Friday, November 1, 2019

Abuse, bully, disrespect, discredit – know the true face of The Jaipur Dialogues 2019!


All that glitters is not gold – the latest sample case is the most un-civil and unprofessional way that The Jaipur Dialogues 2019 behaved with me yesterday. It all started with a tweet from Mr Sanjay Dixit for my 2nd video completely demolishing the so-called Epoch of Arundhati  based on my book Myth of the Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak. He asked me what was the point in releasing the videos and challenged  me to debate with Nilesh Oak.



The response I got for my polite answer to him shocked me, coming as it did from the official handle of The Jaipur Dialogues 2019 (JD), accusing me of running away from the debate and calling such debate as Indic tradition. What followed after that is reproduced below that demonstrated what kind of Indic tradition that Handle stands for – continuous bullying and disrespecting the one whom it is calling for debate, while at the same time protecting Nilesh Oak, who has not yet answered to me directly to my book and my videos.




I continued to reply politely but what I got back is shown in the tweet below.


Then further twisting happened accusing me that I asked for the debate but ran away. It is unbelievable that this organisation is proving in full public glare, its un-civil and unprofessional way of talk to one whom it called for debate. The entire idea seemed to belittle me and discredit me.



To my insistence on credentials of the panelists comes the same kind of bullying retorts. It was then I decided to take head on and reply in the same buck.



Since I was completely against each one of the contestants choosing their own referees, which is not the Indic way of settling an important issue of the date of Mahabharata, I suggested a panel of Indic scholars of repute known for their research in Mahabharata. Look at their reply. They can’t accept these scholars, because - I am presumed to think due to their illogical adamancy - that Nilesh Oak is rattled. The fact is no scholar of repute accepted Oak’s date of Mahabharata and his Epoch, for, it is not Indic. But the handle that is supposed to stand for Indic cause, oblivious of the damage Nilesh Oak has done to Indic Thought continued to abuse me, deride me and bully me.



When Mr Manish Pandit, one of the panelists I mentioned chose to opt out (see their response in the first tweet below) they could not go ahead with the rest of the panelists. I said that this panel would include Mr Oak’s referee too. Once again they resorted to same bullying tactic against me. Its just laughable that they are doing this without knowing what I have written of Oak’s book and how I have established the Mahabharata date. Clearly whoever is behind this handle is NOT aware of the gravity of the Mahabharata dating and NOT after Knowledge. For saying this, I am bullied as being self-certifying. Getting funnier to see the handle tow the familiar line that almost all Indic scholars have received from Mr Nilesh Nilkanth Oak.


I leave it to the readers to count the number of times this handle abused me as being scared or running away and demeaning my work – which you hardly expect from a professional organisation.



Repeating the same, makes me think that they are agenda driven, that there is something cosy between Nilesh Oak and Jaipur Dialogues that I have intruded. How to drive me out? Here is the trick which is nothing but the same old trick used by Mr Nilesh Oak umpteen times.


Disgusting display of low standard! 
But then a sudden U-turn. No panel. Let people be the judges! 
A solution Mr Nilesh Oak very much likes. Mr Nilesh Oak knows pretty well that he cannot refute my rebuttals. If he can he could have come out by now. He only produced a small video of mediocre idea and released through a third party. Nobody owned up that video. I did refute that video also. The game plan is very clear now after seeing the tweet. Let people decide.


My response is given below.



The ‘Dialogue’ has come to a full circle!  
Readers can now start reading from the first tweet again to see what I mean.

In the first tweet Mr Sanjay asked me what was the point in releasing the videos. I released it for everyone to see and judge. Now he (his official handle) has said the same thing. If this is what he / they had in mind, why did he shoot out that first tweet? Is it because he thought that I would run away and not trouble Mr Nilesh Oak? What has Mr Nilesh Oak got to do with him / JD, that he/ JD kept bullying me that I am scared and I would run away?

This kind of questions came up in my mind earlier too when for the first time I received a tweet from Mr Sanjay Dixit making a caustic remark to my interview in PGurus for my reply to the interviewer on whether I agree with Nilesh Oak’s date of Ramayana. To my question-specific reply, I was trolled by Oak’s followers – available in that link – in the usual way that they used to troll anyone who disagrees with Oak. 
Mr Sanjay Dixit and Jaipur Dialogues 2019 seem to be recent additions to that troll-roll.  


As usual and in my usual nature I gave a polite answer.


Mr Sanjay’s tweet itself is demonstrative of how less he knows of Mr Nilesh Oak’s work. It is absolute zero with reference to my book or videos. This is demonstrated by the last tweet I noticed before starting to write this blog. The Jaipur Dialogues 2019 re-tweeted a tweet that gloats as not having read my book or Oak’s book, but judged me as a PhD student who hasn’t produced much in 4 years but wanting her lab partner to be her defence counsel!



By this tweet can I conclude that JD / Mr Sanjay had not read my book and Mr Oak’s book? My first question to him was whether he had read my book. Without knowing what I have written and what Mr Oak has written and whether Mr Oak has really corroborated 550+ inferences, he was doing shoot and scoot – to use his language.

Having said in detail all the happenings so far, my thoughts are, 

1. If my works are not to their standard, why did they call me for a debate?

2. If they don’t consider me as a scholar, why did they call me for debate and kept bullying me throughout. Even if as they say, I called for a debate, why did they accept that?

3. If they decide to organise a debate and if they have etiquette, they should know how to invite a scholar for debate, and not hurl abuses and caustic remarks.

4. It clearly shows a hidden agenda that anyone challenging the work of Mr Oak should be trolled, driven out of the arena which many of us have experienced always.

5. The evidence for point 4 is in subsequent trolls in PGurus video on Ramayana Timeline discussion.

6. Finally this debate and the organisation arranging the debate are not dependable, they are biased and want to defend Mr Oak by hook and crook.

8. So I decided to put a full stop to this troll and keep releasing my videos in public and have displayed  my work in academia.edu for scholars and non scholars to read and deduce.

9. For writing this, again I expect trolls that I am running away, but I will be happy to add such tweets here that would strengthen public perception of the other side of Jaipur Dialogues 2019.


Update :


Newer descriptions. Seems I can write a paper on Troll culture!

1st response: "Whining scholar, more interested in authority than truth"



2nd Response: "I am not gracious" and make excuses!!


3rd response: I am "combative". That is I must not react to their abuses.


4th response: Toned down.


5th response: Polished way of saying I ran away. 


6th response: Certificate for my self certification!


Hitting from the sides: That is Nilesh Oak's style.  Mr Nilesh Oak re-tweeted many. Sample given.




*********

It is my sincere hope that a panel of experts from Mahabharata research community, astrology community and science community on spectral science, lunar planetary orbit and comet-science from IIT-s and ISRO – all of which are integral for understanding my book – to be constituted to discuss my defence of traditional Mahabharata date. If agreeable it would solve the greatest issue of Indic past – that of validating the traditional date of Mahabharata war and Kali Yuga as well.

May the redeemed Ma Arundhati bless us!


Read two crucial chapters of my book here:

Deduction of Mahabharata date: “Date of Mahabharata from Internal Evidences



Exposing the Mr Oak’s claim of corroborating 550+ evidences: “List of manipulations done by Nilesh Oak to 'corroborate' his Mahabahrata date




7 comments:

Shanthi said...

I applaud you for fearlessly tackling these bullies head on. I am astonished they don't recognize the experts who have done commendable work on this topic. This in itself shows how 'neutral'they will be. Through your videos and book, people who are really interested in the truth of matters, will definitely get it. With all these resources, they are free to post a point by point rebuttal as you have already established. You have already shared excellent proof in your book. Anybody who is in doubt should read the book, pick out what they don't agree with and substantiate with proof. Without doing this, just plain bullying does not fool anybody.

More strength and power to you for this lone service in establishing the truth of matters with scientific reasoning and evidence.

Gopi said...

It is complete un-ethical for a big group to gang up against a scholar.

Have anyone seen where N Oak replied to Jayasree S questions? It is classic Wendy doniger / sheldon pollock syndrome where they will let their "academic children" take care the debate if it is against their ideals. These children's starts abusing the subject until they leave the scene.

I bet, nobody (from Jaipur Gang) even read one line from Jayasree ma'm works,(or know anything about South India) and the comments from twitter shows their standards.

Please continue your excellent work, don't bother about these "little (Desi) minds". They have not produced anything close to 1% of your works.

They will turn to you as soon as you get one credit "From a US/UK/Europe press".. (typical pattern of colonized brains or inherent bias towards south Indians etc.. )

My best wishes.




Dr Rama Krishnan said...

Thanks Jayshree Ji for standing up to bullies. My question to Mr Oak: "Why don't you refute JS, point by point? Madam Ji had givena scholarly rebuttal reg your dating of Ramayana.If you do not agree with her, please do the same, point by point rebuttal, thank you"

Ganesan R said...

Dear Madam,

Namaskarams.

If Nilesh Oak is confident why he should be afraid of the number of panelists? Let him bring similar numbers.

If peers (scholars) do not agree what use of any 'research' findings that too of the scale of discovery of Newton, Galileo etc.?

False ideologies survived not because of its intellectual strength, but by use of force and violence.

Thanks.

Ganesan

Unknown said...

Madam
Pls ignore them. Your are not biased. Your thoughts help comman man like us to know more about our ancient past. Write for us. We trust you.

Gopi said...

Sanjay Dixit slowly exposes his other face (I respect what he do opposing anti-India force, but that doesn't mean he can be arrogant..)

https://mobile.twitter.com/RKparadox/status/1196673535776739328
https://mobile.twitter.com/DimpleAtra/status/1196742841508270085
https://mobile.twitter.com/RKparadox/status/1196647709886697473

jayasree said...

Want to see yet another face of Sanjay Dixit, Mr Gopi?

Check out his tweet on the release of his book by Dr David Frawley. So Dr Frawley is much respected in his worldview. Why then did he oppose the panel I suggested comprising of Dr Frawley in the lead? When he objected to Manish Pandit and Dr Achar, I dropped them from the panel but asked him what was wrong with the rest that mainly comprised of Dr Frawley. No answer. Dr Frawley's works in vedic astrology are well known but Dixit didn't like him to be in the panel but now he is too happy to have him release his book. This shows that at the time of exchange of those tweets with me, DR Frawley must have already been invited by him for the release of his book. What does this convey? Dr Frawley is qualified to release his book but not sit in the panel? Is Dr Frawley aware of this double game, nay, hypocrisy of Dixit?

Only one outcome from this. Dixit had a compelling reason to support Oak. What is that? The reason is not hard to guess. It would come out someday. Dharma would protect only those who stand for Dharma and not those who want to earn name and fame from that.