Author; Ashok Chowgule
Publication: Hindu Vivek Kendra
Date: February 18, 2004
We came across an interesting editorial
in The New York Times about fairness and freedom to broadcast. The
way the issues have been set out is appropriate with respect to another
controversy. It relates to Hindu history, and its perversion by an
American academic. We have taken the liberty to paraphrase the editorial
to the situation in India, to bring out the stark similarities between
the two incidents.
History Without the Sizzle
Author: Editorial
Publication: The New York Times
Date: February 13, 2004
The History Channel, an entertainment
outlet with a serious name to live up to, has finally agreed to reconsider
its "documentary" charging that Lyndon Johnson conspired to have President
John Kennedy assassinated. It's about time.
The channel initially promoted the
show and its ludicrous accusation by darkly announcing that "the roots
of the crime lie buried deep in the heart of Texas and revolve around"
President Johnson. The show featured the freewheeling imaginings of Barr
McClellan, a retired Texas lawyer whose book demonizing Johnson is rooted
in supposed confidences from sources who are now conveniently dead. The
book is rich in patently unhistorical touches, insisting that Johnson was
at a shadowy meeting on the eve of the assassination with Richard Nixon,
J. Edgar Hoover and two Texas oilmen. This is the stuff not of history,
but of the Texas conspiratorial satires of the late Richard Condon.
A demand to set the record straight
was understandably pressed by the late president's outraged relatives and
colleagues. This issue is about fairness and common sense, not the freedom
to broadcast. After the initial controversy, the channel admitted it had
failed to "make it apparent that the material presented in this program
is a theory." The program was one of several taking up unproven but titillating
conspiracy speculations, from the Mafia to Cuba; the channel insisted that
some deserved "public debate" and that there had never been "one clear-cut
finding." This stance seems to equate any and all bits of what-if fantasizing
with the Warren Commission's lengthy inquiry and firm conclusion that Lee
Harvey Oswald was the murderer.
After public pressure, the channel
is now pursuing an independent review by three respected historians. The
History Channel's reputation, as much as Johnson's, is in urgent need of
this corrective. The program has already generated a flood of truly misinformed
complaints and accusations for the Johnson presidential library. In clinging
to his harebrained narrative, Mr. McClellan admits that he dabbled in "faction":
fictional projections. That's the last thing the History Channel needs
to stand for.
Comparison with the Laine controversy
The show featured the freewheeling
imaginings of Barr McClellan, a retired Texas lawyer whose book demonizing
Johnson is rooted in supposed confidences from sources who are now conveniently
dead.
[The book featured the freewheeling
imaginings of Prof James Laine, professor of religious studies at the Macaleseter
College in St Paul, Minnesota, whose book demonizing Shivaji is rooted
in supposed confidences from sources who are conveniently unnamed.]
The book is rich in patently unhistorical
touches, insisting that Johnson was at a shadowy meeting on the eve of
the assassination with Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and two Texas oilmen.
[The book is rich in patently unhistorical
touches, insisting that Shivaji's biological father was someone other than
Shahji Maharaj, that Samarth Ramdas had no influence on him, etc.]
This is the stuff not of history,
but of the Texas conspiratorial satires of the late Richard Condon.
[This is the stuff not of history,
but of the anti-Hindu satires propagated by the pseudo-secularists.]
A demand to set the record straight
was understandably pressed by the late president's outraged relatives and
colleagues.
[A demand to set the record straight
was understandably pressed by Shivaji's outraged admirers.]
This issue is about fairness and
common sense, not the freedom to broadcast.
[This issue is about fairness and
common sense, not the freedom of academics.]
After the initial controversy, the
channel admitted it had failed to "make it apparent that the material presented
in this program is a theory."
[After the initial controversy,
the professor admitted "foolishly misread the situation in India."]
The program was one of several taking
up unproven but titillating conspiracy speculations, from the Mafia to
Cuba; the channel insisted that some deserved "public debate" and that
there had never been "one clear-cut finding."
[The book was one of several taking
up unproven but titillating speculations about the life of Shivaji; the
professor insisted that some deserved "public debate" and that there had
never been "one clear-cut finding." ]
This stance seems to equate any
and all bits of what-if fantasizing with the Warren Commission's lengthy
inquiry and firm conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the murderer.
[This stance seems to equate any
and all bits of what-if fantasizing with the indigenous expert's lengthy
inquiry and firm conclusion that Shivaji wanted to establish Hindavi swaraj.]
After public pressure, the channel
is now pursuing an independent review by three respected historians.
[Even after public pressure, the
pseudo intellectuals are still wanting to uphold the professor's right
to pervert Hindu history.]
The History Channel's reputation,
as much as Johnson's, is in urgent need of this corrective.
[The professor's reputation is in
urgent need of this corrective. This is not the first time that Shivaji's
reputation has been sought to be denigrated, a programme that has consistently
failed.]
In clinging to his harebrained narrative,
Mr. McClellan admits that he dabbled in "faction": fictional projections.
[In clinging to his harebrained
narrative, the professor is proud that he dabbled in "faction": fictional
projections.]
That's the last thing the History
Channel needs to stand for.
[The professor has no qualms about
standing up for this.]
