Raju bhai, before I begin to respond to your post, I have just one question: are you an Indian Christian? (You don't have to answer).
I am guessing that what you are specifically referring to above can be gauged from below:
The very premise this statement is based on is false. The notion of 'Indology' is flawed as it is etymologically based on the fictitious word 'India', which was dreamed up in the West.
If we substitute the word 'indological' with subcontinental, the supposition that there are indeed 'victims' and 'oppressors' with defined national/cultural/ontological differences is very much a fact. Not only within the past 200 years, but ever since the arrival of the Aryans.
Once you shed your Western lexicon and revert to reality, your house of wafer thin cards comes plummeting down.
Again, the word 'Indian' is problematic. Let us be very specific. Women, most of them anyway, on the subcontinent are victims of misogyny, plain and simple. Let us be even more specific; of the main ideologies that dominate the subcontinent (Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism), two perpetuate and legitimise this misogyny (these are Islam and Hinduism), one (Sikhism) is clearly against it.
While ground realities are different, on a theoretical level, the blanket term 'Indian' is useless.
Are you denying that the cultures of the south and north are utterly different?
This is simply untrue. The Tribune, for example, does no such thing.
On the wider point, the Western intellectual framework is not a concrete mechanism, despite what you wish us to think. Within academia, the media and government there are a plethora of divergent voices that are given a platform.
There is no one dogma that they all follow. You should put down Marx for a moment and use your own brain my friend,
Guru Rakha,
Muzumdar