Secular Intellectuals - shunning debate

I had following two conversations with a Western secular scholar - Audrey Truschke :

The only issue to note is how these scholars try to shun debate - maybe because they know that they dont have strong enough arguments.

Conversation 1 :

Dear Audrey,

Would you like to respond to the review of your book on Aurangzeb at the link given below ?

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2017/04/the-aurangzeb- debate.html

Regards,

Raman Sehgal

No. Many thanks.

Audrey Truschke

Assistant Professor

Department of History

Rutgers University-Newark

http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/

audrey-truschke

There is some interesting information regarding Aurangzeb from primary sources in the following site :

http://www.aurangzeb.info/

and some write-up here :

http://indiafacts.org/ aurangzeb-tolerant-tyrant-

case-secular-historiography/

Would you like to respond?

Regards,

Raman

No interest in responding, thanks.

You should be skeptical of the first source, by the way, including the translations.

Audrey Truschke

Assistant Professor

Department of History

Rutgers University-Newark

Thanks for pointing out about translations - but should they not be refuted by scholars? Is it not the job of scholars to spread the truth and confront the distortionists of history?

I feel, in today's world, scholars should not just remain confined to classes or just write books but get engaged in a healthy debate with their opponents.

Ultimate aim is to spread the truth - any distortions in the popular narrative leads to birth of leaders like Trump or you may say Modi.

Should you not use your expertise to remove false hood - at the time when in India secularist scholars are under attack in all form of media.

Regards,

Raman

———————————————————————————

Conversation 2 :

Dear Ms. Truschke,

It was nice reading about your research upon Hindu Muslim relations at http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/sanskrit-mughal-empire-090915.html

In India, following is the issue :

1. We are taught a very secular history in our schools as secular school of thought is very dominant in Indian schools and universities.

2. Another school of thought ( I call it independent school of thought) has emerged that have done some original research on Hindu Muslim relations';;; history and they have virtually termed the secularist historians as half-truthers and have rebutted their narrative with references to the original texts.

3. Problem is that secularists historians have only managed to indulge in ad hominem attacks without countering it with arguments and references.

4. This independent school of thought is an individual effort of Mr. Ram Swroop, Mr. Sita Ram Goel (both since deceased) and Dr. Elst without any government or institutional support.

5. You can find their write-ups at the following links :

http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch7.htm

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/index.htm

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/eaton.html (rebutal to Eaton';;;s book)

You can search lot of books and articles written by these gentlemen on net (let me know in case you want to know their thought on any particular topic).

Now since you are conversant in Persians and Sanskrit - the language of most historical source material - I would like to know your views on the above write-ups. In case your research has proven otherwise, kindly rebut the above narrative of independent school of thought.

The most important issue is that truth should be told and spread and it can only come about if one engages in debate with those having opposing viewpoint.

I will try my best to publish your views on the blog of Dr. Elst and other channels of this independent school of thought so that healthy debate ensues.

I hope you shall reply to my mail.

Regards,

Raman Sehgal

Dear Raman Sehgal,

Thank you for your note.

I encourage you to read some of my published articles, which are available for download here: http://web.stanford.edu/~truschke/audrey-truschke.html

Rather than attack certain individuals head-on, my approach to date has been to go back to the sources and try to reconstruct a more accurate version of Indian history. I am forthcoming about my sources, arguments, and the reasons for my conclusions. There are modern political implications to my scholarship, but those come secondary and, most importantly, subsequent to my historical work. Far more than proving certain, usually politically-motivated individuals, wrong, I want to outline a solid basis for approaching and making sense of India';;;s past.

All the best,

Audrey Truschke

DearAudrey Truschke,

Thank you for your mail.

History has several grey areas and lay people like me often get confused which version to taken as true. I feel healthy thing would be an open debate where ideas are exchanged freely, so that truth can be told.

eg in the following chapter of Dr. Elst';;;s book he proves that renowned secular historians like Prof Romila Thapar, who is a

co-winner of the prestigiousKluge Prize , are telling half truths to suit their own agenda. Now in case I had just read Prof Romila Thapar, I would have believed her version of history but with this rebuttal, she stands exposed, obviously till the time she rebuts Dr. Elst';;;s narration - which I presume she hasn';;;t till now.

With such exchanges, the gaps in scholarly work can be filled and complete picture of the past can emerge - otherwise one can selectively quote some passages to suit ones agenda and real picture gets hidden behind politics.

I would again request you, for the sake of truth, to take up the challenge and rebut Dr. Elst';;;s above article and help us - the lay people - know the real history of Hindu-Muslim relations.

Thanks and Regards,

Raman Sehgal

Dear Raman Sehgal,

I agree with you that it can be difficult to sort out fact from fiction when reading about Indian history. A few things that might help are as follows. First, pay attention to citations. The link you provided to Elst';;;s work contains few citations so far as I can see (and none to primary sources). Accordingly, how do you possibly know whether any of his "facts" are true. In contrast, Romila Thapar';;;s work is that of a serious historian and, appropriately, chock full of citations, footnotes, and endnotes. In other words, she backs up her claims.

Also, ask yourself what is at stake for each person writing and which comes first--their politics or their commitment to scholarship. When politics come first, we have moved beyond the realm of serious history.

Last, consider the standing of each person. Virtually no other historians, so far as I know, stand with Elst. This is not because of his politics but rather because his arguments and conclusions are not compelling. In contrast, Thapar is widely considered in academic circles to be a model historian--thoughtful, methodical, careful, and well-researched.

So far as responding to Elst--honestly, historians grow weary of such exercises. There will always be somebody ready to brandish the flag of the Hindu right and their rewriting of history. If we argued against every instance, we would do nothing else. It is far more useful and interesting, I think, to continue doing what historians ought to do, namely, careful research that seeks to more accurately and fruitfully understand the past.

All the best,

Audrey Truschke

DearAudrey Truschke,

I felt like providing some more information on Elst and Romilla Thapar.

Elst : 1. In the paper on Autochthonous Aryans Michael Witzel - a Sanskrit Professor of Harvard mentions Elst 101 times, either to prove or disapprove his pov. Issue is that Elst is read and is mentioned so is not irrelevant.

In fact way back in 1998 Elst caught the error of Witzel in translation of Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra which Witzel was using to support his Aryan Invasion Theory.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudhayana_Shrauta_Sutra#BSS_18:44_controversy

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/VedicEvidenceforAMT.pdf

Romilla Thapar and other secular historians were quoting this mis-translation to support their pov. (presumably because Romilla Thapar does not know Sanskrit and hence has to rely on others translation) - (

http://ascjnu.tripod.com/aryan.html

.

With above, all I want to convey is that one cannot ignore scholarship of Elst with excuse of growing weary.

And with internet, where information is available with click - we tend to believe in the write-up that has refuted the earlier narrative. All I am seeking is the response from the secular side to put the narrative in right perspective.

Since you are dealing in Hindu-Muslim relations knowing sanskrit and persian and sourcing from original sources, I would suggest you could respond to Elst';;s rebuttal of Eaton';;s book on Temple Destruction (http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/eaton.html

or any other write-up on Islamic atrocities in India and let the reader decide where lies the truth. By doing so you will be serving the humanity - as this take India onto the secular path.

I hope you will respond to this mail.

Regards,

Raman Sehgal

Dear Audrey Truschke,

One last attempt to get some reply from you.

Since your value standing of the scholars : Here is the write-up by Dilip K Chakrabarti,Emeritus Professor of South Asian Archaeology, Cambridge University, on Romilla Thapar.

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012/05/romila-thapar-and-study-of-ancient.html

All I am seeking is the rebuttal to the ';;others';; view on Hindu-Muslim relations, of which you are a researcher.

Thanks and Regards,

Raman Sehgal

Dear Raman,

Thanks for reaching out again.

As I said before, many historians grow weary of rebutting each and every new attack. Most Hindu nationalist readings of history bear great similarity to one another. Perhaps most problematically, they aren';;t historical in any serious sense.

I understand that many Hindu nationalist thinkers find great value in attacking every minute point of a given historian, thinking that this demolishes their argument. But that';;s not quite how the historical method works, and it is a game that is more harmful then helpful to play.

All the best,

Audrey Truschke

Dear Audrey,

Thank you for your reply.

The reason I am pursuing correspondence with you is that I am totally confused as to what is the truth. We were taught history that was written by Romilla Thapar and other JNU professors (leftist scholars) and I believed in it. There were few protests from Hindu right which we thought was reactionary in nature to put their own agenda forward for political purposes.

But with internet, we can cross check on the sources, read rebuttals and draw our own conclusions. I have read several rebuttal by Hindu right where facts presented by leftist scholars have been questioned.

Since you have mentioned that "many historians grow weary of rebutting each and every new attack" meaning that historians have rebutted the narrative of pro Hindu scholars in past. I am not in know of this. Kindly provide me with the links so that I can educate myself.

Thanks and Regards,

Raman Sehgal

Dear Raman,

I hear you that there are a lot of voices out there and it can be confusing to discern who is acting in a responsible way to recover history. Below are a few general references.

I highly recommend the work of Richard Eaton, especially his work on temple destruction (published in Frontline and available online). Eaton is a very careful historian--one of the best.

Romila Thapar';s work is outstanding, and she continues to publish both scholarly publications as well as articles and interviews aimed at a broader public audience.

Other respected scholars include Cynthia Talbot, Finnbarr Flood, (for more recent stuff) Peter van der Veer, Muzaffar Alam, and many others.

All the best,

Audrey Truschke

Dear Audrey,

Thank you for your mail.

1. You mentioned that 'many historians grow weary of rebutting each and every new attack' meaning that sometime in past such attacks have been rebutted. I am not in know of it - as asked earlier - kindly provide me with the links to such rebuttals.

2. Richard Eaton : Following is the rebuttal to Eaton's book. It mentions that "he gives a list of "eighty" cases of Islamic temple destruction"

- the number eighty is not exhaustive

- each of these eighty cases may mean destruction of 10s or 100s or in one case 1000s (

1094: Benares, Ghurid army) of temples destroyed and mosques erected in their places.

- temple destruction is part of the islamic ethos that finds inspiration in their literature

Now to balance the atrocities of muslims, Eaton equates Muslims to Hindus where Hindus too had desecrated the temples and he found 18 such individual cases. Of these 16 cases involve conqueror taking idols from one temple and respectfully placing it in another temple. The actual case of desecration amount to only 2. Though Hindus may have explanation for this too but one can consider it as outlier, so equating desecration of thousands of temples with 2 temples is quite unfair.

Kindly read the rebutal in detail at :

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/eaton.html

3. You can read the original documents regarding the order to destroy temples in the comments sections (by Friend) at the following link :

http://indiafacts.co.in/hindu-temple-destructions-a-myth-richard-eaton/

My POV is that Temples are gone and the people who destroyed those temples are dead, but why indulge in lies and half truths and in case other party (Hindu scholars) are spreading lies or speaking half truths then why not counter them with your true version. With internet, it is only truth that will ultimately prevail, why live behind the veil of positions - why not expose them.

4. I have cc this mail to Mr. Richard Eaton, hopefully he responds to the rebuttal of his book and in case he has already done it then I would be grateful in case he provide the link to his rebuttal.

As mentioned earlier, I am only concerned with truth and nothing else.

Regards,

Raman Sehgal

Dear Audrey,

While awaiting your reply, there is following rebuttal to Ms. Doniger book at http://www.voi.org/reviews/rc-majumdar/hinduism-studies-and-dhimmitude-in-the-american-academy/page-5?showall=

with following excerpts :

"Let us look more closely. Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows:

Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. "Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law." Qasim "kept his promises." The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their "protection." He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased)

From Doniger's assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Contrast Doniger's description with that written by Andrew Bostom in "The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India." [4]

The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the *Chachnama*) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar.

Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and "700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured."

Distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar describes the capture of the royal Fort and its tragic outcome:

Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible *jauhar* ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the *Chachnama.* Cited in Bostom.

Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship.

Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup. "

Now which version is true?

My contention is why not enter into a healthy debate and sift truth from falsehood. I strangely find pro hindu groups open for debate but secular group running away from it.

I hope you will respond to the above.

Regards,

Raman Sehgal