Professor S N Balagangadhara hypothesis is based on a false assumption and is a self-serving theory to discount and discredit indigenous movements, tribal movements, and Dalit History. It originates from the genealogy of ‘knowledge systems’. That is, there is a alternate knowledge system, which has its own ontology and epistemology rooted somewhere in a Savaarna pure Brahmin culture in the so-called Indian geographic region. It is distinct from the Western paradigm of knowledge, especially in terms of its role (philosophy) and application (theology). Given this-the argument that ‘this’ pure, cool, cultural and alternate knowledge system over the years got destroyed and eroded-primarily by Mughals and more importantly and substantially by the advent of colonialism is substantiated. The purity and its cultural glory, body of thought, body of knowledge and effects on attitudes and beliefs got destroyed (Geetha’s importance). That means, you now have a frame not only to discredit history but the very system of epistemology in which that history was created, experienced, reported, narrated, negotiated, etc. This is the Dalit history and other indigenous movements because it was written by a Western knowledge system, people who wrote about it were educated in that system (Ambedkar), early scholars were British Historians, Anthropologist, who pursued scholarly understanding of the Indian social-cultural system always had an western epistemic frame. This is basically his thesis and my refute. I have another response to similar arguments made by his student and an arrogant academic. On the other hand-these individuals love Gandhi and Tagore (both educated in Western systems, practiced and preach too, but marked now as alternate-original Indian science/thought). Gandhi’s experience in South Africa as racist is validated but not of Ambedkar who grew in rural India and faced humiliation for years growing up!!!. This school of thought also does not move beyond the doctrine of the Geetha for any other critical approaches to social morality, politics, ethics and cultural life. Similarly, all their claims about independent inquiry and critical thinking about Indian culture are bogus as there is no “substantiated” and “substantial” evidence anywhere (narratives, practices, drama, knowledge system, public sphere, public and civic practices, marriages systems, etc.). All feudal and purely casteist. – Abhiyan Humane
Professor S N Balagangadhara hypothesis is based on a false assumption.