Elst goes through this sordid episode in the essay on ''Horseplay at Harappa' Revisited' (pp.210-4).



Here Elst is clearly in opposition to the deciphering of Harappan symbols done by Rajaram and Jha. For example, he was ‘unpleasantly surprised ‘ the way N S Rajaram insisted that the famous seal with two unicorn-like animals with plant motif was ‘a shorthand for the rendering of the Aum sign in the Devanagari script, which is some 2000 years younger than the Harappan seals and grew out of the Brahmi script which didn’t have that particular Aum sign.’ Also, Rajaram’s reply to the hatchet job done by the Frontline article, ‘making yet another low-credibility claim for a horse depiction, only added to the atmosphere of ridicule.’



But Elst points out how the presence of the horse is now well established in the Harappan archaeological complex. Elst also defended Rajaram against lynch-mob journalism. He states he even admired the way Rajaram faced it.

But overall, the attack on Rajaram and Jha made by Witzel in collusion with Frontline had a significant impact on the credibility of the Hindutva movement in the international academic and media circles with crucial consequences in the future. This is the observation that Elst makes. Though Rajaram clearly repudiates the crackpot ‘ancient Hindu world' notion of ex-INA freedom fighter P N Oak, he gets bundled with P N Oak and Elst gets bundled with both — a cute and easy way to dismiss him by guilt of association.

Elst defends the book on global mythology by Witzel against the charges of racism leveled by Rajaram (‘Rajaram, Witzel and Racism’, pp.215-24). Elst finds no evidence for racism in the book and takes N S Rajaram to task for alleging so.

Review of Origins of World Myth — a Book by Michael Witzel

There is also an essay on the review of Witzel’s book, Origins of World Myth (2013). In the essay, Dr Elst informs the reader that when he posted the review in the ‘Indo-European Research List’, it was 'promptly banned’ by Steve Farmer, a sidekick of Witzel, because it was ‘too political’ and ‘too anti-Witzel’. Yet, the review, ‘Globalization of Mythology’ (pp.148-58) is neither political nor anti-Witzel. The review is also available on Swarajya. Elst actually considers the explanation provided by Witzel as ‘a far more detailed explanation of the really existing myths’ than given by even Carl Jung.