This happened in 2004
Here is what Romila Thapar wrote in the Hindu letters to the editor http://www.hindu.com/2004/03/22/stories/2004032201661001.htm
Redefining secularism
Sir, — I am writing with
reference to the article “Redefining secularism” (March 18) by
Subramanian Swamy. I was rather amused to read his comments on my views
of `the Aryans’, in which he accuses me of having defined Aryan and
Dravidian as racial categories and now having changed my mind in
accordance with the views of the RSS, since the BJP came to power.
If he had read anything
on the debate among historians concerning the Aryan theory, he would
have known that for the last 30 years I, together with other historians,
have been refuting the concept of an Aryan race or a Dravidian race. I
have stated categorically in “A History of India,” Vol. I, published in
1966, that Aryan is a linguistic term. I discussed this in greater
detail in my presidential address to the Ancient Indian History Section
of the Indian History Congress in Varanasi in 1968, where I argued that
Aryan is a linguistic label and not a racial category. And just for the
record, since I am frequently misquoted on this by some people, I argued
further that although I did not accept the notion of an Aryan invasion,
I did support the idea of a graduated migration of Aryan-speaking
peoples from the Indo-Iranian borderlands into north-western India. This
resulted in an interface of various cultures and this interface needs
to be explored — and many of us have done so, as would be apparent from
our other publications on the subject.
It would seem that the
Subramanian Swamys of this world do not believe in reading the books of
those whom they accuse of having incorrect ideas on history. They
attribute theories of various kinds to whomsoever they chose. Surely
this was not the training that Dr. Swamy was given at Harvard?
As for my toeing the RSS
line on the Aryan theory, after the BJP having come to power, the shoe
is actually on the other foot. The mentors of the RSS spoke of race and
the race spirit with reference to the Aryans in the 1920s and 1930s. If
the RSS has now decided, as Dr. Swamy asserts, that Aryan is a language
label and not a racial category, they are stating what many of us have
been saying for some decades now. As for those sympathetic to the RSS
choosing to repeat what others and I had said 30 years ago — that’s
their choice!
Romila Thapar,
New Delhi
New Delhi
And here is Dr.Swamy’s reply http://www.hindu.com/2004/03/24/stories/2004032401421001.htm
Swamy’s reply
Sir, — I write with reference to Dr. Romila Thapar’s rebuttal of my remarks (Letters, The Hindu,
March 22) about her propagation of Aryan as a race in her past
writings. She wonders what they taught me at Harvard. What they taught
me and what I have taught at Harvard is that if you make an argument in
rebuttal, do not contradict yourself in that argument. But this is what
precisely Dr. Thapar has done. While denying that she ever argued that
Aryan was a racial term, she goes on to say that it was the language of
those who migrated to India from abroad in a “graduated” way. Who were
they? Is she arguing that they were racially the same as Indians or
different? And who graduated the migration? She should be explicit.
Never obfuscate — Harvard teaches that too. Obviously that is not being
taught at JNU. Aryan is a German version of the Sanskrit word “Arya,”
which means a gentleman, while Dravida is a word coined by Adi Shankara
while at Varanasi to mean a person from the south. I am ready to debate
Dr. Thapar on this issue publicly.
Subramanian Swamy,
Madurai, T.N.
Madurai, T.N.
Source: http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/romila-thapars-mask-of-obfuscation-torn-open-by-dr-subramanian-swamy/
No comments:
Post a Comment