Please give names.
>> 5. Who are the rabble-rousing historians? What are instances of rabble-rousing?

Well, you yourself can go through the resumes, number of PHds, number of international awards, critical acclaim received by peers worldwide etc. You can prepare such a list and rank them if you are interested in the specifics (you can post such a list here). Rabble rousers are those whose are part of the mainstream, and whose interest in history is not beyond religious sentiments and convenience (they cant even think beyond two or three issues like AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc- that is all their interest is). Once you produce the list mentioned above, you will get the answers.

>> Such people anyway get their work published/reviewed/challenged/questioned etc as part of a mainstream process and are answerable to the scholarly community.

Some of these 'eminent historians' have published plagiarized work (a word by word copy) for their thesis, and have been approvingly quoted by other 'eminent historians'. So much for being answerable to the scholarly community. Their main qualification is being secular. That's the source of their eminence.

>> If any of them have a problem with weighing evidence etc, they will lose their reputation and their world-wide peers will take them to task.

You have too much faith in them, and I don't understand why? Have they been taken to task for peddling AIT all these years? If no, why not?

And by that token, the Sanghi historians need to be taken to task on the basis of the evidence they have provided, and the conclusions drawn from them. Why is there a different yardstick there, and branding them Sanghi, a supposed proof of the lack of their scholarship.

>> Did the entire community of world-wide scholars said that some book is a bad book?

Nope. Only some idiots, who didn't know anything about the topic the book discussed. However, as blue blooded seculars and liberals, they felt it was their duty to criticize something that painted Muslim rulers in bad light, even if it said the truth.

>> You have not suggested any better way of identifying the best of class scientists/historians who can be part of expert panels, whose scholarship/research can be respected etc.

Well, one of the points should be to not stack panels with experts from one field, or one organization. There shall be too many yes men/women; people who are beholden to each other; people who have scratched each other's back in the past, and are likely to do so in future; people who have joined together to manipulate the system in a systemic loot of public funds; such a group should not form a panel.

So cabals from JNU, AMU, ICHR etc. should not form the entire, or even majority of panels. Experts from unrelated fields, who are not related to other panelists, and are not likely to work together much again, should be brought in. This shall ensure more fairness.

>> If it is only one or two biased people who called it a bad book, then the authors don’t even have to worry/bother.

Who said the authors bother about them. Exposing them for the scoundrels that they are, is a good thing though.

>> that does not mean that we replace the best of class scientists/historians etc that are available with some rabble rouser rhetoricians who just happen to be emotional about AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc.

It also does not mean that we tar scholarly work and the people behind it as 'rabble rouser rhetoricians who just happen to be emotional about AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc.', just because the facts they have presented are not to our liking. Some of the people so tarred have a long and proven track record, and international standing. That they dared to speak the truth, which was inconvenient to the bosses at ICHR, does not make them wrong or less scholarly. Their work has been appreciated by other scholars around the world, and has stood the test of evidence and logic.

>> Where one differs, there are numerous avenues and means to express/educate/propagate/publicize a different view if one has a sound basis.

What are these? Calling them Sanghi, or presenting evidence?

Kumar,

I've noticed that you never admit that you are wrong. In general, it is useless to debate you. However, it gives others opportunities to learn from the debate.

Answer the following questions.
1. What is AIT? Is it true or false?
2. Did Islamic rulers in India destroy many Hindu temples?
3. Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?
4. Who are the respectable, best class historians/ scientists? Please give names.
5. Who are the rabble-rousing historians? What are instances of rabble-rousing?

Regards.

Pitambar,

>> >> Scientist puts forth thesis and provides evidence/reason/arguments. Thesis is open for review/challenge by others. If someone comes up with better thesis, that will gain acceptance in the scholarly community. Gradually a consensus is built on strength of arguments/reasons/evidence etc. As long as scientist is contributing to the debate in a useful manner and is willing to listen to be based on evidence/facts and their methods are as per generally agreed norms in the community, they will be respected."

>> Sounds logical, reasonable and sane, does'nt it?

You have not suggested any better way of identifying the best of class scientists/historians who can be part of expert panels, whose scholarship/research can be respected etc.

>> Did the eminent historians use this method? Then how did they invent the AIT and modify it to AMT?
>> ... Philology is a tool of uncertain provenance and its conclusions are highly debatable. Aryan invasion/migration are hypothesis emerging basically from philology - hence open to debate ...

Now, history is a vast subject and not about AIT/AMT alone. Even if some of the things like AIT/AMT are debatable and you do not like the wording used to describe them etc (it is a given that some aspects of proclaimed history is based on probablistic considerations), that does not mean that we replace the best of class scientists/historians etc that are available with some rabble rouser rhetoricians who just happen to be emotional about AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc. I am not saying that everything that scholars say should be accepted. Where one differs, there are numerous avenues and means to express/educate/propagate/publicize a different view if one has a sound basis.

>> I'd say he unquestioningly bows to existing authority, like students who respect authorized scriptures

There is no question of unquestioningly bowing to any ‘authority’. Willingness to weigh evidences as they emerge and willing to base positions based on evidences is the most basic qualification of any truth-seeker – leave alone, a scholar.

>>Scientists are an in-group too. They resist out-groups like any other sect. The "generally accepted norms" is actually a set of beliefs.

Scientists can be fooled. They can establish consensus, publish results, generally be accepted and still be wrong. They can even be ideologues posing as experts, committed to wrong beliefs, like superior/inferior races etc.

1. In 1973, David Rosenhan conducted an experiment on 12 psychiatry hospitals in the US. Volunteers posed as patients with hallucinations and gained admission to hospitals. They were diagnosed with variosu disorders. The "patients" then acted normal told the hospital staff that they had no hallucinations. They were disbielieved. Hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, and instead believed that all of the pseudopatients exhibited symptoms of ongoing mental illness. Several were confined for months. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release.

In a related experiment, hospital staff were told to detect fake patients. They falsely identified genuine patients as fake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

2. In 1996, Sokal submitted the paper to the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text, as an experiment to see if the journal would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." The paper, titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[2] argued that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct, and was published in the Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue of Social Text. On the day of the paper's publication, Sokal announced in another publication, Lingua Franca, that the article was a hoax, calling his paper "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense", which was "structured around the silliest quotations [he] could find about mathematics and physics" made by postmodernist academics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal's_Hoax

3. In the 1800s the American physician Samuel A. Cartwright had stumbled upon drapetomania, the explanation for why slaves would on occasion display an alarming tendency to run away from their masters. A further disorder afflicting slaves and, by extension, their owners was dysaethesia aethiopica, a disease "affecting both mind and body." This explained the apparent lack of a proper work ethic among slaves. Found exclusively among blacks, dysaethesia aethiopica — "called by overseers 'rascality'" — was characterized by partial insensitivity of the skin and "so great a hebetude of the intellectual faculties, as to be like a person half asleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

The lesson - beware of experts, even if a majority in society accepts them as such. Now, that is really the hallmark of a truth-seeker.

"Scientist puts forth thesis and provides evidence/reason/arguments. Thesis is open for review/challenge by others. If someone comes up with better thesis, that will gain acceptance in the scholarly community. Gradually a consensus is built on strength of arguments/reasons/evidence etc. As long as scientist is contributing to the debate in a useful manner and is willing to listen to be based on evidence/facts and their methods are as per generally agreed norms in the community, they will be respected."

Sounds logical, reasonable and sane, does'nt it?

Scientists are an in-group too. They resist out-groups like any other sect. The "generally accepted norms" is actually a set of beliefs. The meta-system of these beliefs was specified by Francis Bacon.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Historians are another in-group, who claim that they are scientists. They however do not do experiments, reproduce results and let other historians verify the experiments. They collect data and interpret it, according to prevailing set of beliefs AMONG PEERS. They do not seek views of people outside the peer group.

Question: Did the eminent historians use this method? Then how did they invent the AIT and modify it to AMT?
Answer: AIT was formulated in the early 1800s by Rene Dubois and Max Mueller on the basis of a biblical reading of history ("world created in 4000 BC etc). Sir Mortimer Wheeler reiterated it in the 1930s after the excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. He was specifically brought to India to build this theory - Aryans invaded an existing superior civilization and destroyed it. Dravidians moved south after this. The science part of it was mostly philology, language comparisons and (false) identification of a race with languages. Thus, Aryan and Dravidian languages. That Arya meant "Noble" and "Dravida" meant "south of the vindhyas" was ignored. This was intended by the British to tell us subjects that India that "we" were invaders too, and therefore they had a right to invade and rule us. This school of thought was massively patronised by the Raj. The Justice party in TN was built on this basis by EVR, who hailed the British as liberators from Aryans.

Now we see that this was a wrong basis to construct a theory because:

1. There is no archeological attestation of aryan invasion/migration in spite of more than a hundred years of archeological effort.
2. There is no traditional memory or mention of aryan invasion/migration/intrusion in any of all the diverse historical traditions of India.
3. There is no genetic trace of foreigners to attest to such a historical mixing. If at all Indian genotypes not only closer to each other but substantially more diverse and much older than European or middle eastern genotypes - therefore suggesting a reverse migration. After Africa the most ancient and diverse population happens to be that of India. In essence most other non-African people descended from prehistoric Indians.
4. Philology is a tool of uncertain provenance and its conclusions are highly debatable. Aryan invasion/migration are hypothesis emerging basically from philology - hence open to debate.
5. Development of historical theories on ancient India through more accurate means (archeology & traditional history) rather than philology points to the indegenity and antiquity of Indians.
6. Self references in many ancient Indian texts points to indegenity of Indians in a time-scale far older than those proposed by Aryan Invasion theory.
7. In ancient Indian texts Arya means 'noble of conduct and character' rather than a race. If the oldest texts negate Aryan being a race - the idea of Aryan being a race of people can be traced to the rise of British imperialism and German nationalism - both historically discredited and defunct ideologies.
8. Geology (mapping of the old Saraswati), archeo-metallurgy (iron working in ancient india), archeo-agriculture (maize, rice farming) etc points to a far greater antiquity of ancient Indians (which does not agree with Aryan Invasion Theory).
9. Archeo-astronomy, archeo-mathematics, hydronomy (river names) seem to corraborate ancient indian texts on thier antiquity and claims of indigenity.
10. Study of ancient Indian history has been held hostage to various extraneous constraints notably - eurocentricism, communism, various kinds of religious and regional chauvinism, and hence must be discarded and a new framework developed.

These facts have been known for more than 20-30 years. Yet, there was no change in the peer-review, world-wide community-respected ICHR historians. There was no change in the text books. There was no acknowledgement that AIT was not proved, it was controversial, there were opposing schools of thought etc. The eminent historians just took up and maintained this theory without taking contradictory evidence GALORE into their considerations. Why?

That was their purpose, their agenda. ICHR was filled with such people by Nurul Hassan and the rest of the HRD ministers. If their pet theories were thrown out, they would be discredited. So they fought for AIT with all resources at their command. Thus, the neat "scolarly, scientific, peer-reviewed, respected" picture is actually full of careerism, ideology and politics. And the ideology was bequeathed to them by the Raj.

See the history and politics of the AIT debate.

http://koenraadelst....d/aryanpolitics.html

AIT has been opposed by rival thinkers since 1875 atleast (Dayanand Saraswathi). Yet this opposition was never visible in our ICHR history. Is it not the job of historians to RECORD the HISTORY of OPPOSITION to their theories?

Question: How did the eminent historians deal with the documented evidence of islam's desruction of Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries.
Answer: By Ignoring it.

Read how Sita Ram Goel was ignored when he started publishing his writings on communism since 1953, and on Hinduism since 1981.

http://koenraadelst....ism/sitaramgoel.html

After all this, if some one considers them scholarly and objective scientists, I'd say he unquestioningly bows to existing authority, like students who respect authorized scriptures.

>> If someone is shown to deliberately pursue a theory, even after it has been discredited, such a person should be kicked out, irrespective of reputation
>> If people don't agree with the ideological orientation of the books, they can demand a change

Well, yes. As long as the world-renowned best of class panel of scientists/historians are deployed for the task, we should be ok. Such people anyway get their work published/reviewed/challenged/questioned etc as part of a mainstream process and are answerable to the scholarly community. If any of them have a problem with weighing evidence etc, they will lose their reputation and their world-wide peers will take them to task. So, there is that inbuilt process of correction as long as one is in the framework mainstream scholarship/research. Whether they are labeled as commie or a sanghi or dalit activist or whatever, as long as the entire panel is working in that framework of mainstream scholarship, that should be fine – even the debates in that frame work are business as usual and in fact healthy and that is the way it should be.

>> Their response, 'It's a very bad book'!

Did the entire community of world-wide scholars said that some book is a bad book? Why would they say so, if there is merit in the scholarship/methodology/research? There must be some honest people around who can rise above personal beliefs etc and appreciate a good academic work? If it is only one or two biased people who called it a bad book, then the authors don’t even have to worry/bother.

>> In the seventies, the commie historians quoted him in their works. But during the Ayodhya debate, he did not toe their line and expressed his independent opinion-and immediately he was branded a sanghi.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a Sanghi, evidence by damned.

"And what makes you think that people under BJP's dispensation were not reputable"

Great point. A classic example is BBLal-a man respected by everyone in the field of archeology. In the seventies, the commie historians quoted him in their works. But during the Ayodhya debate, he did not toe their line and expressed his independent opinion-and immediately he was branded a sanghi.

>> That is fine (and business as usual) as long as...

Agree with a few caveats.

1. If someone is shown to deliberately pursue a theory, even after it has been discredited, such a person should be kicked out, irrespective of reputation.
2. If people don't agree with the ideological orientation of the books, they can demand a change; e.g., if all books from 6th to 12th contain long, engaging chapters about Nehru, but make cursory mention of Sardar Patel, if at all, people can demand change in them.

And what makes you think that people under BJP's dispensation were not reputable. The NCERT director appointed by the NDA govt was a reputed scholar, and was even chosen for an award by UNESCO. However, the secular crowd didn't like this fact. When they came to power, they instituted some spurious inquiry against him, results of which never came out. However, they used the excuse of that to deny him his award.

>> If such scholars (who do not bring in issues like religious sentiments etc) have differences of opinion it is purely an academic exercise

Sure. By the same token, others should not bring in religious sentiments when Goan inquisition, or demolition of Hindu temples is discussed. The work should be peer reviewed on the basis of scholarship and evidence, instead of calumny and shrill noises. Unfortunately, we get mostly the latter sort from our 'eminent historians'. When 'Hindu temples,...' came out, there was no scholarship on the subject in India (which itself is such a travesty, that right thinking people should dump these historians). So, of course, no one was competent of making a scholarly response on the subject. That didn't stop them though. Nor did they feel obliged to either study the subject, or examine the evidence. Their response, 'It's a very bad book'! Such is the level of scholarship that you want to kneel to?

>> Sure, and they should be free to express them. So some people highlighted issues with books written by JNU types, while JNU types expressed concern over books written under BJP dispensation.

That is fine (and business as usual) as long as both are part of the worldwide mainstream scientific/historical scholarship community, got their work published, reviewed and obtained world-wide critical acclaim/repute, considered/acknowledged by worldwide scholars as the most outstanding fact-finding scholars and the best from the country etc. If such scholars (who do not bring in issues like religious sentiments etc) have differences of opinion it is purely an academic exercise (business as usual) that happens all the time. Let all the world-wide community of scholars debate/review and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

>> Yes, but if a person has an issue with the some scientific/historical theories

Does corruption fall in this domain?

>> It will always be the case that there will be some who disagree with the expert panels decisions on what should go to text books

Sure, and they should be free to express them. So some people highlighted issues with books written by JNU types, while JNU types expressed concern over books written under BJP dispensation.

>> However, this issue should not be mixed up with the issue of wife-beating

Precisely. So don't bring the issue of reputation and all such nonsense, when corruption by such worthies is being discussed.

>> It also often happens that a majority of scientists/historians/scholars at a given point of time may also be generally inclined to a particular ideology/philosophy etc.

If this ideology/philosophy is comprising the information they are stuffing down the throat of others, they need to be called out, as was the case with AIT. Same logic was used by the commie crowd against books during BJPs time.

>> No one is suggesting that everyone who propounds a certain theory is bad. What Shourie suggested in his book, and the point I reiterated was, that if some person has done something wrong, that point can be brought out. The person's reputation or skills as a scientist/academic/historian should have no bearing on the issue. If a person is a wife beater or thrashes his kids, should this fact be deliberately hidden just because he has won the Nobel prize?

Yes, but if a person has an issue with the some scientific/historical theories that are most prevalent about the best known scientists/historians/scholars and expert panels, that issue has to be dealt at an academic level in a professional manner. It will always be the case that there will be some who disagree with the expert panels decisions on what should go to text books at what level or even about historical interpretation itself (not just hindutva groups, but many others like the dalit groups for example, and there can be many more). However, this issue should not be mixed up with the issue of wife-beating (which has to be taken up separately). It is not about one individual, but a whole panel of people who are well recognized/reputed world-over as scholars. It also often happens that a majority of scientists/historians/scholars at a given point of time may also be generally inclined to a particular ideology/philosophy etc. For example, a majority of scientists may be atheists. So, one may think/suspect that their personal convictions are driving some of the theories they propound, but one has to deal with that in a professional/scholarly way - and not mix up non-academic issues, personal attacks, religious sentiments etc (much less, violence), as far as this issue of academic differences is concerned.

>> Text books are very important, particularly for school going kids. For a majority of people with the benefit of education, this shall be their only exposure to history for their life. An ideological slant or incorrect history shall influence perceptions their entire life.

Yes, that is why the best known scientists/historians of the best repute worldwide, whose work has been well reviewed, well acknowledged etc are chosen for the task. If there are significant people who are also equally well-renowned worldwide, but think that they are ignored due to ideological reasons, they can surely protest and based on their level of renowned scholarship, many will heed and that will build a lot of pressure on government. They may even go to courts, international conferences etc. There are many avenues to express have ones say. About the issue of influencing perceptions, I want to reiterate what I said before, that true spirituality, relating to God etc are things that are not dependant on the latest popular theories doing the rounds. Every human being has a spiritual side where one relates to God (or decides against it), seeks philosophical truth, moral values, God etc. The latest popular scientific theories doing the rounds cannot stop ones true spirituality not can create spirituality. So, science/history etc should be best left as purely fact-finding missions by the scholars and one can become a scholar oneself to contribute in a reasonable manner.

>> To say that all the scientists/historians

No one is suggesting that everyone who propounds a certain theory is bad. What Shourie suggested in his book, and the point I reiterated was, that if some person has done something wrong, that point can be brought out. The person's reputation or skills as a scientist/academic/historian should have no bearing on the issue. If a person is a wife beater or thrashes his kids, should this fact be deliberately hidden just because he has won the Nobel prize? This does not mean that everyone (amongst men at least) who has won the Nobel prize is a wife beater and thrashes his kids. Such charges have to be countered with facts and evidence, and not on the basis of reputation or by calling the other person names.

So if Shourie claims that some of the eminent historians indulged in corruption and provides evidence of the same, counter it with evidence of your own. What we hear instead are shrill noises devoid of any sense or logic from them, and their supporters like you.

>> The issue is about overall historical scholarship (as a fact-finding mission) and not text books alone.

Text books are very important, particularly for school going kids. For a majority of people with the benefit of education, this shall be their only exposure to history for their life. An ideological slant or incorrect history shall influence perceptions their entire life.

Moreover, I am talking only of text books, since my limited exposure to history was at school. I don't know if such distortions exist further along too (very likely).

>> What specifically goes into what standard or level of has to be decided by some panel consisting of scholars/historians of world-wide repute and acclaim.

And ideological orientation.

>> Someone may say that it is not enough to talk about invasions by Muslim kings, but should specifically mention about destruction of temples at school level itself....

Yes. This point is valid. And yet, these books, if found to have an ideological slant, should be criticized accordingly. One doesn't have to be a historian to detect that. I don't need a degree in journalism to detect that the editorial policy of Hindu is different than that of Pioneer. Basic common sense is adequate for that, as it is for detecting such slants in books.

And even lot of common sense is not needed to see that those who specifically give out instructions about white washing of Muslim invasions, or complain when Goan inquisition is discussed, suddenly talk only about academic honesty when they want to call Guru Teg Bahadur a plunderer. Just a little bit of honesty is needed.

The right to write books and frame syllabus is not earned just by merit, but by following the right ideology, and kissing the right ass. The seculars were in charge for a long time, and are so again now, which is why they have been getting away with a lot of nonsense. No, all of them are not slimeballs. Many are, but for now they have disproportionate influence, not all of it earned.

Going back to AIT (BTW, it was good that you wisely restrained yourself from commenting on it this time at least), propagating theories with little credence like AIT, and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not a sign of either scholarship or integrity. Their only defense was to shout down everyone who brought up evidence as Sanghi, communal and revisionist, while themselves being communal and revisionist of the worst order. Such tactics can only succeed when everyone else in establishment is beholden to you, and is a wimp. This is also one of the reason they got so agitated when BJP came to power and started filling up these bodies with their own people.

>> If these 'acclaimed scientists' are bad people with bad motives, who are out to attack Christians, there is no harm in saying so. It has to be backed by evidence, like Shourie did in his book

To say that all the scientists/historians with worldwide recognition/repute (with publications, awards, critical acclaim from peers etc) are all evil people will evil intentions etc is almost like saying that everyone is out there to victimize, smear and kill innocent muslims (jehadi speeches provide 'evidence' for such an extreme positions). Such writing do not deserve the respectability of a review, but instead needs to be told that the entire approach/attitude/mindset itself is wrong. The choice at the end of the day is whether to remain in reasonable mainstream (where we let all the world-wide community of scholars to debate/review and arrive at reasonable conclusions) or to belong to a radical fringe and be a violent rabble rouser (in the name of "hurt religious sentiments" and attempt write science/history based on religious sentiments/beliefs etc). Being part of reasonable mainstream includes registering protests where one disagrees, and of course, one can become a recognized/respected scholar oneself and have ones voice be heard world over. No one can stop that. It is not as if only "commies" are allowed to become scholars and experts with worldwide recognition. Nothing stops Goel, Swarup etc to gain the same level of worldwide recognition/respect where the world says that they are the best historians from India. The same thing applies to the dalits who lament that their point of view is not heard (as all the scholars, whether left, right or center are all from high caste). There are also avenues like the courts or even take it to people in a civilized manner (in politics/elections etc). All this can be done in a decent, non-violent, professional, scholarly manner.

>> Goan inquisition was recorded by Christians, demolition of Hindu temples by Muslim historians, and caste atrocities by Hindus, etc. However, the first two (and others like slave trade out of India) have been whitewashed from the school texts.
>> There was in fact, a directive from WB govt specifying that all instances of Muslim atrocities should be removed from books
>> Would such people be called revisionist? If so, why bother so much on Hindu revisionists, and if no, why not?

The text books do contain various things like invasions by Muslim kings, the evil British rule (which many see as a Christian rule), medieval dark age of European church with its inquisition/crusades etc as well as about hindu practice of untouchability. The issue is about overall historical scholarship (as a fact-finding mission) and not text books alone. What specifically goes into what standard or level of has to be decided by some panel consisting of scholars/historians of world-wide repute and acclaim. Someone may say that it is not enough to talk about invasions by Muslim kings, but should specifically mention about destruction of temples at school level itself. Someone else may say that it is not enough to mention about caste injustices/untouchability, but there should be a mention of specific castes like Brahmins who perpetuated it. Well, the people with such opinions, as I said can become world renowned scholars themselves and get a say in what goes to text books (if the world recognizes some 10 top scholars from India, their say cannot be ignored) or approach courts etc or write and appeal to people to bring pressure on governments etc. in a civilized, professional, scholarly manner. Instead of such legitimate approach, if one takes to rabble rousing, communal violence, and uses religious sentiments and convenience as their basis for writing history, they will be called as revisionists, including when the same people write schools text books on a similar basis.

>> In history/science, the positions do change based on recent discoveries

This argument is valid for positions that were based on some research or logic, and usually fulfill two criteria. They are able to reasonably explain the available evidence at that time, and are broadly accepted by the scientific/research community at that time. So, the original structure of the atom was broadly accepted by all, till Rutherford's scattering experiment suggested that model to be untenable. Similarly, a mysterious substance called aether largely explained how light traveled, and was widely accepted by everyone. This went on, till Michelson-Morely experiment, which did away with it.

AIT never met either of these criteria. It was propounded by German nationalists and colonists, whose aims and desires it met perfectly. It was plainly wrong in many aspects, which were repeatedly pointed out by more rational people. Further, the theory kept on getting progressively discredited, as more and more evidence kept emerging disproving many of its points (the invasion aspect in particular was thoroughly discredited for several decades, while this was taught in schools), and at no point of time did it enjoy unquestioned acceptability.

The logical thing would have been to treat it as one amongst equal, if at all. However, it fit so neatly in the designs of the commie crowd, which was desperate to prove Hindus as invaders, that all suggestions were discounted. If you want to discount all these sleazeball tactics, and attempt to show that this was part of academic evolution, go ahead. It only reflects upon your proclivities and thought process.

>> I don’t think any one tried to hide Inquisition etc

You think wrong.

>> It was all well documented (often by Christians themselves)

Not in school books.

Goan inquisition was recorded by Christians, demolition of Hindu temples by Muslim historians, and caste atrocities by Hindus, etc. However, the first two (and others like slave trade out of India) have been whitewashed from the school texts.

There was in fact, a directive from WB govt specifying that all instances of Muslim atrocities should be removed from books.

Would such people be called revisionist? If so, why bother so much on Hindu revisionists, and if no, why not?

>> I have never defended any corruption accused or opposed any expose

You certainly are now.

>> The evangelical Christians are free to present their arguments, reasons, evidences etc, but not in the manner of using personal attacks on well recognized and critically acclaimed scientists of the country (accusing them as personally bad people with bad motives and who are out to attack Christians etc).

If these 'acclaimed scientists' are bad people with bad motives, who are out to attack Christians, there is no harm in saying so. It has to be backed by evidence, like Shourie did in his book.

>> I don’t thing we can call hindutva idealogues as socially/educationally/economically backward people by any stretch of imagination

Some of them may be socially backward in the classical sense of term, but no, I wouldn't classify them such.

>> even if it is harder, there are no shot cuts.

Of course. I am against giving them any allowance in this regard. Just pointing out that the entry barriers are not as low as you suggest.

>> They can publish their evidences

They have. Much more than the 'eminent ones' in many cases (e.g., book by Goel etc. was the first ever on the topic). That doesn't alter the fact that a non-conformist theory, particularly when it goes against the bosses' pet theories, ideologies and political agendas, has very little chance of succeeding, even if backed by overwhelming evidence.

>> and without using personal attacks as an attempt to subvert the legitimate process of fact-finding

Why don't you tell this to the eminent historians, who tried to discredit the book by Goel, Swarup, Shourie etc. by means of personal attacks, instead of facts and evidence, even though none of them was working in the field the book discussed. So far, not one of the facts in the book has been challenged.

>> The whole world is there is there to sit up and listen to appropriate evidences and accept solely based of evidences

Are you? So far, you have not bothered to examine any evidence, relying mostly on useless polemics.

>> We had a situation where the social/educational standards of some sections/castes is almost zero...

I was not talking about reservations in general (though, I have my views about caste as a sole criteria there too), but of the specific case, mentioned in the article. I don't know the criteria JNU uses for positions like Assoc Prof or higher, but I would assume it would typically be a PhD in the subject matter, followed by several years of teaching (around 10 or so), and some peer recognition, in terms of publications, citations, awards, etc.

A reserved category candidate would have typically received over two decades of benefits in terms of admission, education, scholarships, including around a decade of a salaried job at a reasonably high salary. If he/she is a second generation beneficiary, as a lot of candidates are now, then at least economic and educational backwardness (and even social, no matter how much ever they pretend otherwise), would be a non-factor. If such a person needs reservation to get promotion to an assoc prof or higher position, he/she is not good enough.

I personally have no interest in continuing this discussion any more. The issue of reservations vs merit etc. has been debated endlessly for two decades now. There is nothing new any of us can add to the subject. My foray in this discussion was not about reservations, but to correct the wrong interpretation you were making of the statement.

>> They did manage to considerably delay it though, knowingly condemning an entire generation to incorrect information.

In history/science, the positions do change based on recent discoveries etc, so there will be ups and downs. No need to get overtly emotional about it. As for religion, one connects to God regardless of the latest theory doing the rounds. No one stakes or bases his/her belief in God, relation with God, spirituality etc on something like AIT etc. Historical fact-finding is an ongoing process, as more and evidences are gathered and the previous conclusions are reviewed from time to time. As in the example given about creation vs evolution debate, those who connect with God, will continue to do so, and the debates can continue (to my knowledge no one indulges in personal attacks on scientists/historians and attributing them bad motives, painting them as personally bad people etc which amounts to ad Hominem in the context).

>> By that token, those who oppose teaching about 'Goan inquisition' or the slave trade from India, destruction of Hindu temples or forceful conversions, should also be labeled revisionists.

Yes, if anyone is trying to hide any evidence or agitating (violently or otherwise) against available evidence due to “hurt religious sentiments” etc. The controversy during MM Joshi's revision was about the whole whitewashing of history according to alleged religious sentiments and convenience. I don’t think any one tried to hide Inquisition etc. It was all well documented (often by Christians themselves) and was admitted/apologized openly etc.

>> you are trying to defend the corruption of these scoundrels, trying to divert it by calling it personal attacks

There are hundreds of corruption exposes, charges etc made almost everyday and I have never defended any corruption accused or opposed any expose. I was talking about the larger issue of history/science to remain as a fact-finding mission by scholars across the world, who allow their thesis/work to be critically reviewed/assessed/challenged etc without bringing in things like religious sentiments (and without using personal attacks as an attempt to subvert the legitimate process of fact-finding). In the US for example, there is the creation vs evolution debate, where some evangelical Christians would like that evolution be taught in such a way to leave open the role/possibility for creation too. The evangelical Christians are free to present their arguments, reasons, evidences etc, but not in the manner of using personal attacks on well recognized and critically acclaimed scientists of the country (accusing them as personally bad people with bad motives and who are out to attack Christians etc). If they do that, that would be equally objectionable/condemnable.

>> In another post, you have talked about entry barriers in terms of caste. Well, I believe there are much stronger and bigger entry barriers wrt ideology.

There is a difference between having a handicap due to extremely poor socio-economic conditions (that too in jobs) as opposed to a issue of just presenting ideas, articulating evidences, arguments etc for which there are many avenues, especially for the rich and influential (I don’t thing we can call hindutva idealogues as socially/educationally/economically backward people by any stretch of imagination). They can publish their evidences, they have full access to media to present their ideas, present themselves in international conferences etc. No one can object as long as one presents their thesis/evidences in the way any other historian presents. The whole world is there is there to sit up and listen to appropriate evidences and accept solely based of evidences. Actually, I have seen in dalit publications complain that they are at an disadvantage as they have no say at all on the matter being weak from all respects, with no media access etc (they say that even the so-called leftist historians are all high caste people). But then, even then, they will have to fight it out legitimately using scholarly/evidential/critical review approach like any other – even if it is harder, there are no shot cuts.

>> The place I differ is that I don't see caste as the sole, or even dominant reason for such inequality.

We had a situation where the social/educational standards of some sections/castes is almost zero and that was primarily based on caste. With passage of time, things are changing, with a small creamy layer emerging among dalits etc, but they are still a long way to go, and it will take some time before caste can be removed as the sole/primary consideration for reservation. Even today, if one looks at all the slums in the country, one finds only dalits/low castes (or probably all of them). A vast majority of them still have to start from the scratch with almost nothing without any connections etc. It is almost impossible to find a high caste person even if personally poor for some reason, without support system of relatives, friends etc in better positions or from a creamy layer (or at least willing to give help by just knowing their caste) .

>> They did manage to considerably delay it though, knowingly condemning an entire generation to incorrect information.

Further, I am not sure if such distortions have even now been corrected in NCERT books or not. I last saw them in early 90s, and don't know if they continue to peddle the same lies, or have since been rectified.

>> It is an open field - anyone who shows merit of their research are free to contribute and raise in their respectability and acceptance in the world community of scholars/scientists.

Actually, it is not. In another post, you have talked about entry barriers in terms of caste. Well, I believe there are much stronger and bigger entry barriers wrt ideology.

Research doesn't happen in a vacuum. Research in social sciences in particular, is almost entirely govt funded, particularly in a country like ours. People who control these positions, e.g., ministry of education, UGC positions, VCs of universities, members of ICHR (for History), can have a very strong influence on the subjects and orientation of the research. There are so many ways in which these people can influence a researcher; research fellowships and grants, scholarships, cushy placements, commissions to write books for schools etc., access to research material (in our highly bureaucratized system, research material is not easily available), and even publications, that an inconvenient busybody can be conveniently brushed aside. Given the dominance of the left in politics, and consequently academia since the beginning, it is no surprise that bodies like ICHR are filled with self serving parasites, who demand, and usually obtain conformity. Anyone who dares to defy them, is usually labeled 'Sanghi' or revisionist, and that usually ends the story.

This is the reason that these eminent historians got so irritated when BJP won the elections, and MM Joshi started filling up bodies like ICHR with his own people, brazenly declaring, 'It's our turn now'. The edifice these people had built over decades could come crumbling down in a short time. Luckily for them, BJP lost the next election, and they were able to get back to their pernicious practices.

>> Whether it is about Saraswati river or AIT etc, there is no need about any personal attack of motives

Actually, there is every need, since this is the only tool employed by the 'eminent historians' against their opponents.

>> No one can stop that legitimate process.

They did manage to considerably delay it though, knowingly condemning an entire generation to incorrect information.

>> They will be called revisionist is they bring in things like "hurting of religious sentiments" which should not be a consideration as far as fact finding is concerned.

By that token, those who oppose teaching about 'Goan inquisition' or the slave trade from India, destruction of Hindu temples or forceful conversions, should also be labeled revisionists.

>> Mr. Shourie himself will be astonished to hear that all he was doing was merely "exposing corruption" etc.

I have no idea how Mr. Shourie will react. Unlike you, I make no claims of being a clairvoyant. I rely on evidence and logic. Based on them, I am not surprised at all, that you are trying to defend the corruption of these scoundrels, trying to divert it by calling it personal attacks. This is one of the favorite tricks used by slimeballs all over, including the eminent historians. Never challenge facts, since that shall get them in trouble. Attack the accuser. Call him names. The more popular ones are fascists, Sanghis, communal, chaddis, etc. After that, they can indulge in as much corruption, nepotism or plagiarism as they want. Some dim witted liberal shall spring to their defense.

And lo and behold, we have you. You have of course not countered any of the points raised by Shourie by either logic or facts. The same defense was used earlier by 'eminent historians' to discredit the book by Goel, Shourie etc. They too said that it's a very bad book, very very bad book.

>> A handful of sections have traditionally held all/most the influential posts

You are making a case for reservations. I was just pointing out the limitations in your comprehension.

As for reservations, I do agree that access to opportunity is vastly different for different people, and equality of opportunity is the basic feature of an egalitarian society. So, ways to equalize opportunity must be found.

The place I differ is that I don't see caste as the sole, or even dominant reason for such inequality. In particular, when it comes to higher education or teaching at such positions, per my personal experience, caste is not a factor at all. The casteists don't like to hear it, since it prevents them from smearing the upper castes, playing victims and corner benefits without much effort. However, this has been my experience.

>> This means that those who need reservations are not adequately qualified. You may disagree with it, but this is what it means, instead of the perverse meaning you want to give to it.

There are many adequately qualified people and among them. those with already existing connections etc have an undue advantage to actually getting hold of the posts. A handful of sections have traditionally held all/most the influential posts (with many generations of education/influence behind them), those in their social circle hold an undue advantage (these section are already highly over-represented). Given that there are many sections and social groups in India who never had any education/influence and had to start from the scratch without such social connections, reservations can ensure at least some resemblance of fair play and give them a chance. Reservations, agreeably an extreme measure were introduced to address an extremity of lop-sided context. Ideally, it should not be required.

>> exposing corruption and plagiarism in academia to be banned? Are these worthies to be allowed a free run at public funds, and any attacks on them be treated as personal and ad hominem?

Mr. Shourie himself will be astonished to hear that all he was doing was merely "exposing corruption" etc. Recently the leader of a banned terrorist organization complained that all he was doing is just "religious preaching" and he was banned for that! The claim that all Mr. Shourie was just exposing "corruption/plagiarism" is like that.

>> Scientists who want to influence major policy decisions, and demand huge financing, can't hide behind ivory towers.
>> shouting down others who differed with them as revisionist.

Scientists/scholars/historians etc anywhere in the world including India are not some appointed/nominated people for being a Kings son/daughter etc. It is an open field - anyone who shows merit of their research are free to contribute and raise in their respectability and acceptance in the world community of scholars/scientists. Those who gain critical acclaim from peers and world community of scholars, their work will be used by governmental authorities as well. No scientist/historian can “hide” or avoid a critical review/assessment of their work. That is part and parcel of the whole exercise and there are no short cuts to gain such prominence and critical acclaim. Whether it is about Saraswati river or AIT etc, there is no need about any personal attack of motives labeling the scientists as bad people with bad motives etc - all that is required is to produce their own contrary thesis with appropriate evidence to the world scholarly community of scientists/historians and let their own work be reviewed/challenged/judged etc let the truth come out based on relative merit of arguments provided by each. No one can object to such a methodology and it is done all over the world. No one can stop that legitimate process. They will be called revisionist is they bring in things like "hurting of religious sentiments" which should not be a consideration as far as fact finding is concerned. Otherwise it is open for all.

>> Almost all of Shourie's work consists of personal attacks on people known for their integrity and scholarship.

The jihadists have never forgiven Shourie since he exposed the corruption of Abdul Rahman Antulay, forcing him to resign.

>> Does that mean that there are no eligible candidates "above the assistant professor level" from about 70 to 80% of Indian population?

No. This means that those who need reservations are not adequately qualified. You may disagree with it, but this is what it means, instead of the perverse meaning you want to give to it.

Been a long time since I visited these boards. Had taken off after my posts were deleted by the moderator. Saw the amusing article of JNU wallahs talking about merit, and then the usual hyperbole of the liberals. Felt inclined to butt heads. Let's get to it.

>> Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach.
>> The very idea of ad hominem personal attacks on historians that are well recognized by community of scholars should be repugnant.

Brilliant. After indulging in such attacks yourself, you are saying that such acts by Shourie are repugnant.

And why are academics excluded from such attacks? Is exposing corruption and plagiarism in academia to be banned? Are these worthies to be allowed a free run at public funds, and any attacks on them be treated as personal and ad hominem? What kind of stupidity is this?

>> it is childish to call a scientist/historian well recognized among the worldwide community of scholars as “liar”.

Even when they lie?

>> In my view, Ram Guha needn’t have even bothered to write a review of such a book.

What he bothers to write about is his interest or business. However, if he wrote a review without actually reading the book, well!

>> The only thing relevant about a historian/scholar/scientist etc is the merit of the evidences presented and the contribution to the debate of historical fact-finding.

Nonsense. Such a claim would be valid if it were purely an academic exercise. Once these issues come in the public domain, such historians/scholars/scientists have to thrash issues out in a public forum. Scientists who want to influence major policy decisions, and demand huge financing, can't hide behind ivory towers. They have to convince people, including those who might not be expert in those areas, about the authenticity of their studies, the impact of non-response to their requests, and respond to skeptics with sound arguments and evidence.

Similarly, once the historians use their position to push their lies and ideological prejudices, they can no longer claim academic immunity. Parents, whose kids read books by these 'eminents' in the classrooms, have a right to know, as to what their kids are learning is the result of genuine academic research, and not the garbage of deeply prejudiced minds. The historians are obligated to provide evidence that back up their claims, and also destroy the claims of counter arguments with evidence, sound logic, and rational thought. Instead, what we get are exactly the kind of 'childish ad hominem attacks' that you so seem to deplore. This, they have consistently failed to do, and have been proved wrong so many times, that only blind worshippers like you consider them scholarly.

And who made them 'eminent'? Well, surprise, surprise, they themselves did. While signing a petition on Ayodhya, they claimed to be 'eminent historians' throwing the rest of their colleagues under the bus as unworthy, whose evidence and research, if found to be inconvenient, could be dismissed as revisionist.

Let us consider some examples of times they have been wrong, after shouting down others who differed with them as revisionist.

The eminent historians kept shouting down everyone who spoke about the Saraswati river. The liturgical evidence to support these claims was dismissed, and all the historians who made such claims were labeled revisionists. Was some logic provided to counter such claims, or dismiss such evidence? No. At least not to my knowledge. Now however, there is considerable proof of such a river having existed. Why should such historians still be considered eminent, instead of the dishonest scoundrels they were.

Moving on, the eminent historians kept peddling the Aryan Invasion Theory, despite serious misgivings about it. Till the 90s at least, NCERT history books carried it, despite serious doubts about it. Whoever pointed out that there was no evidence of an invasion, and probably migration was a more suitable term, was shouted down as, you guessed it, revisionist, communal and Sanghi. Such a position was politically necessary, since Hindus were to be shown as invaders, and the upper caste-lower caste and north/south divide could also be shown as racial. It fit their plans so perfectly that it had to be propagated, evidence, or lack of it, be damned. Now of course, evidence is emerging that not only was there no invasion, even the migration happened many thousand of years before the originally claimed date. Why should an entire generation, which learnt incorrect history to satisfy the ideological proclivities of the liberal crowd not attack them?

Further along, these guys made a lot of noise when controversy arose over their claims of ancient Hindus being beef eaters, claiming that they were saying the truth. Fine. Maybe they were, and their logic of truth being respected, even if unpleasant, can be appreciated.

However, the same guys made a lot of noise when the BJP govt in Goa started updating books with details about the inquisition. Then they didn't think about respect for the truth.

Al Bundy

""IN Arun Shourie's Worshipping False Gods, the Dalit apostle, B.R. Ambedkar, is portrayed as a self-centred, unpatriotic, power-hungry anti-national, a stooge of the British. Can there be a more false picture of Ambedkar? The book may be well-researched, but it is biased."

What a scholarly retort!! As a retort, I would expect something that would prove Ambedkar was patrotic-that he actually fought the British. Shourie may or may not be biased.

But why dont you guys, the epitome of objectivity, produce some evidence that shows Ambedkar to be patrotic and not as as a stooge of British? If the only defense you can come up with is "he is biased", I really pity you.

Ganesan,

>> calling out Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib about their lies and misrepresentation are NOT personal attacks.

Almost all of Shourie's work consists of personal attacks on people known for their integrity and scholarship. As V.N.Gadgil said, "IN Arun Shourie's Worshipping False Gods, the Dalit apostle, B.R. Ambedkar, is portrayed as a self-centred, unpatriotic, power-hungry anti-national, a stooge of the British. Can there be a more false picture of Ambedkar? The book may be well-researched, but it is biased."

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?203929

>> I know you rely too much on authority and less on facts.
>> For instance, Thapar lied ..

The best way of fact finding is for worldwide community of scholars/historians/scientists etc who are serious about fact-finding, who review each others work, debate, challenge and let the best arguments evolve on merit (without making childish ad hominem attacks on fellow scientists/scholars as "liars" etc). This is well accepted methodology world over for any field of human endeavor and fact finding. There are arguments, better arguments, evidences, better evidences etc – it is childish to call a scientist/historian well recognized among the worldwide community of scholars as “liar”. It is of course a personal attack to attribute deliberate lying.

"The only thing relevant about a historian/scholar/scientist etc is the merit of the evidences presented and the contribution to the debate of historical fact-finding."

I know you rely too much on authority and less on facts. In any event, calling out Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib about their lies and misrepresentation are NOT personal attacks but fact finding.

For instance, Thapar lied about Harsha. And she had the audacity to say Shourie was wrong because he did not know sanskrit. Fine. Thapar's sanskrit knowledge is sketchy as well.

Aside that, Rajatarangini is available in English and the relevant passage in question supported Shourie's claim -not Thapar's.

If this is personal attack to you, good bye.

"The very idea of ad hominem personal attacks on historians that are well recognized by community of scholars should be repugnant. Ask any scholar/scientist anywhere in the world. He will agree with that. "

Instead of ad hominem personal attacks on Shourie, provide me one example when Shourie said something about the historians that is not correct.

>> Till a few weeks back, the scientists at CRU were held in high esteem and had great respectability. What is it worth now?

A scientist puts forth his/her thesis and provides the evidences, reasons, arguments etc for the thesis. The thesis is open for review/challenge by other scholars/scientists. If someone else comes up with a better thesis/evidences etc, that will gain acceptance in the scholarly community. Gradually a general consensus will be evolved on various issues based on the strength of the arguments, reasons, evidences etc. Sure, some issues will gain more agreement/consensus than others. That is all part of valid research/scholarship. As long a scientist/scholar is contributing to the debate in a useful manner and is willing to be based on evidences/facts and if their methods are as per the generally agreed norms in the scientific community, they will be respected (even if some of the thesis put forward by a person are found to be wrong etc. it is a process)

>> As far as SHourie is concerned, no one so far has disputed any of his facts ....

The relevant question is about historical scholarship as a fact-finding mission. There is a whole world-wide community of historians/scholars who review the evidences, historical methods used etc. If other historians have better evidences, arguments etc their findings will gain prominence. There should be a dispassionate fact-finding and not personal ad-hominem attacks. The very idea of ad hominem personal attacks on historians that are well recognized by community of scholars should be repugnant. Ask any scholar/scientist anywhere in the world. He will agree with that.

>> People like Ram Guha trashed Shourie's book without even seeing the index!!!

In my view, Ram Guha needn’t have even bothered to write a review of such a book.

"As I said, the respectability given by worldwide community of peers/scholars is generally a good measure of respectability that can be attributed to a historian or any scholar."


Till a few weeks back, the scientists at CRU were held in high esteem and had great respectability. What is it worth now?

As far as SHourie is concerned, no one so far has disputed any of his facts or shown that he has taken data out of context. People like Ram Guha trashed Shourie's book without even seeing the index!!! So much for the scholars.

Again, give one example where Shourie is factually incorrect or chose only part of data to buttress is case? If you cannot come up with such an example, shut up.

Strategy to organize facts cleverly to fit their preconceived prejudices,selectively choosing facts and arguments had only exposed JNU professors of theirs' 'confirmation bias'.
In the current globalized world it would be very difficult for them to hold hegemony - social,cultural,legal and above all psychological over lower castes. It's high time Hindu society needs a fine tuning....

Kumar,

"World over history, science etc are fact finding endeavors where different scholars/peers present their evidences, debate about it etc and the best evidences and most reasonable conclusions are taken/evolved. Mere personal name calling of the scholars, attributing bad motives on them etc is a pretty childish approach/attitude. It is right to call such an approach/attitude as propagandist in nature (as opposed to scholarly fact finding). As I said, the respectability given by worldwide community of peers/scholars is generally a good measure of respectability that can be attributed to a historian or any scholar."

Yawn. You did not answer my question. Have you read the book ?

Ganesan,

"Rather than mudslinging yourself, why not point out one factual error in the book?"

Exactly. well said. Arun Shourie is too smart and intellectual for these eminent historians. What they can do best is abuse him.

WILL THE OUTLOOK PLEASE TELL US SINCE WHEN THE RESERVATIONS FOR SC/ST IN FACULTY POSITIONS BECAME A "CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE"?

What an Volte face?. Most of us knew that these self styled radical intellectuals (read brahmin,khatri and kayastha)would stand-up for anything under the sun, till they have something to benefit. If reservations are implemented, how can they reproduce themselves and their average academics in the name of merit. They also have a more immedieate concern. Their children would have completed their PhD's in third rate universities abroad and looking for livelihoods. How can others take their jobs. And this gentleman Bipin Chandra is supposed to have given up his caste suffix sud, eventhough he married a sud. But, can he give up the prejudices in his mind. Good that they have emposed themselves. Thanks Anuradha Raman for exposing the third rate nature of our self styled intelligentia.

Dr.Sathya Prakash Reddy
Assitant Professor
University of Hyderabad

"It is just an expose of the Shourie brand of shoddy journalism. Impugning through mudslinging."

Rather than mudslinging yourself, why not point out one factual error in the book?

>> Eminent historians exposes how the so called professional hsitorians milked the govt for personal gains.

It is just an expose of the Shourie brand of shoddy journalism. Impugning through mudslinging.

>> It is quite interesting that you or Anwar easily thrash anything that does not suit your views, as propaganda

World over history, science etc are fact finding endeavors where different scholars/peers present their evidences, debate about it etc and the best evidences and most reasonable conclusions are taken/evolved. Mere personal name calling of the scholars, attributing bad motives on them etc is a pretty childish approach/attitude. It is right to call such an approach/attitude as propagandist in nature (as opposed to scholarly fact finding). As I said, the respectability given by worldwide community of peers/scholars is generally a good measure of respectability that can be attributed to a historian or any scholar.

>> And what is scholarly approach worth if they pursue their profession to promote an agenda?

What matters is whether a historian presents evidences and presents his/her case in a reasonable manner using methodologies that are well accepted world over. Such historians are respected world over (cutting across nationality/race/religion/creed etc) and are viewed/quoted as an authority (by other scholars in their own work/books etc). Now, who are the historians who are respected world over by other scholars/peers? That should be a fair enough measure of scholarliness/reasonableness/respectability of a historian (like any other branch of knowledge/scholarship like science etc).

Kumar,

"Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach"

It is quite interesting that you or Anwar easily thrash anything that does not suit your views, as propaganda. Have you read the book ? As ganesan explained, it is not a book about history, but about historians. If it is propaganda, why haven't the scholarly eminent historians rebuked it ?

"Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach."

As the title of the book explains, Eminent Historians is a book on historians-not history.

"Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach."

This is pure nonsense. Eminent historians exposes how the so called professional hsitorians milked the govt for personal gains. It lists out scores of projects where money was allocated but output was zilch. It shows the historians to be corrupt. And as things stand, none of the facts in the book has been disputed.

And what is scholarly approach worth if they pursue their profession to promote an agenda? Just like the "scientists" in CRU who suppressed data to promote global warming, these "historians" are idealogues-not scholars.

>> it means that all those who reach the status of asst prof in national institutes should consider themselves as self-respecting academics

So the 70 to 80% of Indian population have so such self-respect etc? What is wrong if a smaller percentage of them who are eligible are seen to be present as assistant professors etc. Even with this, the rest/other smaller percentage of people are still over-represented in every key/important positions (supposedly by merit – mostly, the ‘merit’ of the connections they have).

>> One of the best books I have read is about these very clowns - Arun Shourie's "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud". You will find quite a few of Bipan Chandra's hijinks in that book

Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach. If Mr. Arun Shourie or anyone has better evidences etc they should present the evidences in a scholarly manner and gain respect as historians (instead of personally attacking respected historians who earned their respect by being scholarly and evidence-based and showing willingness to be led by evidence).

I don't think this is a casteist issue, it is actually reflective of a leftist/Marxist mindset.
The leftist elite would want one set of standards for themselves and another set for others. George Orwell summed it up very well in Animal Farm - "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
They want equality to prevail everywhere but expect distinction for themselves. Jyoti Basu professed equality of the poor masses and enjoyed scotch whiskey and vacationing in London all the time.
So the same JNU jhollawallahs will lecture you on creating a society of equals free of class and caste, but will react if they are asked to be treated equally with the others.

V.Seshadri: "otherwise, those who got promo on reservation will tend to teach history recognizing aryan invasion theory, while others will say that it is an illusion!"

Bipan Chandra and his ilk are the biggest supporters of such lies and fake history. The entire Universe has moved on but these JNU clowns still thrive on outdated and discredited marxist gibberish interpretations of history from the past century.

It is laughable for the JNU buffoons to talk against reservations. Quality, my foot!

One of the best books I have read is about these very clowns - Arun Shourie's "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud". You will find quite a few of Bipan Chandra's hijinks in that book.

Bipin chandra:>>"Reservation above the assistant professor level will ruin JNU’s quality of education, making it a third-rate varsity"
>>"Does that mean that there are no eligible candidates "above the assistant professor level" from about 70 to 80% of Indian population?"

No. it means that all those who reach the status of asst prof in national institutes should consider themselves as self-respecting academics of india without caste/creed consciousness. further promotions must be purely on seniority and merit, irrespective of caste/creed. otherwise, those who got promo on reservation will tend to teach history recognizing aryan invasion theory, while others will say that it is an illusion!

ten yrs after independance, a suggestion was made that sc/st reservation be made for recruitment of defence officers also. all the three defence force chiefs threatened to resign, if it was implemented, saying it will cause emotional disunity among defence forces, weakening our defence capabilities in general. the idea was dropped.
all castes and creeds are entering defence as 'indians' only and fighting for mother india.

>> Reservation above the assistant professor level will ruin JNU’s quality of education, making it a third-rate varsity

Does that mean that there are no eligible candidates "above the assistant professor level" from about 70 to 80% of Indian population?

We know, 'Hindu society' established in the past a form of segregation. The so called upper castes could not maintain maintain their wealth & 'merits' without dividing people.
The same forces are in play now ! The SHUDRAS,SC,ST are ready and wanting to be exploited & butchered by the elite again !!

It will take a while for the so called intellectuals to garner respects and for them to produce a narrative that can be readily embraced by all !!!

Let the better Professors leave JNU. Some of them are world standard. There are many universities comming up in China Singapore even Bangladesh. Better money better respect. Some pvt institutes pay well also.

Think Worldwide! Think Globally!

Till now no reservation policy is following in the IITs/IIMs in the post of Professor/Associate Professor etc. Means only pure, very hard working, dedicated, born by God's mouth,meritorious and cream of India is serving the IITs/IIMs etc. Then IITs/IIMs must be Top University/Educational Institute of the World. But for your kind information, IIT/IIMs are not even Top 10 in Asia Forget about Word ranking. Where merit is gone of these elite people???????? They all should go to hell. To whom they are making fool in the name of merit. IIT/IIMs are not even in Top 100 Universities list in the World. We are top in Corruption, we are top in forgery, we are top in hating our brothers and sisters, we are top in violating human rights, we are top in superstitious etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia....d_Universities,_2009

It proves that these institute are very general if you look world wide. It needs lot of efforts to bring it on top ranking.
If India wants to progress in all fields, let people of weaker sections come forward and give representation through reservation.

In this matter, I want to quote our Hon'ble Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh'

Our university system is, in many parts, in a state of disrepair…In almost half the districts in the country, higher education enrollments are abysmally low, almost two-third of our universities and 90 per cent of our colleges are rated as below average on quality parameters… I am concerned that in many states university appointments, including that of vice-chancellors, have been politicised and have become subject to caste and communal considerations, there are complaints of favouritism and corruption.

– Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2007[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_India

Now, I think only strict implementation of Reservation policy of Govt. of India in teaching posts in Universities/IITs/IIMS/IIMs/NITs/ and other deemed university is the only way to make India a developed country.

Reservation is a mean of representation of weaker section people. It has no question with compromise of merit. It is a mean of giving equal opportunity, otherwise, in the present scenario of India, depressed class people can not rise even having merit. People who came after availing reservation are equally meritorious and hard worker. They are more visionary and disciplinary. I am saying these on my personal experience.

PHG:>>"Is that only lower caste professor require fixed syllabi and micro-supervision? Is it not true for upper caste professors".

in autonomous institutions, all faculty, irrespective of caste or creed, are expected to teach courses to the cutting-edge of current knowledge, based on the latest publications in the field.

>>"Can you become a math’s professor by being on the basis of caste or educational qualification?!"

no, but diff adm mark cut-offs for diff castes, ends with products of highly diff knowledge-levels at the end of the course. caste quotas for faculty may force recruiting chaps with limited knowhow. when these rise up with automatic promotions, they often insist on taking some specific courses only, or teach only the preliminary chapters of the book and gove tests, grades only on them. such things can be prevented only by the american system where students choose the better from several teacher-alternatives. when I retired from iitm, three high-level p-g elective courses taught by me were simply dropped from available curriculum, since my juniors were finding them too hard to get into!

>>" Dr. Seshadri’s even goes to an extent where it appears that SC/ ST teachers are greedy and teachers from higher castes are not. Isn’t this comment absurd and an attempt to say that SC / ST people are good for nothing".

I certainly did not say that. for me 'harijano-ayam prabhoh putrah!. some of my best students have been dalits and moslems, over the half century of my p-g teaching. in my view, most dalits, post-moghul, are only Bs, pre-mughal.
I have equal respect for all humans of all races, creeds and castes.

the higher the 'caste' the greater the greed, is the truth.
all I meant was that bad teachers will bring the whole country down. keeping teacher-pays not too high will keep greedy folk out, only those who are fond of the subjects will take to the teaching profession and excel, like venky. when I entered engg in 1951, I took elec branch, bec of high challenge; family folk prefered civil engg bec of better side-earnings later on in govt projects those days!

>>"We can site numerous examples Dr. V Seshadri where general category students were poor in academic achievements, research etc but rose due to kinship".

you are right. caste/creed has no correlation to intrinsic merit. in fact, most of those who underteach in limited areas, after getting top posts, are often from higher castes only. they go for projects, govt assignments etc. leaving class-teaching to juniors!

D_K:

nepotism will die and true meritocracy will arise in all renowned national educ institutions, over half-cetury old, if govt funding for them is gradually reduced, to be replaced by alumni donations. only those which produce employably high-income products will thrive. others will close down or merge with better run institutions.

the govt-sponsored permit-licence-raj is now throttling india's educ system today, state and central govts operating admissions, forcing students to continue in colleges assigned to them thro counselling. If students are given freedom to change with grade sheets to other colleges each semester, with freedom for good colleges to expand their student-strengths, as reqd, educational waters will find their level. The only restriction should be that educ institutions should be forced to close those courses for which their placement levels go below 75%. true info should be publicized, properly verified, on placements achieved. parents will automatically take kids to better schools and colleges. control on charges should be replaced by govt-scholarships, for poor students, repayments followed thro, for high-placement high-quality educ programs in good institutions. caste/creed disadvantaged students should get free merit-up-gradements in free evg courses offered by govt schools, so that they get a level playing field while taking final exams and admission to higher courses.

It is widely known that overt and subvert castesim exists in educational institutions. Reservation has granted an entry for education to the lower castes, however could not prevent caste based discrimination in these insitutions due to the social mind set. Numerous such instances are reported in every day media. E.g. Children been prevented from having mid day meal that is prepared by a low caste cook, children belonging to low caste been failed deliberately (even though they are meritorious) –plummeting the morale of the students from lower caste. Thus this is another form of intolerance amongst high castes– who are not been able to digest that low caste students have been given some concessions in their education.

Similarly, still there is caste discrimination in livelihood (be it business or service). Aditya Mookerjee from Belgaum India points out that Dr. Ambedkar drafted the Indian Constitution based on merit and not on caste. Agreed. However, even after drafting the constitution, there were instances when Dr. Ambedkar was discriminated on the basis of caste. Even today landlords still check caste of a prospective tenant before giving his / her house on rent. And if you are from lower caste - you face the music. Likewise, hurdles are created in promotions too by making a case against a prospective lower caste employee. So castesim is still rampant in India and it appears that majority of upper castes want to still see lower castes thrown into the dark ages of caste based slavery, which was for centuries prevalent in the history of India. Hence, in this scenario reservation is an equity instrument for lower castes.

I do understand the opposition to promotion till Professor level from those who have given their opinions below. However, hasn’t the prospective candidate for professor gone through the same evaluation system / exams as that of upper castes and then acquired their educational qualifications. Though their entry into the ‘educational factory’ could be through reservation, however their fruitful exist was through an evaluation that is same for all the candidates – irrespective of castes (through discrimination exists here too).

On Dr. V Seshadri’s comment below. Is that only lower caste professor require fixed syllabi and micro-supervision? Is it not true for upper caste professors. Can you become a math’s professor by being on the basis of caste or educational qualification?! Dr. Seshadri’s even goes to an extent where it appears that SC/ ST teachers are greedy and teachers from higher castes are not. Isn’t this comment absurd and an attempt to say that SC / ST people are good for nothing. We can site numerous examples Dr. V Seshadri where general category students were poor in academic achievements, research etc but rose due to kin ship.

It is clear -- reserevation for the academic pie must be for the academic should only be for the sons and daughters of the JNU professors, for none else.

R:>>"discipline universities like JNU, including option to cutoff funding".

time has come for stoppage of govt funding for wellknown and well-established universities, iits, iims etc., more than 50 yrs old. they should continue on alumni donations now. if govt control on educ is removed, if all students can shift to better, but cheaper, colleges each semester with grade sheets, waters will find their levels. real educators will thrive. purely commercial or convertor colleges will become cowsheds or hotels.

people like you can organize special training centres for preparing Sc/ST youngsters for admissions to the best inst on merit, with loan-scholarships, ensuring repayments also. moneybags and landgrabs like justice dinakaran should be forced to sell their assets and contribute to sc-st help-programs, for non-convert dalits also.

Dr Umakant,
>> The debate over reservation is already settled politically.

That's exactly the point. Debate on pros or cons of reservation is long over. Path forward is implementation. By expressing their unwillingness to implement the government's order, the JNU faculties not only reveal their casteist mindset.
The government must fulfill their obligation and discipline universities like JNU, including option to cutoff funding.

It is good to know about the deeply ingrained caste animosity among the Caste Hindu faculty members in premier higher educational institutions. Though unwritten, but largely followed, the policy of excluding Dalits, Adivasis and other disadvantaged section of society is nothing but a clear cut case of academic apartheid.
Non-implementation of progressive provisions of the Constitution has remained a bane in this country and Universities/Colleges and other professional institutions are not an exception in this regard. Showing disrespect and practising disregard to the Constitution bears testimony to the fact that non-implementation of Constitutional provisions like reservation is not treated even a case of non-accountability in India. This as a matter of fact has become an example of institutionalised casteism. The impunity that is enjoyed and the dereliction of duties should be made a penal offence.
If this is the situation in premier institutions like JNU and Delhi University- right in the heart of India’s capital, then one could very well imagine what would be the situation in other places. The high profile malicious campaign against extending reservation for Dalits and Adivasis in the senior faculty posts in university/colleges is an expression of the Caste Hindu’s fear of losing their centuries old caste monopoly in the field of education.
The debate over reservation is already settled politically. Then where is the justification for raising issues related to reservation in this manner once again? The caste mindset refuses to accept the need for an egalitarian society based on the principles of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’.
The fact that there is opposition based on a fallacious notion of merit, quality & efficiency is itself a good reason for justifying the need for reservation even in senior faculty posts. There is certainly a need for equity, justice and greater accountability, if we claim to be a modern nation.
Why this hypocrisy in the name of being modern/progressive yet practising worst forms of discrimination, exclusion and violation of human rights to a large chunk of humanity???

Dr. Umakant
New Delhi

The basic error in the arguments of these professors is that JNU is a 'world class', 'premier university'. It is simply a group of useless liberal arts communists with huge egos and enhanced self-importance who's main job is to demoralize India and help keep it poor and undeveloped so that their masters in Beijing may one day rule us. When institutes training engineers, doctors, physicists, mathematicians and MBAs have to put up with quota, that is a tragedy. JNU is such a useless, third-rate and traitorous institution kept alive with public monies, that it's demise, if it ever comes to pass, will be a boon to India.

Action against them should be swift and severe. These JNU professors, in spite of their professed ideology, are not worth their weight in crap. Reservation can be there for Engineers (one mistake resulting in a bridge collapse can kill hundreds), can be there for Doctors (who can become a serial killer if incompetent) but not for the hallowed JNU communist professors! Of course, who will teach us how to keep a nation poor without them?

These JNU profs. and ex-profs. seem to be a bunch of hypocrites. Almost all of them are Marxists/socialists of some variety. And they do not seem to have problems with reservations for SC/ST students. So why should they have problems with reservation for faculty?

if teacher-appontments are made caste/creed based instead of knowledge-based, in autonomous colleges, where faculty is left to their jobs, no fixed syllabi, no micro-supervision, the quality of teaching and the graduating classes can suffer severely. if someone weak in diff eqns is made faculty in maths, he wont even be able to himself understand advanced maths applied in lots of disciplines, no question of teaching them!. In other professions, people operate collectively in groups, correcting and augmenting eachothers in work, but teachers are mostly working on own-knowledge, only.

In German universities, only the best-qualified teacher in the subject is called professor-director for the dept, handles all lectures in the subject in very large halls for hundreds of students, with dozens of assistants helping in tutorials in small groups; they all learn, get phD and eventually become profs also. we dont have that system in our universities.

in american universities, teachers get permanent appointment as 'tenure professors', only after working as trial faculty on contract at various levels, for fifteen long years. during that time, their names are 'listed' against lecture subjects, students choose their teachers from alternatives, based on feedback from senior students on the teachers' knowlewdge and performance. those who do not get full registrations for lectures, for several years, are advised to seek other professions, not expect tenure! we do not have this system also. our lecturers get permanent appointments, become profs by automatic promotions, no student-feedback or review!

only saving factor is that, in india, teachers are generally low-paid, only those who have real knowledge, enjoy teaching, become teachers. crooks go for politics only. inadequate-merit chaps will not take teaching jobs even if offered on reservation-basis. At the request of the VC of AU, over two decades back, I selected some lects from SC/ST grauates only, among applicants. none selected joined the posts! they seem to have said they dont want the poor-pay teacher-jobs where students may ask them questions in classes!. as 'dalits', they are entitled to govt jobs, with no questions asked by any one, with assured regular caste-based promotions, irrsepective of the quality of work. JNU may not get sc/st faculty joining, even if advertised on reservation, unless pay[-scales are very high.

keep teacher-pay adequate, but moderate, if you want to avoid greed-folk in teaching. only then, high-think simple-life types will come for teaching, scholar-reseach jobs. otherwise, greedy ones will come in and commdercialize the educational field, in league with the politicians. It has already happened, unfortunately, all over the country. no wonder if nobel-laurate 'venkies' from india are found only from cambridge in england, not from indian universities!

It’s a caste mind set of the so called civil society which is basically just literate society. They have always a greater attitude towards their upper caste back ground. By default they believe on caste and have understanding that people from lower caste do not have quality and talent. People from vulnerable communities having huge talent and quality which needs opportunity. Reservation is proving that even though it has served very little and more then 90% unimplemented

Unfortunately none of the study has revealed that due to the reservation the quality of any institution has been negatively affected. In the other hand they are only academics and professionals from reservation who are serving in the govt particularly in the rural India as doctors, engineers and as professionals. Contribution of such people who came through reservation are more then the general category in the progress of the country. Most of the candidates from general category use to go abroad from batter opportunities.

Same faculties fight tooth & nail when UGC proposes promotions based on merit such as publications etc. At present salary and promotions is based on length of service. Where is merit now?

Fact is that opposition for reservation is nothing but age old casteism and prejudice. Pure and simple. They must be dealt firmly.

The government should have a uniform policy of handling such obstructionists. It will not hurt to make an example of JNU by firing all those opposed to uplifting the SC/ST community.

"Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University is often at the vanguard of issues deemed liberal, progressive and politically correct"

Just like Jawaharlala Nehru, the university is communist to boot.

In my humble opinion, if 22% of the positions in the faculty can be filled by those who belong to the SC/ST quota, and these positions are filled by those who can do justice to the positions, then there is no issue to resolve for the University. However, perhaps, the Supreme Court may have noted, that this cannot be done at once. When there is an opening in the positions, then perhaps, the deserving candidates may be preferred from the SC/ST section. However, it may be pointed out, that this would be unfair to the other candidates who do not belong to SC/ST, but are as good as the SC/ST candidates. Let it be according to the discretion of the University, when it comes to deserving candidates. I would like to believe, that Dr Ambedkar was instrumental in the drafting of the constitution of India, not because he was a Dalit scholar, but because he was the most deserving among other equals.

An appointment to the post of Assistant Professor requires that the candidate in question should have a PhD and several years of research experience and must have published articles in leading peer-reviewed journals. Such a candidate, even if he/she is from a SC/ST background, cannot be considered a 'backward' person, socially or educationally. So why should posts of Assistant Professor or above be subject to any 'reservation', the primary aim of which is to bring about upliftment of socially and educationally backward people? I am very happy that the faculty of JNU have the courage to come out with their views.

An appointment to the post of Assistant Professor requires that the candidate in question should have a PhD and several years of research experience and must have published articles in leading peer-reviewed journals. Such a candidate, even if he/she is from a SC/ST background, cannot be considered a 'backward' person, socially or educationally. So why should posts of Assistant Professor or above be subject to any 'reservation', the primary aim of which is to bring about upliftment of socially and educationally backward people? I am very happy that the faculty of JNU have the courage to come out with their views.

In my humble opinion, if 22% of the positions in the faculty can be filled by those who belong to the SC/ST quota, and these positions are filled by those who can do justice to the positions, then there is no issue to resolve for the University. However, perhaps, the Supreme Court may have noted, that this cannot be done at once. When there is an opening in the positions, then perhaps, the deserving candidates may be preferred from the SC/ST section. However, it may be pointed out, that this would be unfair to the other candidates who do not belong to SC/ST, but are as good as the SC/ST candidates. Let it be according to the discretion of the University, when it comes to deserving candidates. I would like to believe, that Dr Ambedkar was instrumental in the drafting of the constitution of India, not because he was a Dalit scholar, but because he was the most deserving among other equals.

"Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University is often at the vanguard of issues deemed liberal, progressive and politically correct"

Just like Jawaharlala Nehru, the university is communist to boot.

The government should have a uniform policy of handling such obstructionists. It will not hurt to make an example of JNU by firing all those opposed to uplifting the SC/ST community.

Same faculties fight tooth & nail when UGC proposes promotions based on merit such as publications etc. At present salary and promotions is based on length of service. Where is merit now?

Fact is that opposition for reservation is nothing but age old casteism and prejudice. Pure and simple. They must be dealt firmly.

It’s a caste mind set of the so called civil society which is basically just literate society. They have always a greater attitude towards their upper caste back ground. By default they believe on caste and have understanding that people from lower caste do not have quality and talent. People from vulnerable communities having huge talent and quality which needs opportunity. Reservation is proving that even though it has served very little and more then 90% unimplemented

Unfortunately none of the study has revealed that due to the reservation the quality of any institution has been negatively affected. In the other hand they are only academics and professionals from reservation who are serving in the govt particularly in the rural India as doctors, engineers and as professionals. Contribution of such people who came through reservation are more then the general category in the progress of the country. Most of the candidates from general category use to go abroad from batter opportunities.

if teacher-appontments are made caste/creed based instead of knowledge-based, in autonomous colleges, where faculty is left to their jobs, no fixed syllabi, no micro-supervision, the quality of teaching and the graduating classes can suffer severely. if someone weak in diff eqns is made faculty in maths, he wont even be able to himself understand advanced maths applied in lots of disciplines, no question of teaching them!. In other professions, people operate collectively in groups, correcting and augmenting eachothers in work, but teachers are mostly working on own-knowledge, only.

In German universities, only the best-qualified teacher in the subject is called professor-director for the dept, handles all lectures in the subject in very large halls for hundreds of students, with dozens of assistants helping in tutorials in small groups; they all learn, get phD and eventually become profs also. we dont have that system in our universities.

in american universities, teachers get permanent appointment as 'tenure professors', only after working as trial faculty on contract at various levels, for fifteen long years. during that time, their names are 'listed' against lecture subjects, students choose their teachers from alternatives, based on feedback from senior students on the teachers' knowlewdge and performance. those who do not get full registrations for lectures, for several years, are advised to seek other professions, not expect tenure! we do not have this system also. our lecturers get permanent appointments, become profs by automatic promotions, no student-feedback or review!

only saving factor is that, in india, teachers are generally low-paid, only those who have real knowledge, enjoy teaching, become teachers. crooks go for politics only. inadequate-merit chaps will not take teaching jobs even if offered on reservation-basis. At the request of the VC of AU, over two decades back, I selected some lects from SC/ST grauates only, among applicants. none selected joined the posts! they seem to have said they dont want the poor-pay teacher-jobs where students may ask them questions in classes!. as 'dalits', they are entitled to govt jobs, with no questions asked by any one, with assured regular caste-based promotions, irrsepective of the quality of work. JNU may not get sc/st faculty joining, even if advertised on reservation, unless pay[-scales are very high.

keep teacher-pay adequate, but moderate, if you want to avoid greed-folk in teaching. only then, high-think simple-life types will come for teaching, scholar-reseach jobs. otherwise, greedy ones will come in and commdercialize the educational field, in league with the politicians. It has already happened, unfortunately, all over the country. no wonder if nobel-laurate 'venkies' from india are found only from cambridge in england, not from indian universities!

These JNU profs. and ex-profs. seem to be a bunch of hypocrites. Almost all of them are Marxists/socialists of some variety. And they do not seem to have problems with reservations for SC/ST students. So why should they have problems with reservation for faculty?

Action against them should be swift and severe. These JNU professors, in spite of their professed ideology, are not worth their weight in crap. Reservation can be there for Engineers (one mistake resulting in a bridge collapse can kill hundreds), can be there for Doctors (who can become a serial killer if incompetent) but not for the hallowed JNU communist professors! Of course, who will teach us how to keep a nation poor without them?

The basic error in the arguments of these professors is that JNU is a 'world class', 'premier university'. It is simply a group of useless liberal arts communists with huge egos and enhanced self-importance who's main job is to demoralize India and help keep it poor and undeveloped so that their masters in Beijing may one day rule us. When institutes training engineers, doctors, physicists, mathematicians and MBAs have to put up with quota, that is a tragedy. JNU is such a useless, third-rate and traitorous institution kept alive with public monies, that it's demise, if it ever comes to pass, will be a boon to India.

It is good to know about the deeply ingrained caste animosity among the Caste Hindu faculty members in premier higher educational institutions. Though unwritten, but largely followed, the policy of excluding Dalits, Adivasis and other disadvantaged section of society is nothing but a clear cut case of academic apartheid.
Non-implementation of progressive provisions of the Constitution has remained a bane in this country and Universities/Colleges and other professional institutions are not an exception in this regard. Showing disrespect and practising disregard to the Constitution bears testimony to the fact that non-implementation of Constitutional provisions like reservation is not treated even a case of non-accountability in India. This as a matter of fact has become an example of institutionalised casteism. The impunity that is enjoyed and the dereliction of duties should be made a penal offence.
If this is the situation in premier institutions like JNU and Delhi University- right in the heart of India’s capital, then one could very well imagine what would be the situation in other places. The high profile malicious campaign against extending reservation for Dalits and Adivasis in the senior faculty posts in university/colleges is an expression of the Caste Hindu’s fear of losing their centuries old caste monopoly in the field of education.
The debate over reservation is already settled politically. Then where is the justification for raising issues related to reservation in this manner once again? The caste mindset refuses to accept the need for an egalitarian society based on the principles of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’.
The fact that there is opposition based on a fallacious notion of merit, quality & efficiency is itself a good reason for justifying the need for reservation even in senior faculty posts. There is certainly a need for equity, justice and greater accountability, if we claim to be a modern nation.
Why this hypocrisy in the name of being modern/progressive yet practising worst forms of discrimination, exclusion and violation of human rights to a large chunk of humanity???

Dr. Umakant
New Delhi

Dr Umakant,
>> The debate over reservation is already settled politically.

That's exactly the point. Debate on pros or cons of reservation is long over. Path forward is implementation. By expressing their unwillingness to implement the government's order, the JNU faculties not only reveal their casteist mindset.
The government must fulfill their obligation and discipline universities like JNU, including option to cutoff funding.

R:>>"discipline universities like JNU, including option to cutoff funding".

time has come for stoppage of govt funding for wellknown and well-established universities, iits, iims etc., more than 50 yrs old. they should continue on alumni donations now. if govt control on educ is removed, if all students can shift to better, but cheaper, colleges each semester with grade sheets, waters will find their levels. real educators will thrive. purely commercial or convertor colleges will become cowsheds or hotels.

people like you can organize special training centres for preparing Sc/ST youngsters for admissions to the best inst on merit, with loan-scholarships, ensuring repayments also. moneybags and landgrabs like justice dinakaran should be forced to sell their assets and contribute to sc-st help-programs, for non-convert dalits also.

It is clear -- reserevation for the academic pie must be for the academic should only be for the sons and daughters of the JNU professors, for none else.

It is widely known that overt and subvert castesim exists in educational institutions. Reservation has granted an entry for education to the lower castes, however could not prevent caste based discrimination in these insitutions due to the social mind set. Numerous such instances are reported in every day media. E.g. Children been prevented from having mid day meal that is prepared by a low caste cook, children belonging to low caste been failed deliberately (even though they are meritorious) –plummeting the morale of the students from lower caste. Thus this is another form of intolerance amongst high castes– who are not been able to digest that low caste students have been given some concessions in their education.

Similarly, still there is caste discrimination in livelihood (be it business or service). Aditya Mookerjee from Belgaum India points out that Dr. Ambedkar drafted the Indian Constitution based on merit and not on caste. Agreed. However, even after drafting the constitution, there were instances when Dr. Ambedkar was discriminated on the basis of caste. Even today landlords still check caste of a prospective tenant before giving his / her house on rent. And if you are from lower caste - you face the music. Likewise, hurdles are created in promotions too by making a case against a prospective lower caste employee. So castesim is still rampant in India and it appears that majority of upper castes want to still see lower castes thrown into the dark ages of caste based slavery, which was for centuries prevalent in the history of India. Hence, in this scenario reservation is an equity instrument for lower castes.

I do understand the opposition to promotion till Professor level from those who have given their opinions below. However, hasn’t the prospective candidate for professor gone through the same evaluation system / exams as that of upper castes and then acquired their educational qualifications. Though their entry into the ‘educational factory’ could be through reservation, however their fruitful exist was through an evaluation that is same for all the candidates – irrespective of castes (through discrimination exists here too).

On Dr. V Seshadri’s comment below. Is that only lower caste professor require fixed syllabi and micro-supervision? Is it not true for upper caste professors. Can you become a math’s professor by being on the basis of caste or educational qualification?! Dr. Seshadri’s even goes to an extent where it appears that SC/ ST teachers are greedy and teachers from higher castes are not. Isn’t this comment absurd and an attempt to say that SC / ST people are good for nothing. We can site numerous examples Dr. V Seshadri where general category students were poor in academic achievements, research etc but rose due to kin ship.

D_K:

nepotism will die and true meritocracy will arise in all renowned national educ institutions, over half-cetury old, if govt funding for them is gradually reduced, to be replaced by alumni donations. only those which produce employably high-income products will thrive. others will close down or merge with better run institutions.

the govt-sponsored permit-licence-raj is now throttling india's educ system today, state and central govts operating admissions, forcing students to continue in colleges assigned to them thro counselling. If students are given freedom to change with grade sheets to other colleges each semester, with freedom for good colleges to expand their student-strengths, as reqd, educational waters will find their level. The only restriction should be that educ institutions should be forced to close those courses for which their placement levels go below 75%. true info should be publicized, properly verified, on placements achieved. parents will automatically take kids to better schools and colleges. control on charges should be replaced by govt-scholarships, for poor students, repayments followed thro, for high-placement high-quality educ programs in good institutions. caste/creed disadvantaged students should get free merit-up-gradements in free evg courses offered by govt schools, so that they get a level playing field while taking final exams and admission to higher courses.

PHG:>>"Is that only lower caste professor require fixed syllabi and micro-supervision? Is it not true for upper caste professors".

in autonomous institutions, all faculty, irrespective of caste or creed, are expected to teach courses to the cutting-edge of current knowledge, based on the latest publications in the field.

>>"Can you become a math’s professor by being on the basis of caste or educational qualification?!"

no, but diff adm mark cut-offs for diff castes, ends with products of highly diff knowledge-levels at the end of the course. caste quotas for faculty may force recruiting chaps with limited knowhow. when these rise up with automatic promotions, they often insist on taking some specific courses only, or teach only the preliminary chapters of the book and gove tests, grades only on them. such things can be prevented only by the american system where students choose the better from several teacher-alternatives. when I retired from iitm, three high-level p-g elective courses taught by me were simply dropped from available curriculum, since my juniors were finding them too hard to get into!

>>" Dr. Seshadri’s even goes to an extent where it appears that SC/ ST teachers are greedy and teachers from higher castes are not. Isn’t this comment absurd and an attempt to say that SC / ST people are good for nothing".

I certainly did not say that. for me 'harijano-ayam prabhoh putrah!. some of my best students have been dalits and moslems, over the half century of my p-g teaching. in my view, most dalits, post-moghul, are only Bs, pre-mughal.
I have equal respect for all humans of all races, creeds and castes.

the higher the 'caste' the greater the greed, is the truth.
all I meant was that bad teachers will bring the whole country down. keeping teacher-pays not too high will keep greedy folk out, only those who are fond of the subjects will take to the teaching profession and excel, like venky. when I entered engg in 1951, I took elec branch, bec of high challenge; family folk prefered civil engg bec of better side-earnings later on in govt projects those days!

>>"We can site numerous examples Dr. V Seshadri where general category students were poor in academic achievements, research etc but rose due to kinship".

you are right. caste/creed has no correlation to intrinsic merit. in fact, most of those who underteach in limited areas, after getting top posts, are often from higher castes only. they go for projects, govt assignments etc. leaving class-teaching to juniors!

In this matter, I want to quote our Hon'ble Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh'

Our university system is, in many parts, in a state of disrepair…In almost half the districts in the country, higher education enrollments are abysmally low, almost two-third of our universities and 90 per cent of our colleges are rated as below average on quality parameters… I am concerned that in many states university appointments, including that of vice-chancellors, have been politicised and have become subject to caste and communal considerations, there are complaints of favouritism and corruption.

– Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2007[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_India

Now, I think only strict implementation of Reservation policy of Govt. of India in teaching posts in Universities/IITs/IIMS/IIMs/NITs/ and other deemed university is the only way to make India a developed country.

Reservation is a mean of representation of weaker section people. It has no question with compromise of merit. It is a mean of giving equal opportunity, otherwise, in the present scenario of India, depressed class people can not rise even having merit. People who came after availing reservation are equally meritorious and hard worker. They are more visionary and disciplinary. I am saying these on my personal experience.

Think Worldwide! Think Globally!

Till now no reservation policy is following in the IITs/IIMs in the post of Professor/Associate Professor etc. Means only pure, very hard working, dedicated, born by God's mouth,meritorious and cream of India is serving the IITs/IIMs etc. Then IITs/IIMs must be Top University/Educational Institute of the World. But for your kind information, IIT/IIMs are not even Top 10 in Asia Forget about Word ranking. Where merit is gone of these elite people???????? They all should go to hell. To whom they are making fool in the name of merit. IIT/IIMs are not even in Top 100 Universities list in the World. We are top in Corruption, we are top in forgery, we are top in hating our brothers and sisters, we are top in violating human rights, we are top in superstitious etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia....d_Universities,_2009

It proves that these institute are very general if you look world wide. It needs lot of efforts to bring it on top ranking.
If India wants to progress in all fields, let people of weaker sections come forward and give representation through reservation.

Let the better Professors leave JNU. Some of them are world standard. There are many universities comming up in China Singapore even Bangladesh. Better money better respect. Some pvt institutes pay well also.

We know, 'Hindu society' established in the past a form of segregation. The so called upper castes could not maintain maintain their wealth & 'merits' without dividing people.
The same forces are in play now ! The SHUDRAS,SC,ST are ready and wanting to be exploited & butchered by the elite again !!

It will take a while for the so called intellectuals to garner respects and for them to produce a narrative that can be readily embraced by all !!!

>> Reservation above the assistant professor level will ruin JNU’s quality of education, making it a third-rate varsity

Does that mean that there are no eligible candidates "above the assistant professor level" from about 70 to 80% of Indian population?

Bipin chandra:>>"Reservation above the assistant professor level will ruin JNU’s quality of education, making it a third-rate varsity"
>>"Does that mean that there are no eligible candidates "above the assistant professor level" from about 70 to 80% of Indian population?"

No. it means that all those who reach the status of asst prof in national institutes should consider themselves as self-respecting academics of india without caste/creed consciousness. further promotions must be purely on seniority and merit, irrespective of caste/creed. otherwise, those who got promo on reservation will tend to teach history recognizing aryan invasion theory, while others will say that it is an illusion!

ten yrs after independance, a suggestion was made that sc/st reservation be made for recruitment of defence officers also. all the three defence force chiefs threatened to resign, if it was implemented, saying it will cause emotional disunity among defence forces, weakening our defence capabilities in general. the idea was dropped.
all castes and creeds are entering defence as 'indians' only and fighting for mother india.

V.Seshadri: "otherwise, those who got promo on reservation will tend to teach history recognizing aryan invasion theory, while others will say that it is an illusion!"

Bipan Chandra and his ilk are the biggest supporters of such lies and fake history. The entire Universe has moved on but these JNU clowns still thrive on outdated and discredited marxist gibberish interpretations of history from the past century.

It is laughable for the JNU buffoons to talk against reservations. Quality, my foot!

One of the best books I have read is about these very clowns - Arun Shourie's "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud". You will find quite a few of Bipan Chandra's hijinks in that book.

I don't think this is a casteist issue, it is actually reflective of a leftist/Marxist mindset.
The leftist elite would want one set of standards for themselves and another set for others. George Orwell summed it up very well in Animal Farm - "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
They want equality to prevail everywhere but expect distinction for themselves. Jyoti Basu professed equality of the poor masses and enjoyed scotch whiskey and vacationing in London all the time.
So the same JNU jhollawallahs will lecture you on creating a society of equals free of class and caste, but will react if they are asked to be treated equally with the others.

>> One of the best books I have read is about these very clowns - Arun Shourie's "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud". You will find quite a few of Bipan Chandra's hijinks in that book

Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach. If Mr. Arun Shourie or anyone has better evidences etc they should present the evidences in a scholarly manner and gain respect as historians (instead of personally attacking respected historians who earned their respect by being scholarly and evidence-based and showing willingness to be led by evidence).

>> it means that all those who reach the status of asst prof in national institutes should consider themselves as self-respecting academics

So the 70 to 80% of Indian population have so such self-respect etc? What is wrong if a smaller percentage of them who are eligible are seen to be present as assistant professors etc. Even with this, the rest/other smaller percentage of people are still over-represented in every key/important positions (supposedly by merit – mostly, the ‘merit’ of the connections they have).

"Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach."

This is pure nonsense. Eminent historians exposes how the so called professional hsitorians milked the govt for personal gains. It lists out scores of projects where money was allocated but output was zilch. It shows the historians to be corrupt. And as things stand, none of the facts in the book has been disputed.

And what is scholarly approach worth if they pursue their profession to promote an agenda? Just like the "scientists" in CRU who suppressed data to promote global warming, these "historians" are idealogues-not scholars.

"Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach."

As the title of the book explains, Eminent Historians is a book on historians-not history.

Kumar,

"Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach"

It is quite interesting that you or Anwar easily thrash anything that does not suit your views, as propaganda. Have you read the book ? As ganesan explained, it is not a book about history, but about historians. If it is propaganda, why haven't the scholarly eminent historians rebuked it ?

>> And what is scholarly approach worth if they pursue their profession to promote an agenda?

What matters is whether a historian presents evidences and presents his/her case in a reasonable manner using methodologies that are well accepted world over. Such historians are respected world over (cutting across nationality/race/religion/creed etc) and are viewed/quoted as an authority (by other scholars in their own work/books etc). Now, who are the historians who are respected world over by other scholars/peers? That should be a fair enough measure of scholarliness/reasonableness/respectability of a historian (like any other branch of knowledge/scholarship like science etc).

>> It is quite interesting that you or Anwar easily thrash anything that does not suit your views, as propaganda

World over history, science etc are fact finding endeavors where different scholars/peers present their evidences, debate about it etc and the best evidences and most reasonable conclusions are taken/evolved. Mere personal name calling of the scholars, attributing bad motives on them etc is a pretty childish approach/attitude. It is right to call such an approach/attitude as propagandist in nature (as opposed to scholarly fact finding). As I said, the respectability given by worldwide community of peers/scholars is generally a good measure of respectability that can be attributed to a historian or any scholar.

>> Eminent historians exposes how the so called professional hsitorians milked the govt for personal gains.

It is just an expose of the Shourie brand of shoddy journalism. Impugning through mudslinging.

"It is just an expose of the Shourie brand of shoddy journalism. Impugning through mudslinging."

Rather than mudslinging yourself, why not point out one factual error in the book?

What an Volte face?. Most of us knew that these self styled radical intellectuals (read brahmin,khatri and kayastha)would stand-up for anything under the sun, till they have something to benefit. If reservations are implemented, how can they reproduce themselves and their average academics in the name of merit. They also have a more immedieate concern. Their children would have completed their PhD's in third rate universities abroad and looking for livelihoods. How can others take their jobs. And this gentleman Bipin Chandra is supposed to have given up his caste suffix sud, eventhough he married a sud. But, can he give up the prejudices in his mind. Good that they have emposed themselves. Thanks Anuradha Raman for exposing the third rate nature of our self styled intelligentia.

Dr.Sathya Prakash Reddy
Assitant Professor
University of Hyderabad

WILL THE OUTLOOK PLEASE TELL US SINCE WHEN THE RESERVATIONS FOR SC/ST IN FACULTY POSITIONS BECAME A "CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE"?

Ganesan,

"Rather than mudslinging yourself, why not point out one factual error in the book?"

Exactly. well said. Arun Shourie is too smart and intellectual for these eminent historians. What they can do best is abuse him.

Kumar,

"World over history, science etc are fact finding endeavors where different scholars/peers present their evidences, debate about it etc and the best evidences and most reasonable conclusions are taken/evolved. Mere personal name calling of the scholars, attributing bad motives on them etc is a pretty childish approach/attitude. It is right to call such an approach/attitude as propagandist in nature (as opposed to scholarly fact finding). As I said, the respectability given by worldwide community of peers/scholars is generally a good measure of respectability that can be attributed to a historian or any scholar."

Yawn. You did not answer my question. Have you read the book ?

Strategy to organize facts cleverly to fit their preconceived prejudices,selectively choosing facts and arguments had only exposed JNU professors of theirs' 'confirmation bias'.
In the current globalized world it would be very difficult for them to hold hegemony - social,cultural,legal and above all psychological over lower castes. It's high time Hindu society needs a fine tuning....

"As I said, the respectability given by worldwide community of peers/scholars is generally a good measure of respectability that can be attributed to a historian or any scholar."


Till a few weeks back, the scientists at CRU were held in high esteem and had great respectability. What is it worth now?

As far as SHourie is concerned, no one so far has disputed any of his facts or shown that he has taken data out of context. People like Ram Guha trashed Shourie's book without even seeing the index!!! So much for the scholars.

Again, give one example where Shourie is factually incorrect or chose only part of data to buttress is case? If you cannot come up with such an example, shut up.

>> Till a few weeks back, the scientists at CRU were held in high esteem and had great respectability. What is it worth now?

A scientist puts forth his/her thesis and provides the evidences, reasons, arguments etc for the thesis. The thesis is open for review/challenge by other scholars/scientists. If someone else comes up with a better thesis/evidences etc, that will gain acceptance in the scholarly community. Gradually a general consensus will be evolved on various issues based on the strength of the arguments, reasons, evidences etc. Sure, some issues will gain more agreement/consensus than others. That is all part of valid research/scholarship. As long a scientist/scholar is contributing to the debate in a useful manner and is willing to be based on evidences/facts and if their methods are as per the generally agreed norms in the scientific community, they will be respected (even if some of the thesis put forward by a person are found to be wrong etc. it is a process)

>> As far as SHourie is concerned, no one so far has disputed any of his facts ....

The relevant question is about historical scholarship as a fact-finding mission. There is a whole world-wide community of historians/scholars who review the evidences, historical methods used etc. If other historians have better evidences, arguments etc their findings will gain prominence. There should be a dispassionate fact-finding and not personal ad-hominem attacks. The very idea of ad hominem personal attacks on historians that are well recognized by community of scholars should be repugnant. Ask any scholar/scientist anywhere in the world. He will agree with that.

>> People like Ram Guha trashed Shourie's book without even seeing the index!!!

In my view, Ram Guha needn’t have even bothered to write a review of such a book.

"The very idea of ad hominem personal attacks on historians that are well recognized by community of scholars should be repugnant. Ask any scholar/scientist anywhere in the world. He will agree with that. "

Instead of ad hominem personal attacks on Shourie, provide me one example when Shourie said something about the historians that is not correct.

"The only thing relevant about a historian/scholar/scientist etc is the merit of the evidences presented and the contribution to the debate of historical fact-finding."

I know you rely too much on authority and less on facts. In any event, calling out Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib about their lies and misrepresentation are NOT personal attacks but fact finding.

For instance, Thapar lied about Harsha. And she had the audacity to say Shourie was wrong because he did not know sanskrit. Fine. Thapar's sanskrit knowledge is sketchy as well.

Aside that, Rajatarangini is available in English and the relevant passage in question supported Shourie's claim -not Thapar's.

If this is personal attack to you, good bye.

>> I know you rely too much on authority and less on facts.
>> For instance, Thapar lied ..

The best way of fact finding is for worldwide community of scholars/historians/scientists etc who are serious about fact-finding, who review each others work, debate, challenge and let the best arguments evolve on merit (without making childish ad hominem attacks on fellow scientists/scholars as "liars" etc). This is well accepted methodology world over for any field of human endeavor and fact finding. There are arguments, better arguments, evidences, better evidences etc – it is childish to call a scientist/historian well recognized among the worldwide community of scholars as “liar”. It is of course a personal attack to attribute deliberate lying.

Ganesan,

>> calling out Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib about their lies and misrepresentation are NOT personal attacks.

Almost all of Shourie's work consists of personal attacks on people known for their integrity and scholarship. As V.N.Gadgil said, "IN Arun Shourie's Worshipping False Gods, the Dalit apostle, B.R. Ambedkar, is portrayed as a self-centred, unpatriotic, power-hungry anti-national, a stooge of the British. Can there be a more false picture of Ambedkar? The book may be well-researched, but it is biased."

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?203929

""IN Arun Shourie's Worshipping False Gods, the Dalit apostle, B.R. Ambedkar, is portrayed as a self-centred, unpatriotic, power-hungry anti-national, a stooge of the British. Can there be a more false picture of Ambedkar? The book may be well-researched, but it is biased."

What a scholarly retort!! As a retort, I would expect something that would prove Ambedkar was patrotic-that he actually fought the British. Shourie may or may not be biased.

But why dont you guys, the epitome of objectivity, produce some evidence that shows Ambedkar to be patrotic and not as as a stooge of British? If the only defense you can come up with is "he is biased", I really pity you.

Been a long time since I visited these boards. Had taken off after my posts were deleted by the moderator. Saw the amusing article of JNU wallahs talking about merit, and then the usual hyperbole of the liberals. Felt inclined to butt heads. Let's get to it.

>> Thats a propagandist view/approach towards history and not a scholarly approach.
>> The very idea of ad hominem personal attacks on historians that are well recognized by community of scholars should be repugnant.

Brilliant. After indulging in such attacks yourself, you are saying that such acts by Shourie are repugnant.

And why are academics excluded from such attacks? Is exposing corruption and plagiarism in academia to be banned? Are these worthies to be allowed a free run at public funds, and any attacks on them be treated as personal and ad hominem? What kind of stupidity is this?

>> it is childish to call a scientist/historian well recognized among the worldwide community of scholars as “liar”.

Even when they lie?

>> In my view, Ram Guha needn’t have even bothered to write a review of such a book.

What he bothers to write about is his interest or business. However, if he wrote a review without actually reading the book, well!

>> The only thing relevant about a historian/scholar/scientist etc is the merit of the evidences presented and the contribution to the debate of historical fact-finding.

Nonsense. Such a claim would be valid if it were purely an academic exercise. Once these issues come in the public domain, such historians/scholars/scientists have to thrash issues out in a public forum. Scientists who want to influence major policy decisions, and demand huge financing, can't hide behind ivory towers. They have to convince people, including those who might not be expert in those areas, about the authenticity of their studies, the impact of non-response to their requests, and respond to skeptics with sound arguments and evidence.

Similarly, once the historians use their position to push their lies and ideological prejudices, they can no longer claim academic immunity. Parents, whose kids read books by these 'eminents' in the classrooms, have a right to know, as to what their kids are learning is the result of genuine academic research, and not the garbage of deeply prejudiced minds. The historians are obligated to provide evidence that back up their claims, and also destroy the claims of counter arguments with evidence, sound logic, and rational thought. Instead, what we get are exactly the kind of 'childish ad hominem attacks' that you so seem to deplore. This, they have consistently failed to do, and have been proved wrong so many times, that only blind worshippers like you consider them scholarly.

And who made them 'eminent'? Well, surprise, surprise, they themselves did. While signing a petition on Ayodhya, they claimed to be 'eminent historians' throwing the rest of their colleagues under the bus as unworthy, whose evidence and research, if found to be inconvenient, could be dismissed as revisionist.

Let us consider some examples of times they have been wrong, after shouting down others who differed with them as revisionist.

The eminent historians kept shouting down everyone who spoke about the Saraswati river. The liturgical evidence to support these claims was dismissed, and all the historians who made such claims were labeled revisionists. Was some logic provided to counter such claims, or dismiss such evidence? No. At least not to my knowledge. Now however, there is considerable proof of such a river having existed. Why should such historians still be considered eminent, instead of the dishonest scoundrels they were.

Moving on, the eminent historians kept peddling the Aryan Invasion Theory, despite serious misgivings about it. Till the 90s at least, NCERT history books carried it, despite serious doubts about it. Whoever pointed out that there was no evidence of an invasion, and probably migration was a more suitable term, was shouted down as, you guessed it, revisionist, communal and Sanghi. Such a position was politically necessary, since Hindus were to be shown as invaders, and the upper caste-lower caste and north/south divide could also be shown as racial. It fit their plans so perfectly that it had to be propagated, evidence, or lack of it, be damned. Now of course, evidence is emerging that not only was there no invasion, even the migration happened many thousand of years before the originally claimed date. Why should an entire generation, which learnt incorrect history to satisfy the ideological proclivities of the liberal crowd not attack them?

Further along, these guys made a lot of noise when controversy arose over their claims of ancient Hindus being beef eaters, claiming that they were saying the truth. Fine. Maybe they were, and their logic of truth being respected, even if unpleasant, can be appreciated.

However, the same guys made a lot of noise when the BJP govt in Goa started updating books with details about the inquisition. Then they didn't think about respect for the truth.

Al Bundy

>> Does that mean that there are no eligible candidates "above the assistant professor level" from about 70 to 80% of Indian population?

No. This means that those who need reservations are not adequately qualified. You may disagree with it, but this is what it means, instead of the perverse meaning you want to give to it.

>> Almost all of Shourie's work consists of personal attacks on people known for their integrity and scholarship.

The jihadists have never forgiven Shourie since he exposed the corruption of Abdul Rahman Antulay, forcing him to resign.

>> exposing corruption and plagiarism in academia to be banned? Are these worthies to be allowed a free run at public funds, and any attacks on them be treated as personal and ad hominem?

Mr. Shourie himself will be astonished to hear that all he was doing was merely "exposing corruption" etc. Recently the leader of a banned terrorist organization complained that all he was doing is just "religious preaching" and he was banned for that! The claim that all Mr. Shourie was just exposing "corruption/plagiarism" is like that.

>> Scientists who want to influence major policy decisions, and demand huge financing, can't hide behind ivory towers.
>> shouting down others who differed with them as revisionist.

Scientists/scholars/historians etc anywhere in the world including India are not some appointed/nominated people for being a Kings son/daughter etc. It is an open field - anyone who shows merit of their research are free to contribute and raise in their respectability and acceptance in the world community of scholars/scientists. Those who gain critical acclaim from peers and world community of scholars, their work will be used by governmental authorities as well. No scientist/historian can “hide” or avoid a critical review/assessment of their work. That is part and parcel of the whole exercise and there are no short cuts to gain such prominence and critical acclaim. Whether it is about Saraswati river or AIT etc, there is no need about any personal attack of motives labeling the scientists as bad people with bad motives etc - all that is required is to produce their own contrary thesis with appropriate evidence to the world scholarly community of scientists/historians and let their own work be reviewed/challenged/judged etc let the truth come out based on relative merit of arguments provided by each. No one can object to such a methodology and it is done all over the world. No one can stop that legitimate process. They will be called revisionist is they bring in things like "hurting of religious sentiments" which should not be a consideration as far as fact finding is concerned. Otherwise it is open for all.

>> This means that those who need reservations are not adequately qualified. You may disagree with it, but this is what it means, instead of the perverse meaning you want to give to it.

There are many adequately qualified people and among them. those with already existing connections etc have an undue advantage to actually getting hold of the posts. A handful of sections have traditionally held all/most the influential posts (with many generations of education/influence behind them), those in their social circle hold an undue advantage (these section are already highly over-represented). Given that there are many sections and social groups in India who never had any education/influence and had to start from the scratch without such social connections, reservations can ensure at least some resemblance of fair play and give them a chance. Reservations, agreeably an extreme measure were introduced to address an extremity of lop-sided context. Ideally, it should not be required.

>> A handful of sections have traditionally held all/most the influential posts

You are making a case for reservations. I was just pointing out the limitations in your comprehension.

As for reservations, I do agree that access to opportunity is vastly different for different people, and equality of opportunity is the basic feature of an egalitarian society. So, ways to equalize opportunity must be found.

The place I differ is that I don't see caste as the sole, or even dominant reason for such inequality. In particular, when it comes to higher education or teaching at such positions, per my personal experience, caste is not a factor at all. The casteists don't like to hear it, since it prevents them from smearing the upper castes, playing victims and corner benefits without much effort. However, this has been my experience.

>> Mr. Shourie himself will be astonished to hear that all he was doing was merely "exposing corruption" etc.

I have no idea how Mr. Shourie will react. Unlike you, I make no claims of being a clairvoyant. I rely on evidence and logic. Based on them, I am not surprised at all, that you are trying to defend the corruption of these scoundrels, trying to divert it by calling it personal attacks. This is one of the favorite tricks used by slimeballs all over, including the eminent historians. Never challenge facts, since that shall get them in trouble. Attack the accuser. Call him names. The more popular ones are fascists, Sanghis, communal, chaddis, etc. After that, they can indulge in as much corruption, nepotism or plagiarism as they want. Some dim witted liberal shall spring to their defense.

And lo and behold, we have you. You have of course not countered any of the points raised by Shourie by either logic or facts. The same defense was used earlier by 'eminent historians' to discredit the book by Goel, Shourie etc. They too said that it's a very bad book, very very bad book.

>> It is an open field - anyone who shows merit of their research are free to contribute and raise in their respectability and acceptance in the world community of scholars/scientists.

Actually, it is not. In another post, you have talked about entry barriers in terms of caste. Well, I believe there are much stronger and bigger entry barriers wrt ideology.

Research doesn't happen in a vacuum. Research in social sciences in particular, is almost entirely govt funded, particularly in a country like ours. People who control these positions, e.g., ministry of education, UGC positions, VCs of universities, members of ICHR (for History), can have a very strong influence on the subjects and orientation of the research. There are so many ways in which these people can influence a researcher; research fellowships and grants, scholarships, cushy placements, commissions to write books for schools etc., access to research material (in our highly bureaucratized system, research material is not easily available), and even publications, that an inconvenient busybody can be conveniently brushed aside. Given the dominance of the left in politics, and consequently academia since the beginning, it is no surprise that bodies like ICHR are filled with self serving parasites, who demand, and usually obtain conformity. Anyone who dares to defy them, is usually labeled 'Sanghi' or revisionist, and that usually ends the story.

This is the reason that these eminent historians got so irritated when BJP won the elections, and MM Joshi started filling up bodies like ICHR with his own people, brazenly declaring, 'It's our turn now'. The edifice these people had built over decades could come crumbling down in a short time. Luckily for them, BJP lost the next election, and they were able to get back to their pernicious practices.

>> Whether it is about Saraswati river or AIT etc, there is no need about any personal attack of motives

Actually, there is every need, since this is the only tool employed by the 'eminent historians' against their opponents.

>> No one can stop that legitimate process.

They did manage to considerably delay it though, knowingly condemning an entire generation to incorrect information.

>> They will be called revisionist is they bring in things like "hurting of religious sentiments" which should not be a consideration as far as fact finding is concerned.

By that token, those who oppose teaching about 'Goan inquisition' or the slave trade from India, destruction of Hindu temples or forceful conversions, should also be labeled revisionists.

>> They did manage to considerably delay it though, knowingly condemning an entire generation to incorrect information.

Further, I am not sure if such distortions have even now been corrected in NCERT books or not. I last saw them in early 90s, and don't know if they continue to peddle the same lies, or have since been rectified.

>> The place I differ is that I don't see caste as the sole, or even dominant reason for such inequality.

We had a situation where the social/educational standards of some sections/castes is almost zero and that was primarily based on caste. With passage of time, things are changing, with a small creamy layer emerging among dalits etc, but they are still a long way to go, and it will take some time before caste can be removed as the sole/primary consideration for reservation. Even today, if one looks at all the slums in the country, one finds only dalits/low castes (or probably all of them). A vast majority of them still have to start from the scratch with almost nothing without any connections etc. It is almost impossible to find a high caste person even if personally poor for some reason, without support system of relatives, friends etc in better positions or from a creamy layer (or at least willing to give help by just knowing their caste) .

>> you are trying to defend the corruption of these scoundrels, trying to divert it by calling it personal attacks

There are hundreds of corruption exposes, charges etc made almost everyday and I have never defended any corruption accused or opposed any expose. I was talking about the larger issue of history/science to remain as a fact-finding mission by scholars across the world, who allow their thesis/work to be critically reviewed/assessed/challenged etc without bringing in things like religious sentiments (and without using personal attacks as an attempt to subvert the legitimate process of fact-finding). In the US for example, there is the creation vs evolution debate, where some evangelical Christians would like that evolution be taught in such a way to leave open the role/possibility for creation too. The evangelical Christians are free to present their arguments, reasons, evidences etc, but not in the manner of using personal attacks on well recognized and critically acclaimed scientists of the country (accusing them as personally bad people with bad motives and who are out to attack Christians etc). If they do that, that would be equally objectionable/condemnable.

>> In another post, you have talked about entry barriers in terms of caste. Well, I believe there are much stronger and bigger entry barriers wrt ideology.

There is a difference between having a handicap due to extremely poor socio-economic conditions (that too in jobs) as opposed to a issue of just presenting ideas, articulating evidences, arguments etc for which there are many avenues, especially for the rich and influential (I don’t thing we can call hindutva idealogues as socially/educationally/economically backward people by any stretch of imagination). They can publish their evidences, they have full access to media to present their ideas, present themselves in international conferences etc. No one can object as long as one presents their thesis/evidences in the way any other historian presents. The whole world is there is there to sit up and listen to appropriate evidences and accept solely based of evidences. Actually, I have seen in dalit publications complain that they are at an disadvantage as they have no say at all on the matter being weak from all respects, with no media access etc (they say that even the so-called leftist historians are all high caste people). But then, even then, they will have to fight it out legitimately using scholarly/evidential/critical review approach like any other – even if it is harder, there are no shot cuts.

>> They did manage to considerably delay it though, knowingly condemning an entire generation to incorrect information.

In history/science, the positions do change based on recent discoveries etc, so there will be ups and downs. No need to get overtly emotional about it. As for religion, one connects to God regardless of the latest theory doing the rounds. No one stakes or bases his/her belief in God, relation with God, spirituality etc on something like AIT etc. Historical fact-finding is an ongoing process, as more and evidences are gathered and the previous conclusions are reviewed from time to time. As in the example given about creation vs evolution debate, those who connect with God, will continue to do so, and the debates can continue (to my knowledge no one indulges in personal attacks on scientists/historians and attributing them bad motives, painting them as personally bad people etc which amounts to ad Hominem in the context).

>> By that token, those who oppose teaching about 'Goan inquisition' or the slave trade from India, destruction of Hindu temples or forceful conversions, should also be labeled revisionists.

Yes, if anyone is trying to hide any evidence or agitating (violently or otherwise) against available evidence due to “hurt religious sentiments” etc. The controversy during MM Joshi's revision was about the whole whitewashing of history according to alleged religious sentiments and convenience. I don’t think any one tried to hide Inquisition etc. It was all well documented (often by Christians themselves) and was admitted/apologized openly etc.

>> We had a situation where the social/educational standards of some sections/castes is almost zero...

I was not talking about reservations in general (though, I have my views about caste as a sole criteria there too), but of the specific case, mentioned in the article. I don't know the criteria JNU uses for positions like Assoc Prof or higher, but I would assume it would typically be a PhD in the subject matter, followed by several years of teaching (around 10 or so), and some peer recognition, in terms of publications, citations, awards, etc.

A reserved category candidate would have typically received over two decades of benefits in terms of admission, education, scholarships, including around a decade of a salaried job at a reasonably high salary. If he/she is a second generation beneficiary, as a lot of candidates are now, then at least economic and educational backwardness (and even social, no matter how much ever they pretend otherwise), would be a non-factor. If such a person needs reservation to get promotion to an assoc prof or higher position, he/she is not good enough.

I personally have no interest in continuing this discussion any more. The issue of reservations vs merit etc. has been debated endlessly for two decades now. There is nothing new any of us can add to the subject. My foray in this discussion was not about reservations, but to correct the wrong interpretation you were making of the statement.

>> I have never defended any corruption accused or opposed any expose

You certainly are now.

>> The evangelical Christians are free to present their arguments, reasons, evidences etc, but not in the manner of using personal attacks on well recognized and critically acclaimed scientists of the country (accusing them as personally bad people with bad motives and who are out to attack Christians etc).

If these 'acclaimed scientists' are bad people with bad motives, who are out to attack Christians, there is no harm in saying so. It has to be backed by evidence, like Shourie did in his book.

>> I don’t thing we can call hindutva idealogues as socially/educationally/economically backward people by any stretch of imagination

Some of them may be socially backward in the classical sense of term, but no, I wouldn't classify them such.

>> even if it is harder, there are no shot cuts.

Of course. I am against giving them any allowance in this regard. Just pointing out that the entry barriers are not as low as you suggest.

>> They can publish their evidences

They have. Much more than the 'eminent ones' in many cases (e.g., book by Goel etc. was the first ever on the topic). That doesn't alter the fact that a non-conformist theory, particularly when it goes against the bosses' pet theories, ideologies and political agendas, has very little chance of succeeding, even if backed by overwhelming evidence.

>> and without using personal attacks as an attempt to subvert the legitimate process of fact-finding

Why don't you tell this to the eminent historians, who tried to discredit the book by Goel, Swarup, Shourie etc. by means of personal attacks, instead of facts and evidence, even though none of them was working in the field the book discussed. So far, not one of the facts in the book has been challenged.

>> The whole world is there is there to sit up and listen to appropriate evidences and accept solely based of evidences

Are you? So far, you have not bothered to examine any evidence, relying mostly on useless polemics.

>> In history/science, the positions do change based on recent discoveries

This argument is valid for positions that were based on some research or logic, and usually fulfill two criteria. They are able to reasonably explain the available evidence at that time, and are broadly accepted by the scientific/research community at that time. So, the original structure of the atom was broadly accepted by all, till Rutherford's scattering experiment suggested that model to be untenable. Similarly, a mysterious substance called aether largely explained how light traveled, and was widely accepted by everyone. This went on, till Michelson-Morely experiment, which did away with it.

AIT never met either of these criteria. It was propounded by German nationalists and colonists, whose aims and desires it met perfectly. It was plainly wrong in many aspects, which were repeatedly pointed out by more rational people. Further, the theory kept on getting progressively discredited, as more and more evidence kept emerging disproving many of its points (the invasion aspect in particular was thoroughly discredited for several decades, while this was taught in schools), and at no point of time did it enjoy unquestioned acceptability.

The logical thing would have been to treat it as one amongst equal, if at all. However, it fit so neatly in the designs of the commie crowd, which was desperate to prove Hindus as invaders, that all suggestions were discounted. If you want to discount all these sleazeball tactics, and attempt to show that this was part of academic evolution, go ahead. It only reflects upon your proclivities and thought process.

>> I don’t think any one tried to hide Inquisition etc

You think wrong.

>> It was all well documented (often by Christians themselves)

Not in school books.

Goan inquisition was recorded by Christians, demolition of Hindu temples by Muslim historians, and caste atrocities by Hindus, etc. However, the first two (and others like slave trade out of India) have been whitewashed from the school texts.

There was in fact, a directive from WB govt specifying that all instances of Muslim atrocities should be removed from books.

Would such people be called revisionist? If so, why bother so much on Hindu revisionists, and if no, why not?

>> If these 'acclaimed scientists' are bad people with bad motives, who are out to attack Christians, there is no harm in saying so. It has to be backed by evidence, like Shourie did in his book

To say that all the scientists/historians with worldwide recognition/repute (with publications, awards, critical acclaim from peers etc) are all evil people will evil intentions etc is almost like saying that everyone is out there to victimize, smear and kill innocent muslims (jehadi speeches provide 'evidence' for such an extreme positions). Such writing do not deserve the respectability of a review, but instead needs to be told that the entire approach/attitude/mindset itself is wrong. The choice at the end of the day is whether to remain in reasonable mainstream (where we let all the world-wide community of scholars to debate/review and arrive at reasonable conclusions) or to belong to a radical fringe and be a violent rabble rouser (in the name of "hurt religious sentiments" and attempt write science/history based on religious sentiments/beliefs etc). Being part of reasonable mainstream includes registering protests where one disagrees, and of course, one can become a recognized/respected scholar oneself and have ones voice be heard world over. No one can stop that. It is not as if only "commies" are allowed to become scholars and experts with worldwide recognition. Nothing stops Goel, Swarup etc to gain the same level of worldwide recognition/respect where the world says that they are the best historians from India. The same thing applies to the dalits who lament that their point of view is not heard (as all the scholars, whether left, right or center are all from high caste). There are also avenues like the courts or even take it to people in a civilized manner (in politics/elections etc). All this can be done in a decent, non-violent, professional, scholarly manner.

>> Goan inquisition was recorded by Christians, demolition of Hindu temples by Muslim historians, and caste atrocities by Hindus, etc. However, the first two (and others like slave trade out of India) have been whitewashed from the school texts.
>> There was in fact, a directive from WB govt specifying that all instances of Muslim atrocities should be removed from books
>> Would such people be called revisionist? If so, why bother so much on Hindu revisionists, and if no, why not?

The text books do contain various things like invasions by Muslim kings, the evil British rule (which many see as a Christian rule), medieval dark age of European church with its inquisition/crusades etc as well as about hindu practice of untouchability. The issue is about overall historical scholarship (as a fact-finding mission) and not text books alone. What specifically goes into what standard or level of has to be decided by some panel consisting of scholars/historians of world-wide repute and acclaim. Someone may say that it is not enough to talk about invasions by Muslim kings, but should specifically mention about destruction of temples at school level itself. Someone else may say that it is not enough to mention about caste injustices/untouchability, but there should be a mention of specific castes like Brahmins who perpetuated it. Well, the people with such opinions, as I said can become world renowned scholars themselves and get a say in what goes to text books (if the world recognizes some 10 top scholars from India, their say cannot be ignored) or approach courts etc or write and appeal to people to bring pressure on governments etc. in a civilized, professional, scholarly manner. Instead of such legitimate approach, if one takes to rabble rousing, communal violence, and uses religious sentiments and convenience as their basis for writing history, they will be called as revisionists, including when the same people write schools text books on a similar basis.

>> To say that all the scientists/historians

No one is suggesting that everyone who propounds a certain theory is bad. What Shourie suggested in his book, and the point I reiterated was, that if some person has done something wrong, that point can be brought out. The person's reputation or skills as a scientist/academic/historian should have no bearing on the issue. If a person is a wife beater or thrashes his kids, should this fact be deliberately hidden just because he has won the Nobel prize? This does not mean that everyone (amongst men at least) who has won the Nobel prize is a wife beater and thrashes his kids. Such charges have to be countered with facts and evidence, and not on the basis of reputation or by calling the other person names.

So if Shourie claims that some of the eminent historians indulged in corruption and provides evidence of the same, counter it with evidence of your own. What we hear instead are shrill noises devoid of any sense or logic from them, and their supporters like you.

>> The issue is about overall historical scholarship (as a fact-finding mission) and not text books alone.

Text books are very important, particularly for school going kids. For a majority of people with the benefit of education, this shall be their only exposure to history for their life. An ideological slant or incorrect history shall influence perceptions their entire life.

Moreover, I am talking only of text books, since my limited exposure to history was at school. I don't know if such distortions exist further along too (very likely).

>> What specifically goes into what standard or level of has to be decided by some panel consisting of scholars/historians of world-wide repute and acclaim.

And ideological orientation.

>> Someone may say that it is not enough to talk about invasions by Muslim kings, but should specifically mention about destruction of temples at school level itself....

Yes. This point is valid. And yet, these books, if found to have an ideological slant, should be criticized accordingly. One doesn't have to be a historian to detect that. I don't need a degree in journalism to detect that the editorial policy of Hindu is different than that of Pioneer. Basic common sense is adequate for that, as it is for detecting such slants in books.

And even lot of common sense is not needed to see that those who specifically give out instructions about white washing of Muslim invasions, or complain when Goan inquisition is discussed, suddenly talk only about academic honesty when they want to call Guru Teg Bahadur a plunderer. Just a little bit of honesty is needed.

The right to write books and frame syllabus is not earned just by merit, but by following the right ideology, and kissing the right ass. The seculars were in charge for a long time, and are so again now, which is why they have been getting away with a lot of nonsense. No, all of them are not slimeballs. Many are, but for now they have disproportionate influence, not all of it earned.

Going back to AIT (BTW, it was good that you wisely restrained yourself from commenting on it this time at least), propagating theories with little credence like AIT, and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not a sign of either scholarship or integrity. Their only defense was to shout down everyone who brought up evidence as Sanghi, communal and revisionist, while themselves being communal and revisionist of the worst order. Such tactics can only succeed when everyone else in establishment is beholden to you, and is a wimp. This is also one of the reason they got so agitated when BJP came to power and started filling up these bodies with their own people.

>> No one is suggesting that everyone who propounds a certain theory is bad. What Shourie suggested in his book, and the point I reiterated was, that if some person has done something wrong, that point can be brought out. The person's reputation or skills as a scientist/academic/historian should have no bearing on the issue. If a person is a wife beater or thrashes his kids, should this fact be deliberately hidden just because he has won the Nobel prize?

Yes, but if a person has an issue with the some scientific/historical theories that are most prevalent about the best known scientists/historians/scholars and expert panels, that issue has to be dealt at an academic level in a professional manner. It will always be the case that there will be some who disagree with the expert panels decisions on what should go to text books at what level or even about historical interpretation itself (not just hindutva groups, but many others like the dalit groups for example, and there can be many more). However, this issue should not be mixed up with the issue of wife-beating (which has to be taken up separately). It is not about one individual, but a whole panel of people who are well recognized/reputed world-over as scholars. It also often happens that a majority of scientists/historians/scholars at a given point of time may also be generally inclined to a particular ideology/philosophy etc. For example, a majority of scientists may be atheists. So, one may think/suspect that their personal convictions are driving some of the theories they propound, but one has to deal with that in a professional/scholarly way - and not mix up non-academic issues, personal attacks, religious sentiments etc (much less, violence), as far as this issue of academic differences is concerned.

>> Text books are very important, particularly for school going kids. For a majority of people with the benefit of education, this shall be their only exposure to history for their life. An ideological slant or incorrect history shall influence perceptions their entire life.

Yes, that is why the best known scientists/historians of the best repute worldwide, whose work has been well reviewed, well acknowledged etc are chosen for the task. If there are significant people who are also equally well-renowned worldwide, but think that they are ignored due to ideological reasons, they can surely protest and based on their level of renowned scholarship, many will heed and that will build a lot of pressure on government. They may even go to courts, international conferences etc. There are many avenues to express have ones say. About the issue of influencing perceptions, I want to reiterate what I said before, that true spirituality, relating to God etc are things that are not dependant on the latest popular theories doing the rounds. Every human being has a spiritual side where one relates to God (or decides against it), seeks philosophical truth, moral values, God etc. The latest popular scientific theories doing the rounds cannot stop ones true spirituality not can create spirituality. So, science/history etc should be best left as purely fact-finding missions by the scholars and one can become a scholar oneself to contribute in a reasonable manner.

>> Yes, but if a person has an issue with the some scientific/historical theories

Does corruption fall in this domain?

>> It will always be the case that there will be some who disagree with the expert panels decisions on what should go to text books

Sure, and they should be free to express them. So some people highlighted issues with books written by JNU types, while JNU types expressed concern over books written under BJP dispensation.

>> However, this issue should not be mixed up with the issue of wife-beating

Precisely. So don't bring the issue of reputation and all such nonsense, when corruption by such worthies is being discussed.

>> It also often happens that a majority of scientists/historians/scholars at a given point of time may also be generally inclined to a particular ideology/philosophy etc.

If this ideology/philosophy is comprising the information they are stuffing down the throat of others, they need to be called out, as was the case with AIT. Same logic was used by the commie crowd against books during BJPs time.

>> Sure, and they should be free to express them. So some people highlighted issues with books written by JNU types, while JNU types expressed concern over books written under BJP dispensation.

That is fine (and business as usual) as long as both are part of the worldwide mainstream scientific/historical scholarship community, got their work published, reviewed and obtained world-wide critical acclaim/repute, considered/acknowledged by worldwide scholars as the most outstanding fact-finding scholars and the best from the country etc. If such scholars (who do not bring in issues like religious sentiments etc) have differences of opinion it is purely an academic exercise (business as usual) that happens all the time. Let all the world-wide community of scholars debate/review and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

>> That is fine (and business as usual) as long as...

Agree with a few caveats.

1. If someone is shown to deliberately pursue a theory, even after it has been discredited, such a person should be kicked out, irrespective of reputation.
2. If people don't agree with the ideological orientation of the books, they can demand a change; e.g., if all books from 6th to 12th contain long, engaging chapters about Nehru, but make cursory mention of Sardar Patel, if at all, people can demand change in them.

And what makes you think that people under BJP's dispensation were not reputable. The NCERT director appointed by the NDA govt was a reputed scholar, and was even chosen for an award by UNESCO. However, the secular crowd didn't like this fact. When they came to power, they instituted some spurious inquiry against him, results of which never came out. However, they used the excuse of that to deny him his award.

>> If such scholars (who do not bring in issues like religious sentiments etc) have differences of opinion it is purely an academic exercise

Sure. By the same token, others should not bring in religious sentiments when Goan inquisition, or demolition of Hindu temples is discussed. The work should be peer reviewed on the basis of scholarship and evidence, instead of calumny and shrill noises. Unfortunately, we get mostly the latter sort from our 'eminent historians'. When 'Hindu temples,...' came out, there was no scholarship on the subject in India (which itself is such a travesty, that right thinking people should dump these historians). So, of course, no one was competent of making a scholarly response on the subject. That didn't stop them though. Nor did they feel obliged to either study the subject, or examine the evidence. Their response, 'It's a very bad book'! Such is the level of scholarship that you want to kneel to?

"And what makes you think that people under BJP's dispensation were not reputable"

Great point. A classic example is BBLal-a man respected by everyone in the field of archeology. In the seventies, the commie historians quoted him in their works. But during the Ayodhya debate, he did not toe their line and expressed his independent opinion-and immediately he was branded a sanghi.

>> In the seventies, the commie historians quoted him in their works. But during the Ayodhya debate, he did not toe their line and expressed his independent opinion-and immediately he was branded a sanghi.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a Sanghi, evidence by damned.

>> If someone is shown to deliberately pursue a theory, even after it has been discredited, such a person should be kicked out, irrespective of reputation
>> If people don't agree with the ideological orientation of the books, they can demand a change

Well, yes. As long as the world-renowned best of class panel of scientists/historians are deployed for the task, we should be ok. Such people anyway get their work published/reviewed/challenged/questioned etc as part of a mainstream process and are answerable to the scholarly community. If any of them have a problem with weighing evidence etc, they will lose their reputation and their world-wide peers will take them to task. So, there is that inbuilt process of correction as long as one is in the framework mainstream scholarship/research. Whether they are labeled as commie or a sanghi or dalit activist or whatever, as long as the entire panel is working in that framework of mainstream scholarship, that should be fine – even the debates in that frame work are business as usual and in fact healthy and that is the way it should be.

>> Their response, 'It's a very bad book'!

Did the entire community of world-wide scholars said that some book is a bad book? Why would they say so, if there is merit in the scholarship/methodology/research? There must be some honest people around who can rise above personal beliefs etc and appreciate a good academic work? If it is only one or two biased people who called it a bad book, then the authors don’t even have to worry/bother.

"Scientist puts forth thesis and provides evidence/reason/arguments. Thesis is open for review/challenge by others. If someone comes up with better thesis, that will gain acceptance in the scholarly community. Gradually a consensus is built on strength of arguments/reasons/evidence etc. As long as scientist is contributing to the debate in a useful manner and is willing to listen to be based on evidence/facts and their methods are as per generally agreed norms in the community, they will be respected."

Sounds logical, reasonable and sane, does'nt it?

Scientists are an in-group too. They resist out-groups like any other sect. The "generally accepted norms" is actually a set of beliefs. The meta-system of these beliefs was specified by Francis Bacon.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Historians are another in-group, who claim that they are scientists. They however do not do experiments, reproduce results and let other historians verify the experiments. They collect data and interpret it, according to prevailing set of beliefs AMONG PEERS. They do not seek views of people outside the peer group.

Question: Did the eminent historians use this method? Then how did they invent the AIT and modify it to AMT?
Answer: AIT was formulated in the early 1800s by Rene Dubois and Max Mueller on the basis of a biblical reading of history ("world created in 4000 BC etc). Sir Mortimer Wheeler reiterated it in the 1930s after the excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. He was specifically brought to India to build this theory - Aryans invaded an existing superior civilization and destroyed it. Dravidians moved south after this. The science part of it was mostly philology, language comparisons and (false) identification of a race with languages. Thus, Aryan and Dravidian languages. That Arya meant "Noble" and "Dravida" meant "south of the vindhyas" was ignored. This was intended by the British to tell us subjects that India that "we" were invaders too, and therefore they had a right to invade and rule us. This school of thought was massively patronised by the Raj. The Justice party in TN was built on this basis by EVR, who hailed the British as liberators from Aryans.

Now we see that this was a wrong basis to construct a theory because:

1. There is no archeological attestation of aryan invasion/migration in spite of more than a hundred years of archeological effort.
2. There is no traditional memory or mention of aryan invasion/migration/intrusion in any of all the diverse historical traditions of India.
3. There is no genetic trace of foreigners to attest to such a historical mixing. If at all Indian genotypes not only closer to each other but substantially more diverse and much older than European or middle eastern genotypes - therefore suggesting a reverse migration. After Africa the most ancient and diverse population happens to be that of India. In essence most other non-African people descended from prehistoric Indians.
4. Philology is a tool of uncertain provenance and its conclusions are highly debatable. Aryan invasion/migration are hypothesis emerging basically from philology - hence open to debate.
5. Development of historical theories on ancient India through more accurate means (archeology & traditional history) rather than philology points to the indegenity and antiquity of Indians.
6. Self references in many ancient Indian texts points to indegenity of Indians in a time-scale far older than those proposed by Aryan Invasion theory.
7. In ancient Indian texts Arya means 'noble of conduct and character' rather than a race. If the oldest texts negate Aryan being a race - the idea of Aryan being a race of people can be traced to the rise of British imperialism and German nationalism - both historically discredited and defunct ideologies.
8. Geology (mapping of the old Saraswati), archeo-metallurgy (iron working in ancient india), archeo-agriculture (maize, rice farming) etc points to a far greater antiquity of ancient Indians (which does not agree with Aryan Invasion Theory).
9. Archeo-astronomy, archeo-mathematics, hydronomy (river names) seem to corraborate ancient indian texts on thier antiquity and claims of indigenity.
10. Study of ancient Indian history has been held hostage to various extraneous constraints notably - eurocentricism, communism, various kinds of religious and regional chauvinism, and hence must be discarded and a new framework developed.

These facts have been known for more than 20-30 years. Yet, there was no change in the peer-review, world-wide community-respected ICHR historians. There was no change in the text books. There was no acknowledgement that AIT was not proved, it was controversial, there were opposing schools of thought etc. The eminent historians just took up and maintained this theory without taking contradictory evidence GALORE into their considerations. Why?

That was their purpose, their agenda. ICHR was filled with such people by Nurul Hassan and the rest of the HRD ministers. If their pet theories were thrown out, they would be discredited. So they fought for AIT with all resources at their command. Thus, the neat "scolarly, scientific, peer-reviewed, respected" picture is actually full of careerism, ideology and politics. And the ideology was bequeathed to them by the Raj.

See the history and politics of the AIT debate.

http://koenraadelst....d/aryanpolitics.html

AIT has been opposed by rival thinkers since 1875 atleast (Dayanand Saraswathi). Yet this opposition was never visible in our ICHR history. Is it not the job of historians to RECORD the HISTORY of OPPOSITION to their theories?

Question: How did the eminent historians deal with the documented evidence of islam's desruction of Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries.
Answer: By Ignoring it.

Read how Sita Ram Goel was ignored when he started publishing his writings on communism since 1953, and on Hinduism since 1981.

http://koenraadelst....ism/sitaramgoel.html

After all this, if some one considers them scholarly and objective scientists, I'd say he unquestioningly bows to existing authority, like students who respect authorized scriptures.

>>Scientists are an in-group too. They resist out-groups like any other sect. The "generally accepted norms" is actually a set of beliefs.

Scientists can be fooled. They can establish consensus, publish results, generally be accepted and still be wrong. They can even be ideologues posing as experts, committed to wrong beliefs, like superior/inferior races etc.

1. In 1973, David Rosenhan conducted an experiment on 12 psychiatry hospitals in the US. Volunteers posed as patients with hallucinations and gained admission to hospitals. They were diagnosed with variosu disorders. The "patients" then acted normal told the hospital staff that they had no hallucinations. They were disbielieved. Hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, and instead believed that all of the pseudopatients exhibited symptoms of ongoing mental illness. Several were confined for months. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release.

In a related experiment, hospital staff were told to detect fake patients. They falsely identified genuine patients as fake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

2. In 1996, Sokal submitted the paper to the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text, as an experiment to see if the journal would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." The paper, titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[2] argued that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct, and was published in the Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue of Social Text. On the day of the paper's publication, Sokal announced in another publication, Lingua Franca, that the article was a hoax, calling his paper "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense", which was "structured around the silliest quotations [he] could find about mathematics and physics" made by postmodernist academics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal's_Hoax

3. In the 1800s the American physician Samuel A. Cartwright had stumbled upon drapetomania, the explanation for why slaves would on occasion display an alarming tendency to run away from their masters. A further disorder afflicting slaves and, by extension, their owners was dysaethesia aethiopica, a disease "affecting both mind and body." This explained the apparent lack of a proper work ethic among slaves. Found exclusively among blacks, dysaethesia aethiopica — "called by overseers 'rascality'" — was characterized by partial insensitivity of the skin and "so great a hebetude of the intellectual faculties, as to be like a person half asleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

The lesson - beware of experts, even if a majority in society accepts them as such. Now, that is really the hallmark of a truth-seeker.

Pitambar,

>> >> Scientist puts forth thesis and provides evidence/reason/arguments. Thesis is open for review/challenge by others. If someone comes up with better thesis, that will gain acceptance in the scholarly community. Gradually a consensus is built on strength of arguments/reasons/evidence etc. As long as scientist is contributing to the debate in a useful manner and is willing to listen to be based on evidence/facts and their methods are as per generally agreed norms in the community, they will be respected."

>> Sounds logical, reasonable and sane, does'nt it?

You have not suggested any better way of identifying the best of class scientists/historians who can be part of expert panels, whose scholarship/research can be respected etc.

>> Did the eminent historians use this method? Then how did they invent the AIT and modify it to AMT?
>> ... Philology is a tool of uncertain provenance and its conclusions are highly debatable. Aryan invasion/migration are hypothesis emerging basically from philology - hence open to debate ...

Now, history is a vast subject and not about AIT/AMT alone. Even if some of the things like AIT/AMT are debatable and you do not like the wording used to describe them etc (it is a given that some aspects of proclaimed history is based on probablistic considerations), that does not mean that we replace the best of class scientists/historians etc that are available with some rabble rouser rhetoricians who just happen to be emotional about AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc. I am not saying that everything that scholars say should be accepted. Where one differs, there are numerous avenues and means to express/educate/propagate/publicize a different view if one has a sound basis.

>> I'd say he unquestioningly bows to existing authority, like students who respect authorized scriptures

There is no question of unquestioningly bowing to any ‘authority’. Willingness to weigh evidences as they emerge and willing to base positions based on evidences is the most basic qualification of any truth-seeker – leave alone, a scholar.

Kumar,

I've noticed that you never admit that you are wrong. In general, it is useless to debate you. However, it gives others opportunities to learn from the debate.

Answer the following questions.
1. What is AIT? Is it true or false?
2. Did Islamic rulers in India destroy many Hindu temples?
3. Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?
4. Who are the respectable, best class historians/ scientists? Please give names.
5. Who are the rabble-rousing historians? What are instances of rabble-rousing?

Regards.

>> Such people anyway get their work published/reviewed/challenged/questioned etc as part of a mainstream process and are answerable to the scholarly community.

Some of these 'eminent historians' have published plagiarized work (a word by word copy) for their thesis, and have been approvingly quoted by other 'eminent historians'. So much for being answerable to the scholarly community. Their main qualification is being secular. That's the source of their eminence.

>> If any of them have a problem with weighing evidence etc, they will lose their reputation and their world-wide peers will take them to task.

You have too much faith in them, and I don't understand why? Have they been taken to task for peddling AIT all these years? If no, why not?

And by that token, the Sanghi historians need to be taken to task on the basis of the evidence they have provided, and the conclusions drawn from them. Why is there a different yardstick there, and branding them Sanghi, a supposed proof of the lack of their scholarship.

>> Did the entire community of world-wide scholars said that some book is a bad book?

Nope. Only some idiots, who didn't know anything about the topic the book discussed. However, as blue blooded seculars and liberals, they felt it was their duty to criticize something that painted Muslim rulers in bad light, even if it said the truth.

>> You have not suggested any better way of identifying the best of class scientists/historians who can be part of expert panels, whose scholarship/research can be respected etc.

Well, one of the points should be to not stack panels with experts from one field, or one organization. There shall be too many yes men/women; people who are beholden to each other; people who have scratched each other's back in the past, and are likely to do so in future; people who have joined together to manipulate the system in a systemic loot of public funds; such a group should not form a panel.

So cabals from JNU, AMU, ICHR etc. should not form the entire, or even majority of panels. Experts from unrelated fields, who are not related to other panelists, and are not likely to work together much again, should be brought in. This shall ensure more fairness.

>> If it is only one or two biased people who called it a bad book, then the authors don’t even have to worry/bother.

Who said the authors bother about them. Exposing them for the scoundrels that they are, is a good thing though.

>> that does not mean that we replace the best of class scientists/historians etc that are available with some rabble rouser rhetoricians who just happen to be emotional about AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc.

It also does not mean that we tar scholarly work and the people behind it as 'rabble rouser rhetoricians who just happen to be emotional about AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc.', just because the facts they have presented are not to our liking. Some of the people so tarred have a long and proven track record, and international standing. That they dared to speak the truth, which was inconvenient to the bosses at ICHR, does not make them wrong or less scholarly. Their work has been appreciated by other scholars around the world, and has stood the test of evidence and logic.

>> Where one differs, there are numerous avenues and means to express/educate/propagate/publicize a different view if one has a sound basis.

What are these? Calling them Sanghi, or presenting evidence?

>> 1. What is AIT? Is it true or false?
>> 2. Did Islamic rulers in India destroy many Hindu temples?

What is AIT/AMT etc, you can search and read it on internet. Whether it is 'true' or 'false', what are the evidences, what is the level of confidence with which we can assert one way or their other etc should be left to the historians/scientists to debate and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Same is the case with things like destruction of Hindu temples, inquisition, dalit atrocities etc. There is no point in getting overtly emotional.

>> 3. Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?

That’s like asking did scientists ever go wrong. Of course they do go wrong. But the best available means we have to know truth is for the world-wide scholars/researchers publish their work and critically review, debate and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

>> 4. Who are the respectable, best class historians/ scientists? Please give names.
>> 5. Who are the rabble-rousing historians? What are instances of rabble-rousing?

Well, you yourself can go through the resumes, number of PHds, number of international awards, critical acclaim received by peers worldwide etc. You can prepare such a list and rank them if you are interested in the specifics (you can post such a list here). Rabble rousers are those whose are part of the mainstream, and whose interest in history is not beyond religious sentiments and convenience (they cant even think beyond two or three issues like AIT/AMT, Ayodhya etc- that is all their interest is). Once you produce the list mentioned above, you will get the answers.

>> Well, one of the points should be to not stack panels with experts from one field, or one organization. There shall be too many yes men/women

I agree. So it is not about an individual or even one organization. It has to be about the worldwide community of mainstream scholars/researchers/scientists/historians. In the panels, the more the diversity the better (as long as they are well-renowned/well-respected worldwide).

>> Have they been taken to task for peddling AIT all these years?
>> That they dared to speak the truth, which was inconvenient to the bosses at ICHR, does not make them wrong or less scholarly ..

History is not about AIT/AMT alone. That is not where we begin. We begin by identifying the best from their resumes, their work, international awards, acclaim etc. Within that framework, a diversity of left/right/center/human rights activists/women’s activists/dalit activists etc is good. As long as we agree to this principle, and assert it repeatedly, all other aberrations are short term. It only gets better and better (as long the principle is affirmed by all). Looking at the resumes, people can judge who are the best in the field. So, that brings a natural pressure on part of govts (if the govt of the day publicly affirms the above stated principle) to choose only the best of worldwide mainstream reputation who present themselves to be reviewed and answerable to the scholarly community.

>> History is not about AIT/AMT alone.

Nor is this discussion. This was just an example of the blatant disregard of the scholarly principles you rant about, but refuse to accept in practice.

And of course, you won't answer that why should people, who object to Goan inquisition or instances of temple destruction/forced conversion to be included in books on religious grounds, be not called communalists/Jihadists/fascists, if people opposing inclusion of Vedic people eating beef etc. can be called communal/Sanghi etc.

>>>>Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?

>> That’s like asking did scientists ever go wrong.

No, it is not. And the above statement shows that you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

>> Well, you yourself can go through the resumes, number of PHds, number of international awards, critical acclaim received by peers worldwide etc.

That is a place to start. However, ultimately, the quality of a work has to be determined based on the work itself; the evidence it is based on, coherence of though and logic that leads to the stated conclusions. It doesn't matter if the author(s) have no degrees. The so called reputation is worthless if it doesn't meet the basic tests of evidence and logic.

And of course, those who have been caught plagiarizing, have no reputation to speak of, at least not the good type. You of course, shall refuse to acknowledge that.

>> 1. What is AIT? Is it true or false?
>> 2. Did Islamic rulers in India destroy many Hindu temples?

>>>What is AIT/AMT etc, you can search and read it on internet. Whether it is 'true' or 'false', what are the evidences, what is the level of confidence with which we can assert one way or their other etc should be left to the historians/scientists to debate and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Same is the case with things like destruction of Hindu temples, inquisition, dalit atrocities etc.

Pitambar's point is proven. You never admit being wrong. You also do not admit ignorance or lack of confidence.

You dare not answer the questions with your own findings. You use dust-in-the-eyes verbiage to hide your lack of confidence. You can do all the things you have said above, instead of leaving it to your beloved best historians, and to your debate opponents! Now you'll say, "You please show it to me". Then you'll repeat more such phrases. Easy work, eh? You should study this character.

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-01-16/
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-01-08/
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-01-07/

>>>> 3. Did ICHR historians ever suppress facts of history?

>>That’s like asking did scientists ever go wrong. Of course they do go wrong.

See how you play with words. I ask something specific using specific words and you use other words to colour them honest. You dare not answer the question.

>> 4. Who are the respectable, best class historians/ scientists? Please give names.
>> 5. Who are the rabble-rousing historians? What are instances of rabble-rousing?

>>Well, you yourself can go through the resumes, number of PHds, number of international awards, critical acclaim >>received by peers
.
Why don't you do it? It is too much of work. Or you are not capable of it?

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-12-18/

>>I ask something specific using....

Oops. I should have said "Pitambar asks something specific...". I was writing on the Guha article thread and copied the passage. Sorry.

Kumar claims Shourie is a propagandist and then compares him with a leader of a terrorist organization. Yet till date he has not given a single evidence for his claims. When asked for specifics, he employs diversions – long lectures on how scholarship is practiced worldwide, details about peer review, how history is a very vast subject and assorted blah blahs about repute, recognition awards etc. When making an allegation – he is very specific but when asked for proof he starts stating truisms like mother’s milk is good for the baby. After all this, it is really tiresome to hear sermons on importance of ‘evidence’, peer review and scholarly approach. But what integrity can you expect from liberals who attack authors without reading their work!