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!
*********
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”
Read the Modus Operandi of Nilesh Oak to tackle anyone who criticizes his 'research':
