Why the Western
“Peer-Reviewed” Academic World is a “Dogs and Indians Not Allowed” Club of
Frauds
Shrikant G. Talageri
In the old days of British rule, there was a board usually placed outside all British clubs in India: “Dogs and Indians are Not Allowed”. Were all Indians prevented from entering these clubs? Obviously not: if all Indians were prevented from entering them, who would serve the British men and women in the clubs? So, yes, Indian servants were (to a restricted extent) “allowed”. Indian servants and sepoys were allowed for the restricted purpose of serving the British members, and, whether allowed or not, these servants and sepoys (and other Indians of this mentality who shared the awe and servile sentiments of intrinsic servants and sepoys) rarely had any objection to boards of this kind. In fact, they had a hearty contempt for other Indians who did not share this “privilege” (or this mentality), and would have been up in arms with righteous indignation against anyone who did not consider selective British condescension as a “privilege”, and even against those who objected to such boards.
Now we are in “Independent” India. and that too not in the year 1947 or thereabouts, but in the year 2025. India and Indians are not, and cannot be made, so openly a target of contempt, insults and calumny as in the good old colonial days. This contempt, these insults and this calumny are now exercised in proxy:
1. India and Indians are now replaced by Hinduism and Hindus.
2. And the contempt is not (usually) so openly expressed in words: it finds its way in the brazen support to and propagation of academic studies, academic papers, news reports and news analyses vilifying Hinduism and Hindus without any restraint of decency, logic or fairness,, and in propagating on a war-footing the views and interests of the Breaking India forces: Evangelists, Islamicists, Wokes and other lesser breeds of Leftists and Indian Secularists.
Needless to say, the present-day inheritors of the “Dogs and Indians are Not Allowed” traditions are as zealously and religiously supported by the present-day legions of Indian servants and sepoys as in the good old colonial days, and as willing to fight for the Breaking India forces at the behest of their western sponsors and supporters, as the Indian sepoys who fired on Indians at Jallianwala Bagh were willing to kill Indians at the behest of General Dyer.
I will not go in detail into the whole bizarre situation. I don’t have to: Rajiv Malhotra has done a magnificent job in this matter through his two-volume series of books on the Breaking India Forces. I will only deal here with the particular aspect of this BIF-sepoy alliance that most directly concerns my work: the field of Indology or Indian History, or, most specifically, the AIT-vs.-OIT issue.
The “Dogs and Indians are Not Allowed” principle of the British colonial clubs is, in these post-colonial days, translated (in the western-controlled “peer-reviewed academic” world) as “OIT-supporting and AIT-sceptic studies not allowed”. And, as any survey of the internet and even so many of my articles on the subject will show, there is simply no dearth of Indian servants and sepoys who toe this neo-colonial line by refusing to treat any study, however factual, logical, objective and data-based, as worthy of any serious examination and appraisal if the western academic club management caucus has not given its stamp of condescending notice by “peer-reviewing” the study in any of the “academic journals” controlled by it.
Some of the sepoys may ask: “do you mean that it is the duty of academic journals to print or pre-review any and every nonsensical article or “paper” written by the OIT side or the AIT-sceptic side?”. Good question! As good as if a sepoy of the good old colonial days were to ask: “do you mean to say that it is the duty of these clubs to allow any Indian who has just emerged after cleaning out sewers and is dripping with slime and sewage to enter the club unwashed”? Both these questions are as unanswerable as they are unworthy of serious answers.
The immediate provocation for this article is a tweet that Koenraad Elst put up recently:
“Last year the Indogermanische Gesselschaft turned down my paper proposal concerning Vedic chronology, which turns out to be irreconcilable w/ the AIT. Just now, the IE section of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesselschaft did the same. Those ppl. don’t *want* to know the facts.”
6:20 PM. Feb 19, 2025
Is a paper by Koenraad Elst, a full-fledged western academic with umpteen western academic degrees, including doctorates, to be treated as one among “any and every nonsensical article or “paper” written by the OIT side or the AIT-sceptic side”?
I do not primarily blame the western AIT-supporting academics: they are openly fighting a bitter and fundamental battle with the Indian side, even if, as Koenraad Elst sometimes tries to excuse them, it is mainly because they know little about the actual OIT case, or are influenced by their Indian woke academic informants, or are disillusioned by half-baked Indians genuinely writing “nonsensical” things: these can be no excuses that a true and objective academic would give. And it certainly cannot be given in the case of papers by Koenraad Elst. [And, in my article on Hans Hock, I have shown how western academics who spout words of wisdom, on the academic necessity of objective examination of opposing views, suddenly execute sharp about-turns on actually being faced with unanswerable opposing views].
As I said: I do not primarily blame the western AIT-supporting academics: they are openly fighting a bitter and fundamental battle with the Indian side (whether as part of agendas or to buttress their already-published writings and views on the subject): they and we (in the eyes of these western academics) represent opposing or enemy sides. And, to such fake academics, “all is fair in love and war”. General Dyer did not think of “fair” and “unfair” when he ordered the Indian sepoys to shoot at the Indians at Jallianwala Bagh. But the main point is: neither, apparently, did the Indian sepoys!!
Again, the Indian sepoys who actually did the shooting were “doing their duty” and “following orders”! Even more worthy of blame are the abysmally low and disgusting classes of sepoy-minded Indians who read about the Jallianwala Bagh shootings in newspapers, and then proceeded to vent their support for General Dyer’s actions, and their condemnation of those who were killed and those who protested against the killings, in public letters to the newspapers.
Which is why I rarely try to curb my tongue (or my pen, or my computer-keys) when referring to these scummy Indians who throng the internet expressing their loud support for the AIT and their vicious opposition to the OIT, and in fact their article of faith that anyone who writes OIT-supporting or AIT-sceptic articles do not deserve to even have their cases considered unless the academic master-race gives some degree of condescending concession by “peer-reviewing” these writings, so destructive to their own beliefs and former writings, in journals controlled by them.
General Dyer would not have dared to order the shooting of the Indians in Jallianwala Bagh if he had not been so confident, on the basis of countless earlier experiences, that he had not only the support of his British rulers, and the ready obedient compliance of the Indian sepoys who held the guns, but also the unflinching approval and support of countless Indian sepoys spread out throughout india who would come out publicly in newspapers and public meetings in full support of his actions.
I could go on and on listing the countless “peer-reviewed” papers in academic journals which blatantly criticize and contradict other countless “peer-reviewed” papers in academic journals, without either of any two contradicting papers being considered unfit for consideration (or unfit for publication in these journals) by these scummy sepoys.
I could go on pointing out the countless false and contradictory statements made in countless “peer-reviewed” papers in academic journals, without any of these papers being considered unfit for consideration (or unfit for publication in these journals) by these scummy sepoys.
Literally countless “peer-reviewed” papers in academic journals identify people or tribes with purely Indo-Aryan (Indo-European) names like Pakthas, Bhalānas, Pṛthus, Alinas, Śimyus and Parśus in the dāśarājña battle hymns, or dāsas and dasyus in the Rigveda as a whole, or Rāvaṇa, Sugrīva, and Kumbhakarṇa in the Epics, as “non-Aryans”, without any of these papers being considered unfit for consideration (or unfit for publication in these journals) by these scummy sepoys.
These sepoys are beneath contempt. Then why do I persist in abusing these vile scumballs who are literally beneath the notice of any rational person?
Well: there must have been countless patriotic Indians during the days of British rule who found themselves unable to restrain themselves from publicly condemning and abusing those Indian sepoys among the lay Indian public who took it upon themselves to support General Dyer in public forums. My condemnation and abuse may seem (or even may be) as pointless at this moment as theirs was at that time. But it will also be proved as legitimate and correct, as theirs was, in later and saner times.
No comments:
Post a Comment