The Subhash Kak, along with many other wikipedia-sites, is heavily patrolled and observed by Wiki-editors with an axe to grind. It's impossible to make a neutral article out of it without wasting hours there. This article about wikipedia bias points out the same problems:

First it is obvious that Wikipedians, especially including admins, are not unbiased editors as you would maybe expect from an encyclopedia. Here are some examples of bias against Hindus:

"Why are you giving so importance to a Third World Contry person like Talageri? These religious beggers and low class people don't deserve this much attention." ("Truthlover")

"what's happening? Are summer holidays over at American high schools, and all the ABCD trolls flocking back to give Wikipedia grief? (ABCD is a slur, ABCD=American Born Confused Desi)" ("Dab")

"your physical location is not so relevant" (but apparently your race is, "Dab", when commenting on a Hindu editor)

"the only people that care about [ [ Indian mathematics ] ] are Indians with a collective inferiority complex... Our problem is not with real kooks so much as with second-generation expatriate youths who are shedding their testosterone properly intended for tribal warfare in front of the screen." ("Dab")

"imdiversity.com is at least not a Hindu forum, but it seems still to be a lobby organization you'd expect to automatically take the side of an ethnic minority, never mind if their cause makes sense or not." ("Dab")

"The articles Hindu-Arabic numeral system, Arabic numerals and Indian numerals have been kept separate in order to appease the angry young Hindu editors." ("Dab")

One administrator ("Dab") was heavily criticized for saying this on wikipedia:

"These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them."

This is a comparatively mild version of wikipedia bias, but it has engendered a lot of controversy. The Indians criticized the admin because he refused to apologize for this comment even after being critcized heavily for it. The same user was also criticized for similar remarks and for his tendency to use ethnic, national and religious attributes of editors when making negative criticisms. As an example he routinely refers to Hindu editors as Hindutva-trolls, -zeaolots, -kooks, -meatpuppets, -propagandists, -sockuppets, -sock army, -crowd and Hindutva editors from hell. (Almost none of the victims of his name-calling have declared that they are Hindutvadis.) It would almost seem that he uses the word Hindutva on Hindus as others would use the word nigger.

Further exemplifying that every Hindu and every aspect of Hinduism that he disagrees with is "evil Hindutva", he even puts Swami Dayananda in the Hindutva category, who lived long before Sarvakar. The same admin also criticizes the "Hindutvatis" for their denunciation of [ [ British colonialism ] ], claiming "Hindutva scohlars seem to delight in, what with denouncing British colonialists for imperialistic views". He is also an apologist of British colonoliasm when he writes that India benefited from it because of the railways which helped in times of famines. But of course the railways were built for economical reasons or exploitation, many countrys that were not colonized also got railways (including "third world" country Thailand), and colonized countries are more prone to famines than non-colonized ones. It is not surprising that Indian marxist scholars are also criticized because their theories are deemed to be too "postmodern" and "postcolonial". While claiming to "fight" Hindutva, some of these editors miss the mark and fight Hinduism as a whole. Therefore one administrator claims that Dayananda's writings are recognized as having an element of religious fundamentalism and criticizes Vivekananda for pseudo-science in an article with the poignant title "Hindutva propaganda" that was too extreme even for wikipedia standards (if an article created by an admin can be deleted because of its bias and against the wishes of the admin, it is probably extreme).

For references to the above see wikipedia or the Internet, like: groups.google.com/group/alt.wikipedia/browse_thread/thread/ce41d02d19e311e5#

Dear Dwai,
Not only those two definitions, I am afraid, but several other equally colourful ones.
Most of us have referred Oxford dictionary or Webster's Dictionary and barring very occasional exceptions, would have been confident that the definition we found was accurate within the scope of available knowledge, like information picked up from a scientific publication from a respected academic institution.
Some of us may not be aware that before 1928, the standard lexicographic aid for the English language available in England, was Dr Johnson's Dictionary of the English language. It was one of the greatest works of literary merit in the language and is believed to have included over 100,000 quotations to illustrate the contextual use of several words. But the dictionary was equally famous for a number of juicy, biassed entries, which showed the personal attitudes and prejudices of the author. An example is the definition of oats as food for horses in England and men in Scotland.
While fictional works and poems and fantasies are not expected to be entirely truth based in their content and valued more for their readability, beauty and stretches of imagination, dictionaries and treatises of physical, natural and social sciences are generally expected to cater to seekers of truth. But who knows what contemporary readership demands?
Regards. Partha

By the way, I don't say "inferiority complex" lightly, as Indians are wont to do in discussing Indo-European studies in the West; one can feel the Indians chafing at the bit in all their long-winded rebuttals, libelous "dossiers" on the terrible Nazi Witzel, histrionic talk of "perpetrating prejudice", etc. This is a problem of mass-psychology much more than archaeology or anything else. Knowledgeable Indians have been saddled with an inferiority complex by their brahmin intelligentsia -- which needs the Aryans to be indigenous to support a victim ideology for Indian national consciousness. This is precisely the diffusion of an inferiority complex through an historical anti-knowledge produced by power. But there are many Indians, I'm sure, who see through this desperate political charade and mischievous, wasteful meddling in historical matters -- who don't see it as some heinous tragedy that Aryans brought their culture to the subcontinent to eventually mix with the civilization already in place.

"You are right about the Politicization of History and Indic studies in India, but the fact of the matter is that it has been hijacked by "Brown Sahibs" "

The only "Brown Sahibs" are those wasting their lives supporting a political lie known as Out of India Theory.

"who find it very convenient to ignore glaring flaws the established version of Indic history as posited by Max Mueller and his cronies,"

Listen to yourself. "Cronies".

"in cahoots with the ink of Macaulay."

Hardly anyone remembers Macaulay. Mueller warrants little more than a dismissal in mainstream "invasion theory" itself. Which is a shame.


"So, naturally when the Marxist-leaning "scholars" in India are challenged by native scholars"

Except those Marxist scholars are no less native than your natives. You just don't like their politics, and you've thrown in with the desperate attempts to claim the Aryans for India.

" naturally it becomes primary to paint these scholars as being somehow "inferior" to the others"

Which is what you're doing. So you've explained nothing, only restated the prejudice. Indians, for all their passionate love of argumentation, are some of the worst and most unconscionable at it.

Well, here's the rub: "Out of India Theory" is a joke in the wide world of Indo-European studies. One can list its Western adherents on one hand, and at least two of those are no better than would-be gurus. We laugh at OIT as we laugh at Estonians pretending their national identity is based on a tribe called "eesti" rather than a toponym given to them by the invading Teutonic Knights. In the same way literate Indians suffer this awful inferiority complex regarding their history; someone told them colonialism lives on in the scholastic legacy of Mueller, so the Aryans have to be indigenous, and the whole bounty of Indo-European culture is a gift of the Indians to the world. What they don't realize is that OIT is itself a reflex of Western "colonizing metanarrative", but from the Western Left, which cannot tolerate substantive talk of Aryans or Indo-Europeans; the notion that the Aryans came from India serves a handful of pseudo-scholars in the West (mostly in the arch-leftist Netherlands) in a mini-crusade to downplay Aryan identity for Europeans.

Wikipedia isn't "perpetrating prejudice" against your native scholars; but when the facts are assembled in a more or less neutral forum, and kooks like Kak and Talageri very rightly come out looking absurd, your only recourse is to see "prejudice" everywhere and flood the internet with self-serving queries like this one.

Dear Mr Lentini, please enlighten us on your knowledge of what "kooks" such as Kak and Talageri propose and why/how that threatens your locus standii vis-a-vis Indic studies (I am assuming you are an expert in the field). I hope you will share with us your credentials and how/why you consider the named individuals "kooks".

Fact is that from the Indian side, Indian history has been hopelessly politicized, so that any scholarship coming from the West, or any Indian scholarship in agreement with the West, is, to the Indian mind, politicized itself, propaganda, part of an agenda to "colonize discourse", etc. All this results from Hindutva, from brahmin meddling in letters, and from the conservative, anti-marxist Indian middle class. This is particularly unfortunate in that it forces the Indian Marxists (the only scholars who will admit that OIT is a rank petty nationalist fraud; e.g. Romila Thapar) into the arms of the Marxists in Western Indo-European research, or rather, threatens to further cement this ugly shotgun-marriage of cultural Marxism and Indo-European research. Fortunately there is Witzel, and that is exactly why the Indian fanatics never tire of slandering him. Indeed, the only prejudice, the only real slander has been from the "empowered" Indians to the Westerners; the latter are always walking on eggshells for the Indians because they're white, and if they appear to bold about anything, but esp. discussing the origins of Indian culture, they're "colonialist", "perpetrating prejudice", etc. In short, the Indians have been infected by politically correct hypochondria and persecution-mania.

You are right about the Politicization of History and Indic studies in India, but the fact of the matter is that it has been hijacked by "Brown Sahibs" who find it very convenient to ignore glaring flaws the established version of Indic history as posited by Max Mueller and his cronies, in cahoots with the ink of Macaulay. So, naturally when the Marxist-leaning "scholars" in India are challenged by native scholars who don't buy their gibberish and then produce evidence from the scriptures and with leading archaelogists supporting their stance, naturally it becomes primary to paint these scholars as being somehow "inferior" to the others and having them maligned by adding the term "Hindutva" to their names.

"Subash Kak is obviously a kook, with little knowledge or expertise in physics, history, Sanskrit or indology. Instead of holding fringe and ridiculous figures like Kak or Koenraad Elst in high regards, we Indians should be more appreciative of genuine scholarship - by which I mean not only academics like Witzel, but also scholars at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vishveshvaranand Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies etc."

I'm surprised to see a comment like this. Bravo. Insistence that Western Indology is "prejudiced" is nothing more than "postcolonial" pettiness.

Hmm...how exactly can you corroborate the stand that Dr Kak doesn't know Sanskrit or is a kook? What exactly IS a kook by the way?

Is that a special way of calling someone a Chef? If that is the case then we can assure you Dr Kak's culinary skills aren't in question here, since most of us haven't had the pleasure of having had dinner in his home. We know him from his articulate writings and the fact that we interacted with him for several years on an internet forum such as this and never found him doing ad hominem attacks on the most vicious of his critics (don't for once think that creatures such as yourself are a rarity...in fact they are dime a dozen! Scholars like Dr Kak though are rare and if you had an iota of integrity and/or intelligence, you would be better off studying Dr Kak's works, instead of making juvenile posts such as this).

My personal interaction with the editor of the said biography on Wikipedia led me to be convinced that that individual (forget what his name is, some D Bauchmann or something) is a bigot and a bully. Neither of those are desirable characteristics in a human being. I hope you learn from this and turn over a new leaf.

Best of Luck in your attempts at Really learning Indology with the help of scholars such as Kak and Talageri.

Dwai

Nice unsubstantiated ad hominems there, M Lentini...

Was your intent just to entertain, or to substantiate with some facts?

If the former you've succeeded

If the latter, than please go thru comments & try to respond to issues...

The original "Oh the poor much-maligned West, Thou shalt be defended at all costs" poster has not shown himself here any more...let's hope for better luck from you...

Have you heard of the word "Power Differential"? ...all those you support have loads of power to distort things anyway they wish...you're in good company.

Substance please....

Wikipedia isn't "perpetrating prejudice" against your native scholars; but when the facts are assembled in a more or less neutral forum, and kooks like Kak and Talageri very rightly come out looking absurd, your only recourse is to see "prejudice" everywhere and flood the internet with self-serving queries like this one. Fact is that from the Indian side, Indian history has been hopelessly politicized, so that any scholarship coming from the West, or any Indian scholarship in agreement with the West, is, to the Indian mind, politicized itself, propaganda, part of an agenda to "colonize discourse", etc. All this results from Hindutva, from brahmin meddling in letters, and from the conservative, anti-marxist Indian middle class. This is particularly unfortunate in that it forces the Indian Marxists (the only scholars who will admit that OIT is a rank petty nationalist fraud; e.g. Romila Thapar) into the arms of the Marxists in Western Indo-European research, or rather, threatens to further cement this ugly shotgun-marriage of cultural Marxism and Indo-European research. Fortunately there is Witzel, and that is exactly why the Indian fanatics never tire of slandering him. Indeed, the only prejudice, the only real slander has been from the "empowered" Indians to the Westerners; the latter are always walking on eggshells for the Indians because they're white, and if they appear to bold about anything, but esp. discussing the origins of Indian culture, they're "colonialist", "perpetrating prejudice", etc. In short, the Indians have been infected by politically correct hypochondria and persecution-mania.

"Subash Kak is obviously a kook, with little knowledge or expertise in physics, history, Sanskrit or indology. Instead of holding fringe and ridiculous figures like Kak or Koenraad Elst in high regards, we Indians should be more appreciative of genuine scholarship - by which I mean not only academics like Witzel, but also scholars at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vishveshvaranand Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies etc."

I'm surprised to see a comment like this. Bravo. Insistence that Western Indology is "prejudiced" is nothing more than "postcolonial" pettiness.

Dear Amit,

It is indeed a very sad affair. I managed to get the "editor" of the Subhash Kak page to modify his slanderous stand a bit, in that the biography sequences etc were modified to make it more relevant to being a biography about a Scholar/Scientist (doesn't matter what his political persuasions might be).

However, when I went in and tried counter-balancing the quotes about Dr. Kak by Alan Sokal (such as providing Alan Sokal's self-admitted Leftist Credentials), the editor locked out the page from future edits. I haven't had the time to pursue this further since my day-time occupation (and full-time obsession, ie Medha Journal) takes up a lot of my time.

This and several other incidents have confirmed my conviction that we need to create an alternate, powerful media outlet that will give fair-play to all parties involved. That is the only way we can guarantee that the minority voices (such as the Pro-Indic segment of scholars who are precisely that, a minority) get a fair hearing and platform.

Our goal at medha journal is to make such a thing happen. May be it will take time...but we will make it happen one day...

Good work Shri Dwai.

From my personal experience, I can tell that some sections of Wiki are being run by morons. When it comes to Indology, many western uneducated typists, who assume themselves to be scholars, write rubbish. One of the examples was that of Wiki's article on RigVed. I am sure the editors do not know Sanskrit or Hindi to confirm the works of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. What can you tell a person about a sentence that is in a language he does not understand? But the pity is that he is commenting on that sentence!

Hindu scholars need to participate more in Wiki's work, so that we can present the truth.

Witzels' pronouncements on Kak don't cut much ice. He is just a Sanskritist, and clueless (amongst other things) about Physics, ancient, modern, and Quantum. He also has an axe to grind about his Race based AIT adherence, and is quite VICIOUS in personal attacks to those who don't agree with his slant on things.

Moreover, he's also pretty much implicated in the California Textbooks controversy as haveing subverted the process by backroom threats & dealings, for which he may have been subpoenaed by the court.

Shows the extent to which the man goes to uphold his dogma, even to the extent of vitiating young minds.

One can read how well Nicolas Kazanas has systematically ripped apart Witzel's points on his interpretation of Sanskrit text by which he produces/conjures his 'evidence'

That is, if one can move beyond geneflucting to the pillars of Western establishment like 'Haahvaahd' which, for all their grandeur, are not infallible in their study of non-Western societies.

Bhave ji,

You've not responded yet to my question, which I reproduce below:

With regards to Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, you are no doubt aware, with your perspicacity, that he's also published numerous 'kooky' articles in the BORI journal of the same institute?

So if by your own yardstick (you mentioned BORI as an institution worthy of your stamp of approval) if Kak has published there, you should withdraw your ad hominems at Kak.

I've read his articles published by BORI. I wonder if you had, before you made this comment.

Is it your idea to discuss on points, or just 'get' him any which way you can?

The passage of interest to us, submitted earlier today by our D Lahiri, is at the very bottom of the Notice Board, which is an extremely long affair.
I am therefore extracting DL's submission for frllow Medhavis, hoping that I have his permission. It ia model of precision and forthrightness in absolutely respectful terms.

Biography of Subhash Kak has been hijacked and libelous material posted on both the biography page as well as disparaging comments about this person has been made on the Talk page of the same article.

The editor has also changed the page to protected status, preventing further edits, while refusing to engage in a discussion on the merits/demerits of his editorial hatchet job on the article itself.

I view Wikipedia as an unbiased repository of information, compiled for public good. I bring this article to the noticeboard, so that the concerned panel can review this page and decide whether some of the material on this page isn't borderline libelous.

If you cannot represent someone in a fair manner, without the editor's personal bias getting in the way, delete the page. It is better that people don't get to read the biography, instead of reading someone's politically motivated diatribe against a scholar.

Regards. Partha

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lwe...pmans.html

Read the review this person has on one of Kak's books --
http://www.amazon.com/Search-C...646&sr=8-1

From Library Journal
With this work, the authors, all three renowned Yoga and Vedic scholars with multiple publications to their names, set out to challenge the generally held theory that advanced culture began in Sumer in southern Mesopotamia. Relying on a reexamination of redated Vedic literature and denying that an "Aryan invasion" from the north ever took place, which allegedly would have introduced advanced culture into India at a relatively late date, they claim instead that advanced culture already existed in the Indus valley?before the flourishing of Sumer. The work is broad in scope, well documented, and extensively illustrated. Although this book is written for the lay reader, the authors hope that it will stir the scholarly world as well. Public and academic libraries will want to have this title.?Ria Koopmans-de Bruijn, C.V. Starr East Asian Lib., Columbia Univ.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Also, it seems like the "editor" of the Wiki article has locked the page from further edits, and simultaneously invoked several Wikipedia "laws" to scare off any challenge to his authority.

Obviously this has been reported to the notice board on Wikipedia for "Biographies of Living Persons" --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...ticeboard

Why don't you show us some refutation of Dr Kak's work?

You can read:
http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0703/ejvs0703article.pdf

But its written by Michael Witzel - who is no electrical engineer and actually is at Harvard - so that's two strikes
against him.

Or read, Kim Plofker's review of Kak's "The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda" in Centaurus, 1996.

Those of you who are baffled by this vicious attack on a single person, please do read Invading the Sacred (listed in the article). It clearly identifies and deconstructs situations such as this (both the exchanges with Sri Bhave here, as well as the hatchet job that was perpetrated on Wikipedia).

Sri Bhave, I'd recommend you read that book as well (if you haven't already).
Also, give us a list of which works of Kak you have personally perused.

Dear Bhave-ji

I don't really care if you ignorantly choose to hold Kak in high regard; but at least get a grip and don't compare him with present day scholars, let alone Aryabhatta et al.

As Karigar mentioned in his comment, where is the "stuff"? All we see from you is conjecture and opinions. And Rhetoric Falacious is what Opinion Falacious gets.

Why don't you show us some refutation of Dr Kak's work? Then we can perhaps take this debate further!

Say did Shankara have a degree from Harvard?
Or Aryabhatta or Apastambha or any of the other great thinkers of India have that?

By that definition Kalidas was a wood-cutter (and a very unsmart one at that). He would definitely not qualify to be a scholar would he?

Wow, what a specious argument!

Shankara, Kalidasa, Aryabhatta did not go to Harvard. They are scholars.
Kak did not go to Harvard. Ergo, he is a scholar ?!

That's reasoning worthy of Kak. Please look up, cum hoc ergo propter hoc and understand why it is a rhetorical falacious.

If you wish to really understand the difference: Shankara, Aryabhatta are respected as thinkers and scholars because their peers as well as scholars in future generations have reviewed their work and found it to be brilliant. Kak's (non-EE/CS) work, on the other hand, is considered laughable by scholars in the area and he publishes it in the form of pamphlets, because it cannot survive the scrutiny of peer-review.

I don't really care if you ignorantly choose to hold Kak in high regard; but at least get a grip and don't compare him with present day scholars, let alone Aryabhatta et al.

Say did Shankara have a degree from Harvard?
Or Aryabhatta or Apastambha or any of the other great thinkers of India have that?

By that definition Kalidas was a wood-cutter (and a very unsmart one at that). He would definitely not qualify to be a scholar would he?

It appears that the only scholars worthy of respect in India studies are the ones who've been blessed by the current system in place, which quite obviously hasn't lost its Eurocentric hangover from the days of colonialism.

Apparently a senior Professorship in the real Hard Sciences (Engineering, etc) doesn't qualify one to read Indian Sanskrit texts and make correct judgements & hypothesis on the matter at hand (ancient ideas of Science-Physics, Astronomy, Medicine, etc).

The fact that all his papers are inthe true tradition of scholarship, replete with evidence, & references, and not overstating any case he may have...is not enough.

Perhaps the usual "Indologist" trained in Humanities & other 'soft sciences' (where scientific rigor is never a prime requirement) is more qualified just because he's establishment approved to make lofty pronouncements on Indian history & culture without evidence to back up his claims.

We're discussing Kak's writings, I presume, not his personal life? So it is irrelevant to this discussion how 'kooky' he is or what students think of him there. What's it got to do with his published writings?

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the move beyond innuendo to some serious material refuting Kak's work.

A lot of readers on this site however have read Dr Kak's writing and seem to think there might be some merit to what he has to say.

That's sad.

I know some webforums where people believe that Earth is 6000 years old - I wish I could disillusion them too, but I know my limitations. Sorry.

Dear Sri Bhave

Well, my comments reflect my informed opinion, which you can choose to trust (and verify) or simply ignore.

This is not acceptable...because without qualification this is your opinion. A lot of readers on this site however have read Dr Kak's writing and seem to think there might be some merit to what he has to say.

Since you seem to have the ear of some "Serious Scholars" from India, can I invite you to write on their behalf/in collaboration with them to establish your case. If you can prove what you state is true, I will recant my views.

Without that, what you say is purely your opinion (and conjecture). In such a case, the matter becomes a case of difference of opinion, is it not?

Well, my comments reflect my informed opinion, which you can choose to trust (and verify) or simply ignore.

If you wish to live under the illusion that an EE/CS professor at a university known more for its football than its academics has discovered incredible secrets about the Indian civilization that were not only unknown to genuine scholars in the field, but are incomprehensible to them; that the said prof, who has no education in the field, chooses to publish his work as self-published pamphlets, instead of in peer-reviewed journals because (of course) the "Western academia" is biased against his ilk; that he resolved Einstein's Twin Paradox, which neither Einstein nor a century-worth of physicists following him even realized needed resolving - then let me not hold you back.

On the other hand if you are really interested in understanding why I used the term kook for Kak - contact any friends you may have among LSU faculty or students and ask about Kak's reputation.

In the meantime, it would help if you refrained from insulting Indian scholars and scholarship, by including Kak among them.

Dear Sri Bhave,

However, he is mainly notable in the mainstream population for his writings in fields in which he has no education and little knowledge; and these writings are essentially junk-science and pseudo-history. Being Indian should not blindsight us from that.

How do you suppose you can judge the extent of his knowledg and/or his background in this subject? Please explain and cite your sources. Without that, what you say is purely your opinion (and conjecture). In such a case, the matter becomes a case of difference of opinion, is it not?

Dr Kak's accomplishments (or lack of it thereof) notwithstanding, it is very imperative that a public domain body of knowledge (which is highly trusted, has proven trustworthy thus far) be fair in it's depiction of someone (especially when the biography of the person is replete with libelous content)!

This could make some interesting reading. (We could then drag into the discussion the couple of good US universities that have (& still do) conferred him Professorships & other honors in Electrical Engineering , Artificial Intelligence & the like; not to mention the many prestigious co-authors he's had over the years. They must all be deluded?)

You should have noticed that I didn't include EE in my list. Kak is certainly an accomplished enough engineer to be a professor in that field at a second/third tier school (which is no small deal; he is perhaps among the top 10,000 electrical engineers in US!)

However, he is mainly notable in the mainstream population for his writings in fields in which he has no education and little knowledge; and these writings are essentially junk-science and pseudo-history. Being Indian should not blindsight us from that.

Dear Sri Bhave,

You say confidently-
"Subash Kak is obviously a kook, with little knowledge or expertise in physics, history, Sanskrit or indology."

Since you seem to know so much about him (I humbly assume you've read what he's published over the decades) could you share your reasoning with the Medha readers here?

This could make some interesting reading. (We could then drag into the discussion the couple of good US universities that have (& still do) conferred him Professorships & other honors in Electrical Engineering , Artificial Intelligence & the like; not to mention the many prestigious co-authors he's had over the years. They must all be deluded?)

With regards to Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, you are no doubt aware, with your perspicacity, that he's also published numerous 'kooky' articles in the BORI journal of the same institute?

Dear Sri Bhave,

Should we also consider the Marxist influenced JNU scholars as respected pillars of Indic academia?

Subash Kak is obviously a kook, with little knowledge or expertise in physics, history, Sanskrit or indology. Instead of holding fringe and ridiculous figures like Kak or Koenraad Elst in high regards, we Indians should be more appreciative of genuine scholarship - by which I mean not only academics like Witzel, but also scholars at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vishveshvaranand Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies etc.

Calling Kak a native scientist is really an insult to people who actual deserve such a title, such as Profs. Raman, Narlikar etc.

Dear Sri Bhave, please enlighten us on why/how Dr Kak is a kook?
I thought he was a Scientist and not a kook!

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

Also read the exchanges here --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...2C_Quality

Subash Kak is obviously a kook, with little knowledge or expertise in physics, history, Sanskrit or indology. Instead of holding fringe and ridiculous figures like Kak or Koenraad Elst in high regards, we Indians should be more appreciative of genuine scholarship - by which I mean not only academics like Witzel, but also scholars at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vishveshvaranand Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies etc.

Calling Kak a native scientist is really an insult to people who actual deserve such a title, such as Profs. Raman, Narlikar etc.

Those who have read this article and sympathize with the point of view brought up here, please go to the Talk page on the Wikipedia article and post your comments.

I am sure that someone will listen if we make them see the error of their ways...

Dear Dwai,
It is a matter of great satisfaction that under conditions which could really have made Dr. Kak yet another official parrot of Western Indological claims, he has stood by his original convictions.
The solution to a problem 0f such seriousness could be long term, but I believe there is no alternative to creating a strong Indologic academic presence right in India, which will not need a Wikipedia applause for its merit to become visible or usable at home.
Regards. Partha