Michel Danino’s article, “ >Neglect of knowledge traditions ” (Jan.4), has blamed Indian historians for neglecting the traditional scientific knowledge of India. Since his own work on ancient India, especially its achievements in science and technology, is of an elementary level and lacks scientific rigour, he could have benefited from the works of several scholars who have written on the subject. But he has preferred to remain totally ignorant of the historiography of ancient Indian science.
His ignorance shows in his preposterous and unsupported assertion that I have not read the work of Aryabhata and that all my statements about him are “factually wrong.” Also, Mr. Danino is completely oblivious of the fact that my Ancient India is only a brief survey of major developments in ancient India and presents a synthesis of the available historical knowledge; it is not intended to be a detailed history of ancient Indian science. Incidentally, since the terminus ad quem of the period covered in the book is the Sixth Century CE, his insistence that later Indian mathematicians (Brahmagupta, Bhaskar, Mahavira, etc.) should have found a place in it makes clear his ignorance of their chronology.
D.N. Jha,
Former Professor & Chair,
Department of History,
Delhi University
