This blaming Westerners naturally extends into the field of scholarship. Thus, the evil of Indians aping Westerners is blamed on Westerners, includin… - Koenraad Elst

We should of course not take Mukhia’s word for it (the eminent historians have a well-established reputation for mendaciousness), and “numerous” is certainly an exaggeration, but it remains possible. .. Anyway, I would like to see the secular improvement, e.g. how do you translate the frequently-used Arabic verb q-t-l, Persian kushtan, both meaning “kill”. There aren’t too many nuances to that, are there? Elliott’s translations were correct, but yes, they were selective. .. So be it, but historians have other sources for their history-writing and are not parrots of a party or movement. The main exception are the Indian secularists, whose conclusions are invariably those desired and taught by the Nehruvian rulers... As a matter of fact, 60,000 may just happen to be a good number, for the documented cases of temple destruction (and they already run into the thousands) are necessarily only a fraction of the more everyday cases, which must have been even more numerous. But we as historians can only deal with documented cases, especially since these are difficult enough. Indeed, of the ca. 2,000 cases listed by Sita Ram Goel, and more than 20 years after having been out in the open, not one has been refuted by Prof. Mukhia and his school... Needless to say, my arguments have never been refuted by anyone. Secular historians are so sure about controlling the information flow through education and the media that they don’t bother to interfere when their falsehoods are exposed... Half-literate secularists keep on repeating this story a decade after it has been refuted in my paper... The eminent historians have blood on their hands. .. Maybe the more abstruse elements in the narrative were subject to mistranslation, but the relation between Hindus and Muslims was pretty straightforward and hard to mistake for friendship.

Here we meet the problem once more that we just discussed: scholars willfully ignoring the conclusions from related disciplines. Western linguists who support a more westerly Homeland (hence an Aryan invasion from there into India) ignore the findings of Harappan archaeology. The latter only confirms a complete cultural continuity since before the Harappan cities and lasting through their abandonment. It has failed to find a single trace of Aryans entering India. By contrast, in Central Europe, an invasion from the east ca. 2900 BCE, amply attested both by archaeology and by genetics, has been identified with Indo-Europeanization. That is what an “Aryan invasion” looks like, and it is completely missing in India. Yet, of this state of affairs in Harappan archaeology, Western scholars are completely ignorant; or else they fail to draw conclusions from it for their own field.

Therefore, this canard of my being a “close associate” (notice the suitable vagueness of the purported connection, anticipating a challenge, as if on lawyer’s advice) of a national-populist party, this literal case of “guilt by association”, is in the eye of the Leftist beholder. But if a canard is found useful, it can have a long life.... Not being a psycho-babbler like Subrahmanyam, I won’t speculate on whether he wrote his article in order to “promote himself ”, though that speculation would be hard to disprove... Unable to answer my observations, he had been smarting under this injustice against his secularist immunity from criticism, and finally found an opportunity for revenge... We would already know a lot more about its magnitude if research into it hadn’t been blocked by Subrahmanyam’s own school of historians with their dogmatic denial of unpleasant data from the record of Islam.... They’re not very good when it comes to proposing a persuasive theory, not as good as in the old days when the Comintern would have prescribed a single story for all to repeat... In the fishwife worldview, it isn’t important what you say. If a fishwife sees a strange man enter the house of the lady next door and come out only hours later, she has no need to listen in on what happens between the neighbour and her guest, since all the evidence needed for a good story is provided by the mere fact that the man was there... Being a true herald of the fishwife school of history, he clearly borrowed this canard from some rumour mill and found it so utterly convenient that he suspended his normal, professional routine of verification in primary sources. (ch 7 , Islam and Immigration in Europe)