The Great Bakhshali Debate: When Experts Miss Common Sense
The Original Claim
Oxford University made a shocking announcement in 2017. The Bakhshali manuscript was much older than anyone thought. Carbon dating proved it came from 300 CE.
This changed everything about Indian mathematical history. If true, Indians were doing advanced algebra centuries before Islam even existed. The claim spread globally through press releases and YouTube videos. Headlines celebrated the oldest zero symbol discovery. Oxford positioned itself as revealing ancient Indian genius.
The Dating Evidence
Carbon dating showed confusing results. Three different manuscript pages gave three different dates. One folio tested to 300 CE. Another showed 700 CE. The third came back as 1000 CE.
Same manuscript, 700 years of difference. Oxford focused on the earliest date. They announced 300 CE as the manuscript age. This created immediate problems. Why would one manuscript span seven centuries? Actually there was nothing unusual about it if they had used common sense.
The Experts Fight Back
Five world famous scholars published a devastating response. Dominik Wujastyk from University of Alberta led the group. Takao Hayashi from Doshisha University joined him.
Agathe Keller represented French National Centre for Scientific Research. Clemency Montelle came from University of Canterbury. Kim Plofker completed the team of mathematical historians.
These weren’t random critics. They represented the top tier of Indian mathematical scholarship globally.
What The Experts Know
The five scholars understand Sanskrit mathematical texts better than almost anyone alive. They can read ancient Indian astronomical works. They know historical contexts for mathematical development.
Wujastyk specializes in Sanskrit scientific literature. Hayashi has spent decades studying Indian mathematical manuscripts. Keller focuses on medieval mathematical traditions.
Their combined expertise covers centuries of Indian mathematical achievement. They have published extensively on Sanskrit mathematical texts.
What They Do Not Know
None of the five experts can read Bakhshali script properly. The manuscript uses a unique writing system different from standard Sanskrit. This creates a massive expertise gap. They’re arguing about a text they cannot fully read.
The Bakhshali script combines Sanskrit with local prakrit forms. It uses specialized mathematical notation. Regular Sanskrit scholars struggle with these hybrid writing systems. None of these scholars even knew contemporary languages of India.
Their Investment Problem
The five experts have built entire careers on specific chronology. All their previous work assumes Indian mathematics developed after Islamic influence.
If the Bakhshali manuscript truly dates to 300 CE, their scholarly framework collapses. Every paper they’ve written about mathematical transmission becomes wrong.
They need Sanskrit mathematical texts to date after 700 CE. This maintains the fiction that Arabs invented advanced mathematics. Indians only learned from Islamic scholars. Their professional survival depends on keeping Indian achievements looking derivative.
The Script Blindness
The experts wrote twenty pages disputing carbon dating methodology. They never mentioned their inability to read Bakhshali script properly. This represents stunning academic dishonesty. How can you date a manuscript you cannot even read accurately?
The Bakhshali script requires specialized knowledge. It’s not regular Sanskrit. It uses unique notation systems for mathematical operations. None of the five scholars possess this expertise. Yet they make authoritative claims about manuscript dating.
The Common Sense Failure
The experts completely ignored obvious manuscript preservation realities. Birch bark manuscripts do not work like modern books.
Birch bark deteriorates predictably. The material starts cracking after thirty years. Outer pages become unreadable after fifty years.
What happens then? Scribes copy the deteriorating sections onto fresh bark. They preserve the content by updating the material regularly. This process repeats over centuries. Different sections get replaced at different times. Some parts might be copied every few decades.
The Ink Reality
The experts also ignored ink degradation patterns. Ancient Indian inks fade at predictable rates. Scribes regularly refresh faded text.
Iron gall inks common in medieval India last about fifty years. After that, text becomes illegible. Scribes must retrace letters or copy sections entirely.
This creates another layer of replacement activity. Even if bark survives, ink requires regular maintenance. The five experts never considered these basic preservation realities.
The Replacement Cycle Truth
Multiple carbon dates make perfect sense when you understand manuscript maintenance. The 300 CE page might represent original composition. The 1000 CE section shows recent copying activity. This doesn’t mean the text was written over seven centuries. It means scribes preserved the content through regular copying for seven centuries.
The mathematical techniques could be much older than any surviving bark. We’re dating preservation materials, not intellectual content.
The Academic Trap
The five experts approach manuscripts like modern academic papers. They assume someone wrote the complete Bakhshali text in one period. Then it got preserved unchanged for centuries.
This reveals stunning ignorance of traditional preservation methods. Ancient manuscripts survived through continuous copying, not passive storage. Libraries were copying centers, not museums. Scribes actively maintained texts through regular reproduction.
The Foundation Problem
The experts spent twenty pages disputing Oxford’s carbon dating interpretation. But they offered no alternative foundation for their preferred dating. They argued the latest carbon date represents manuscript age. This ignores replacement cycle realities completely.
If scribes regularly copied deteriorating sections, every carbon date tells us about preservation activity. Not original composition dates.
Their entire argument lacks basic logical foundation.
The Modern Sanskrit Mill
This debate continues colonial deception patterns through legitimate academic channels. H.H. Wilson and Ralph Griffith created translation factories in the 1800s. These five scholars create dating factories today. Different methods, same goal. Keep Indian intellectual achievements looking derivative.
The experts protect established chronology that makes Indian mathematics appear post Islamic. They cannot admit sophisticated Sanskrit mathematics predates the Quran.
The Number System Proof
Every Sanskrit mathematical text with numbers gets dated after 700 CE. This maintains the fiction that Arabs invented mathematical notation. But numbers flow left to right even in right to left Arabic text. The Quran itself proves Indian mathematical origins. Arabic flows right to left. Numbers flow left to right. This makes no sense if Arabs invented the system.
The five experts know this contradiction exists. They just ignore it to protect their chronological framework.
The Institutional Blindness
Oxford administrators wanted headlines about ancient Indian mathematics. The five mathematical experts wanted to protect their scholarly territory. Neither group understood basic manuscript preservation. Neither could read Bakhshali script properly. Everyone made authoritative claims about something outside their actual expertise.
The Real Problem
This entire debate misses the fundamental question. What mathematical techniques does the Bakhshali manuscript actually contain?
Instead of arguing about carbon dates, scholars should focus on authentic translation. Understand what methods the text teaches. Then ask when those techniques first developed in India. Use intellectual analysis, not deteriorated bark dating.
The Pattern Exposed
This useless debate reveals how intellectual colonization works through academic respectability. Five world experts write detailed methodological responses. They sound scholarly and authoritative. But they miss elementary common sense about manuscript preservation. They cannot read the script they’re arguing about. The deception continues through legitimate academic institutions. No conspiracy needed. Just trained ignorance of practical realities that threaten established narratives.
The Simple Solution
Want to understand the Bakhshali manuscript? Find someone who understands both Sanskrit mathematics and traditional manuscript preservation.
More importantly, find someone who can actually read Bakhshali script accurately. That person doesn’t exist in this debate. The five mathematical experts don’t understand manuscripts. The Oxford administrators don’t understand Sanskrit. Nobody understands the unique writing system.
The Continuing Fraud
This debate will continue for years. Academics will argue about dating methodology. They’ll ignore replacement cycles and ink degradation patterns. Meanwhile, the colonial narrative survives. Indian mathematical achievements stay locked in post Islamic periods.
The Sanskrit Mill keeps operating under academic cover. Different century, same intellectual colonization.
What We Actually Need
Stop arguing about carbon dates from deteriorated bark pages. Start doing authentic translation of mathematical content.
Focus on intellectual techniques, not preservation materials. Ask when sophisticated mathematical methods first appeared in Indian texts. Use textual analysis and historical context. Ignore carbon dating of copying materials. The mathematical knowledge itself matters more than when scribes last refreshed the bark.
The Meta Lesson
Five world experts missed basic common sense because they’re trapped in colonial frameworks. They cannot admit Sanskrit mathematics predates Islam without destroying their entire field. So they argue about methodology while ignoring obvious realities. They dispute carbon dating without understanding manuscript preservation. This represents trained academic blindness. Deep expertise in one area combined with stunning ignorance of related practical matters.
The pattern continues through modern institutional channels. No conspiracy needed. Just systematic ignorance that protects established power structures.
The scholars’ extensive discussion of paleographic methodology, peer review processes, and historical dating techniques, while academically formatted, serves primarily to obscure their fundamental ignorance of manuscript preservation practices.
{Reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320259917_The_Bakhshali_Manuscript_A_Response_to_the_Bodleian_Library’s_Radiocarbon_Dating }