Replies

I have read the entire article and haven't found anything that can even remotely be construed as "antisemitism".

There is a difference between the expression "Jew historians", which the author chooses to use, and the expression "Jewish historians", which the author chooses not to use (note that he was perfectly willing to speak of "British historians"). The former expression contains a hint of the disdain that invariably accompanies anti-Semitism, the latter expression does not. If you can't hear the difference, I urge you to listen more closely. In addition, by remarking that Holocaust figures are "disputed by many", the author suggests that he's not entirely certain about those figures, either; otherwise, why bring it up? He doesn't outright deny the Holocaust, but he subtly calls at least its scope into question. That's enough for me to see what he's doing.

These unfortunate choices render Anil Chawla's judgment suspect, in my view.

In addition, by remarking that Holocaust figures are "disputed by many", the author suggests that he's not entirely certain about those figures, either; otherwise, why bring it up? He doesn't outright deny the Holocaust, but he subtly calls at least its scope into question. That's enough for me to see what he's doing.

why bring it up?

Not to deny that holocaust never happened but to highlight the double standard practiced in the western Anglo-sphere with regard to holocaust that happened in India to that which happened in Europe. Anil Chawla is perfectly right in drawing upon the comparison. Jew historians (or Jewish historians whatever you call them) has done themselves some amount of disservice by throwing in their lot with British propagandists which has led many Indian scholars/writers to suspect the claims regarding Jewish holocaust. Otherwise most Indians for miles have nothing to do with Semitism (for or against) something which Indian society have never historically encountered.

As far as this articles is concerned I am yet to see even a hint of disdain (that which is directed against Jews and not the British)and anti-Semitism, whatever you accuse the author of. Moreover what you are arguing over is more a matter of technicality then any serious anti-Semitism. And I doubt the Jews themselves would be so paranoid and finicky over such subtleties that they would accuse all and sundry of anti-Semitism over the slightest misuse of proper terminologies. As a matter of fact, going by that logic, your own abnegation of the article can be construed as anti-Indianism. And reading your opinion about British India would only endorse that view.

IMO Anil Chawla has nailed it regardless of whether you accept or not.

And I absolutely agree this this line:

"Unfortunately it also has to be stated here that, as always, actual or alleged German atrocities receive one-sided and often distorted attention in the public mind, whereas balanced descriptions and comparative studies of similar events which occurred elsewhere in the world are generally avoided. That could put in doubt the alleged uniqueness of the German 'evilness', and this is, as is generally known, politically incorrect and thus undesirable."