Missing Indian History Books

haiN, yeh kya baat hui? (english equivalent: judging the contents of the whole book by its cover flaps)

The drivel she writes in her book (read a few excerpts offered by Amazon), it is evident that she knows not what she writes. Pity the other "authors" quoting her.

huh?

True Temp bhai, one cant judge drivel by mere extracts on amazon. I HAVE read most of her "opus" and found it to be bilge by the bucketfulls....take my advice, read the extracts online and save yourself the money you would spend on amazon. :-)

Btw, Meenakshi - What I find hilarious is that most of the names on the list are "eminent" leftist ones who have provided the "official" account of Indian history since the mid-1960s. And few of them have any clue of Sanskrit, Pali, Tamil or any other classical language.

But then they did what most of the "elite" pulled under the Congress-raj post-independence which is to basically "hadpo" government money. As "historians" they hadpo-ed 12,000 rupees or so, while the Gandhi parivaar has managed to eat up billions of arts/history/culture money. :-)

I AM glad to see that the Shourie book survives on the net because when it came out and they tried to bury it as "saffronite" propaganda. Not one could of course counter the facts he had included so they just hoped that screaming would drown out the discussion.

"Untill the lions have their own historians, History of the hut will always glorify the hunters"

How true is this quotation. gangs of Mao Marx mulla and Missioneries always support this Hunters history.

They find hard to digest when Hunt lions try to present their point of view of the same event?

It will take 50 more years for truth to come out. Hopefully we'll see it happening in our own life time.

The basic issues are :

1. Aryans
2. Cast System
3. Vedas

Current generation of Indians have been fed with `Hunters' point bof view through history books, encyclopaedias and other media machine compoennts.

Internet has made it easy and cheap for non powerful groups also to present their point of view.

Lions the hunt also have strated writing their view of history and associates of Hunters are finding it hard to digest. Some might be getting loose motion also after seeing hard truth.

commonsense naturally rushes in where angels fear to tread!

1. It appears as if these professional historians were embezzling by not submitting a manuscript after they rec'd their grants. Research is not like making a chair or table. Sometimes there is no tangible product, sometimes there is. Most of the time, the product is simply research, ie reading, thinking, presenting ideas at conferences, and of course, also completing manuscripts. The amounts Shourie highlights are really miniscule, compared to the cost of books, attending conferences etc. He is making a mountain of a molehill.

2. The issue of somebody plagiarizing somebody else's work is of course is a serious one.

3. Most of the historians mentioned are indeed eminent historians, even though Shourie uses "eminence" sarcastically. One may not agree with the findings of a Romilla Thapar or Bipan Chandra, but they are professional historians, not ideologues like Shourie, who of course, is a historian.

4. Most people are upset at Romilla Thapar re: the AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory. Nothing about this issue can ever be conclusively proved or disproved. Science and social science does not work like this. One only comes up, based on very tentative evidence and interpretations, with some hypotheses that can be refuted by other counter evidence. It is logically impossible to prove AIT or to disprove it.

5. Those who want to disprove AIT are largely and rightly upset at the colonialist version of history: ie. to be crude about it: until the Europeans migrated to what is now India, there was nothing of any worth. They introduced this, that etc. The "nationalists" want to argue that everything that is now found in India, "grew from the soil" (to use Man Singh's expression). Since nobody has a time-lapse video camera to record everything that happened or did not happen, this issue will never be resolved nor can it be, since the evidence is necessarily not so clear cut and required interpretation and careful scrutiny. Either way, the only folks really in a position to argue this in a professional manner are historians and archaeologists, not professional ideologues such as Shourie.

6. Even if we don't agree with these eminent historians, they have advance our understanding by moving focus away from "great men, women, kings and queens" and lookin at regular people and how they transformed society.

7. Irfan Habib's study of the Mughal empire is a land-mark one. He was in trouble with the Mullahs as he showed how the Mughals exploited the peasantry by levying back-crushing taxes to build the empire. He was also in trouble with the Hindutvadis for showing that the mughal state exploited anyone they could and created alliances with anyone they could as long as they could extract resources to fuel their idiotic ambitions of grandeur. He did not give a shit as he is a professional historians and not supporter or detractor of either views. Historians of course, as humans, have their biases, but these are professional not, ideological or crassly political biases.

8. People complain about Thapar not knowing enough Sanskrit. But then, there is Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago, who has been speaking Sanskrit as you and I speak Hindi and English, since she was a teenager. That however has not protected her from the wrath of the thekedaars and Hindutva-vadis. She has also been accused of denigrating India etc.

9. At the end of the day, these issues will continue to be contentious (stating the obvious, as usual!). I prefer not to take sides, but read all "historians" from all perspectives to make up my mind (ok, so-called mind!); I refuse to be swayed by (to state the non-obvious) by nationalist or colonialist biased passions!

10. Of course one can prove straightforward issues such as "is commonsense for real" or not. But when it comes to complex issues such as medieval or ancient history...if it were so simple, everyone would be researching it and teaching it. What these eminent historians have made possible (regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them!) is to move from plain, embarrassin tota maina kahanees to some professional histories.

11. Trust me Blokes, even Rs. 400,000 does not go very far when it comes to buying books, attending professional conferences etc., although of course, if the contracted stipulated a manuscript at the end, it should have been done. But these are really serious scholars Shourie is attacking. The money is peanuts compared to the rampant corruption at so many levels! Shourie as a minister could demand these accounts...if he could do this for every department, not just the ICHR, trust me you would have real stomach pains! This is not however to make excuses for these historians...

"Romilla Thapar or Bipan Chandra, but they are professional historians, not ideologues like Shourie, who of course, is a historian."

I of course meant that Shourie is NOT a historian, but an economist...still he should know what research entails...

Man Singh wrote:

""Untill the lions have their own historians, History of the hut will always glorify the hunters""

What about the history of the deer that are hunted by the lions :)

Meenakshi

Mr. Shourie is definitely one of the greats in writing! :), punctures fondly held myth's with great fun!. And since he writes so factually, nobody can challenge him. So what do you do? You simply ignore him. lol.

I remember one chap that I had a big debate with, few years ago. He was even a professor of mathematics, if I remember correctly. He was a fan of old man Arnold Toynbee. And came up with the most bizarre statements based upon a total misreading of what Toynbee actually wrote!. This is why the dalit movement has had some intellectual and coherence issues which they should resolve. Their problems are big enough without loading it with bad studies.

And then in my previous post about the Buddhists, you might have seen the reactions, it boiled down to, "sod the facts, I will believe what I want" :), lol.

BD,

Agree that Shourie is a great writer and polemicist...however, when it comes to complex issues in history, it is not that easy to get at the unadulterated facts, unless one is talking about when did so and so die etc. etc. The only way to get a reasonable shot at the facts is to look at the issue from many sides, even from ideologically opposed sides. Unfortunately in historical research, we are limited not just by sources but by interpretation of those sources too...no mean task! It would be nice if one could, dispute a particular fact conclusively, as was the case with Galileo at the leaning tower of Pisa...even that was an exception as it is very hard, even in the natural sciences, my own field...

Note: I am not defending the "eminent historians" against Shourie or vice versa. I'm just saying that it is important to move away from glib, overarching pronouncements when it comes to history or the social sciences...it is good to be tentative...such as...well, this appears to be true, until this truth is superseded by fresh evidence to the contrary...ideologues prefer to have a cut and dried final truth that they do not want to be challenged. Some eminent historians also behave in this fashion, although sooner or later, their pet theories are overturned...this is the essence of science, whether natural or social...any claims are always tentative...otherwise we are back to religious fundmentalism or "jo kahey diya vo kahey diya" (because I said so, isn't that enough??). Such a perspective allows for an open mind, within some parameters of course...

CS, if you can get hold of a small book, do so, its by EH Carr, What is History. It is required reading for all politics, history and many other arts fields here in the UK. It talks about what and how history is made up. We think of history as rather fixed, after reading Carr, I then determined, history is a story, not a series of facts. The story depends upon who the story teller is.

Now the reason why I am personally very upset with loads of eminent historians is that they buggered up my education. I was brought up on a strict diet of heavily sanitized information, and therefore have been torn away from my history, culture, religion, you name it. I am nearing 40 now and I am still learning about the history of my country. These eminent historians have lots to answer for, they have buggered up 2 possibly 3 generations of Indians.

This is the reason why Arun Shourie's writings are so disruptive, they open up, as you said, the other angle as well. And the reason why they are so disruptive is because the eminent historians fed us almost total pap. So when we read something like, "Ambedkar's life time total works, totalling 10k odd pages, does not show any sign that he wanted Indian independence", then you calibrate your thinking about that great man.

ah! well! :)

BD, well stated! I spent some time at JNU fighting off these very "eminent historians" and they are nothing more than hypocritical ideologues who have mucked about with grants, played little games and produced little of real worth. Give them a foreign grant and they will produce to the letter whatever the colonial enterprise will ask of them. Given a local grant, and they will hadpo it without a burp.

The saddest was to hear, a couple of years ago, from a very prominent UK academic that India lacked a "research" culture. I realised he was talking of precisely these "eminent" types.

CS: Couple of points:
1) I have no idea if Doniger speaks Sanskrit but given the bilge she comes up with about the Sanskrit texts, seems that she has a VERY poor idea about the language. Or she chooses to purposefully distort what the texts say for personal or ideological reasons. You choose which is worse.

2. Re your idea about how research doesn't have to produce anything...that may well be the case in the sciences. But in social sciences and humanities, a research grant is expected to produce results, even if it means reporting on the processes and how the proposed hypothesis has changed. That means "research" on the Mughal era may not produce the results you hoped, but it still generates information and understanding that is written up and published.

These "eminent" types have been happy to hadpo ICCR money and do jack all. And also they have ensured that their coterie - ideological and political - gets the funds while anyone else who doesn't agree is left out. And this has been going on since the 1960s!

3. Your contention of how "serious" these scholars are can be dismissed by a look at their publications and more importantly their bibliographies. Why else did the great historian of the Muslims in India (Irfan Habib) never look at records of the Mughal courts. Or did he like Doniger choose to ignore what he found there in favour of ideology? Why else were court records as well as municipal documents ignored when they presented facts that didn't match his "all peasants suffered regardless of religion" theme?

4. Do you know these "eminent" historians are SUCH "serious" scholars that they kill off PhD dissertations for political reasons? I know of three at JNU in the past decade alone: one on Fatehpur Sikri, another on taxation under Akbar's regime and a third on rise and fall of Buddhism in Manipur. And their reason was that these theses were "saffron" and promoted Hindu-Muslim enmity! Of course they never said so publicly (only in departmental meetings) but harangued the students to quit - one of them after six years of research and writing!

Oh on the good side, they are happy to steal the research students' work (MPhil/MA theses) and publish them under their own names! I had one friend (female) who saved her MA thesis on Sarnath by threatening to bludgeon one "serious scholar" with a baseball bat. :-) Other students - lacking her aggression (which was nicely blamed on the ABVP) - dont manage to save their work.

Two years at JNU provided me more tales about these "serious" scholars to safely put to the grave any respect I had for their work. They deserve to be publicly pilloried and stoned by their former and current students who have been screwed over!

Btw, I agree with BD on EH Carr - I use that as required reading for my undergraduates and am always amazed by the "before" and "after" difference.

Finally - apologies if the above sounds aggressive or nasty but I have been on the receiving end of these "eminent scholars" - one reason I realised that my research had to be done overseas until these #@*#s have retired and been replaced. It makes me angry when I produce work on India but live overseas, and only because of the stranglehold this damn coterie has on the university system back home.

Well said BD,now its the turn of the hindutvadis to bombard us with their crap and so far their attempts have been laughable .

Commonsense wrote

>>>Romilla Thapar or Bipan Chandra, but they are professional historians, not ideologues like Shourie, who of course, is a historian.>>>

Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which world you live in man????? I guess you never get tired of propaganda .. true to your kind..

Above 2 mentioned are well known leftists..... but again what to expect from you....... only lies and half truths...

Commonsense wrote

>>> "Romilla Thapar or Bipan Chandra, but they are professional historians, not ideologues like Shourie, who of course, is a historian."<<<<<<

I guess it has become so predictable that commonsense will always make nonsense statements to defend his mentors and gurus.

It is well publicized fact that Bipan Chandra Sud mentioned by commonsense as "non-ideologues" gave up his last name because he claimed its against his ideology to use caste surname.

Only an idiot would argue against the fact that JNU is the hub of leftism and communism in India. And no one has to mention Bipan Chandra Sud's relationship with JNU.

Oh great prophet you forgot to mention all the members of your "non-ideologue" team

bipan chandra,
satish chandra,
romila thapar,
arjan dev
indira dev
Ifran Habib

ofcourse since commonsense has propagated that none of them are self proclaimed leftists as such we should bow to him and accept his version of truth and facts. Because according his cult, there is only one truth and that's theirs only!!

HAHAHA we should forgot what these clowns did in 2005 against NCF decisions. This Bipan Chandra Sud and his cronies started a agitation against NCF because they wanted NCERT to continue teaching books written only by Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Arjun Dev and Satish Chandra only because according to this leftist team all other versions of history, fact and truth are biased and fabricated. Only his and his co-ideologues have the unkown powers of knowing and writing the truths and facts.

Romilla Thappar - no one needs to have to say anything of her leftists affliation

---------------

Commonsense wrote

>>>Most people are upset at Romilla Thapar re: the AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory.<<<<

Another idiotic statement. Now he is claiming that Romilla Thappar invented AIT theory only you are crediting her with AIT no one else does. I guess I do not know what Muller came up with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------

Commonsense wrote

>>>> Even if we don't agree with these eminent historians, they have advance our understanding by moving focus away from "great men, women, kings and queens" and lookin at regular people and how they transformed society.<<<<

Sorry this leftist team

bipan chandra,
satish chandra,
romila thapar,
arjan dev
indira dev
Ifran Habib

Have done the biggest disfavor to nation and people of India especially Hindus by distorting facts. Ofcourse they moved history from what it is supposed to be. They simply made it a tool of leftist propaganda. They tried to shape and propagate Indian history into history of class (caste) struggle and regional divisions and trying to eradicating any common national traits in the region.

-----------------------------

Commonsense wrote

>>> Irfan Habib's study of the Mughal empire is a land-mark one. He was in trouble with the Mullahs as he showed how the Mughals exploited the peasantry by levying back-crushing taxes to build the empire.<<<<

HAHHAHa is that History or "communism"!!!!!!!!!!!! that's again class struggle !!!

But again they are all non-ideologues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And we should look at them as non-biased historians????

-------------------------

Commonsense wrote

>>> I prefer not to take sides,>>>>

Another contradiction you have already taken sides when you claimed your gurus and mentors to be "non-ideologue" and anyone who is not with them as biased and ideologue.

BD and Anamika (pointedly ignoring Gill!).

Trust me, I was about to mention E.H. Carr's little gem. What I wrote about historical research was of course derived from his invaluable book. To re-state what I said earlier:

1. The intention was not to defend any particular eminent historian, even though it comes across like that. Historians of course do not come from Mars, and as such have ideological biases, but these biases are generally derived from intellectual rather than crass political sources. The best way to counter these biases, is to produce another more plausible accounts, based once again on protocols that are scholarly, in the broad sense of the term.

2. Anamika, sorry to hear that your historical research career was cut short by the stranglehold of some "eminent" historians. Your best "revenge" of course is now to produce something that will shed a different angle on the issues in question. Academic gangsterism, as those of us who teach in universities well know, is not something peculiar to JNU, nor just the social or natural sciences. It is a sad part of the reality that comes with any organization where either fame (symbolic capital) or real capital (research money) is to be made. The history of all research is the history of one-upmanship and womanship, unfortunately. Unfortunately. Those of us who have nothing to do with it still manage to survive, despite all the temptations.

3. If we follow the E.H. Carr model (although Gill will jump on Carr too for being a "leftist" due to his being in Moscow during the Stalin period, and writing a favourable account of the Russian revolution - but that's what Gill will do anyway!) and provide alternative accounts, as serious researchers, not mere propagandists. Once again, there is no getting away from ideology, as much as there is no getting away from interpretive frameworks. But there is a difference between mere ideologues and historical research driven by the passion for research. Not always a very clear fine line to be sure, but nevertheless...

4. When I go back to what I wrote, I did say that I'm open not just to all interpretations but particularly to interpretations that challenge my preconceptions. This is how the struggle for tentative truths proceeds, and it is tentative since it is overturned by fresh evidence and interpretations of what we consider to be stable historical facts (Carr again! and a bit of Karl Popper _Conjectures and Refutations_). So at the end of the day, nobody has a monopoly on truth, neither the JNU historian nor any other historians. Apart from the obvious facts such as when was so and so born or died etc. etc. historical or any other research is then a constant struggle for making sense of whatever puzzles we may decide to take on...the same is the case with the natural sciences.

5. Anamika, as for Irfan Habib not using certain sources etc. very valid points. But the next step would be to use those sources and provide an alternative account. His work on the Mughal empire moved the narrative beyond the earlier focus on the character of rulers etc. that was the focus of an earlier generation of scholars such as Ishwari Prasad, Jadunath Sarkar, Irfan Habib's father Mohammad Habib etc. And these earlier generation of historians, Prashad and Sarkar, themselves moved the narrative forward from earlier historical and colonial narratives...at the end of the day isn't this what historical or any research all about? endless conjectures, marshalling of evidence, interpretations and refutations of existing accounts? (Karl Popper _Conjectures and Refutations_). Such that no position ever achieves the status of revealed truths that fundamentalists of all stripes, including the leftists of course, (perhaps especially them!) prefer to hold on to...this may seem like a recipe for confusion, but not quite! OK, in real life, in real universities of course we have to contend with academic gangsters who corner grants, journals, publishing houses etc...but then their hold is never permanent and nothing like a good kick-ass piece of work to demolish their pet hobby-horses! And so the enterprise proceeds...

6. As stated many times before, there may be a lot of politics riding on the AIT (valid or not) and many other contentious issues, but there are valid intellectual stakes too. To argue that once and for all, this particular theory whether AIT or not, will be enshrined and written in stone and others are simply bilge, is well, not a very scholarly way to approach the issue...we don't know yet, the jury is not still out, but will always be out! A destabilizing prospect for sure, but since then I am not for any fundmamentalism be it leftist, rightist or centrist, it welcome the constant stream of conjectures and refutations that aid rather than inhibit the invariably partial, incomplete understanding of the human history and societies. My role model here in addition to Carr is of course the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt. She gave it to the left and to the right, without the need to defend anyone ideological stripes except humanity. Needless to add, all interpretations, even conflicting ones and especially conflicting ones, add something to our struggle for making sense of it all...just commonsense to me!

Gill Bhai, I'm too tired and hung-over, to respond. But then, you have raised some rhetorical questions that need not really be addressed right? As in you have provided your own answers...and I don't disagree with you either...

Anamika,

Trust me on this but Wendy Doniger's fluency and understanding (ie. fluency not just as a parrot) in Sanskrit has never been doubted even by her critics. Of course it does not mean that whatever she may have to say is unadulterated truth, just because she is totally at home in Sanskrit. Surely she is not beyond criticism, because if she were she would not be a scholar but a prophet. Commonsense tells me that the best way to contest her interpretations is to pen a counter-narrative. As opposed to the rotten eggs and tomatoes that have been hurled at her at more than one meeting! (Anamika, I am not implying at all that you support such kinds of actions :)). I can't imagine her attacking other Sanskrit scholars with rotten tomatoes and eggs. While I understand the sensitivities involved, but the best way to get back is to criticize her position intellectually, as Edward Said criticised the Orientalists and as he is now criticised for over-doing his own critique of the Orientalists (by Chris Bayly, Aijaz Ahmad _In Theory_ and others). There is enough data, enough paper, or at least cyberspace for everyone's ideas!

Anamika wrote:

""Finally - apologies if the above sounds aggressive or nasty but I have been on the receiving end of these "eminent scholars" - one reason I realised that my research had to be done overseas until these #@*#s have retired and been replaced. It makes me angry when I produce work on India but live overseas, and only because of the stranglehold this damn coterie has on the university system back home.""

My turn to say, why apologize for nothing? Given the horrid experience you describe, quite understandable! Quite a great feeling after some feelings are let out! :)

Anamika:

""Two years at JNU provided me more tales about these "serious" scholars to safely put to the grave any respect I had for their work. They deserve to be publicly pilloried and stoned by their former and current students who have been screwed over!""

Ouch! Ouch! Their former and current students could do better than stoning, by writing something to challenge their claims. (I know you don't literally mean it!!:) Case in point, Irfan Habib's former student Muzaffar Alam, now at the U of Chicago. And so the process goes...Wendy Doniger can be countered by Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Religion at McGill University etc. etc.

CS, I do not have the personal experience of Anamika with these chaps, so she is my guruine in this case. As it seems, it is much worse than I thought.

But lets go back to your hypothesis about history moving forward in fits and starts. You mentioned Jadunath Sarkar, think about the publications from the Bhandrarkar institute in Pune, etc. etc. I never got to hear about any of that. Yes, conceptually I do agree, but fat lot of good that did to me. My parent's generation, my generation and to a large extent the next gen is also being educated on the same school text books which were written from that ideological perspective.

Counter-narratives do not help, my friend. We are talking about tens of millions of students moving from class to class, the inertia of rest amongst the hundreds and millions of Indians is huge. The tree has become weak but thankfully, as you said, given the internet, the power of these bunkus chaps is waning.

Sometimes I do agree that our education system as designed by these great scientists is aimed to turn out peons. Literally peons.

ana:

one comment and one query:

Oh on the good side, they are happy to steal the research students' work (MPhil/MA theses) and publish them under their own names! I had one friend (female) who saved her MA thesis on Sarnath by threatening to bludgeon one "serious scholar" with a baseball bat. :-) Other students - lacking her aggression (which was nicely blamed on the ABVP) - dont manage to save their work.

this is not unique to JNU - happens the world over - only the extent varies - (and also in most universities it is swept under)

the query: you singled out JNU and opted to leave...is JNU the ONLY university in all of india...could you not have moved to another univ. and continued?

And CS, i have to point out, like Meenakshi, I am finding it exceedingly difficult to get the other sides of the story. Very very difficult, the impact of decades and centuries of ignoring vernacular education, of ignoring domestic sciences, history, arts and life, they are all showing up, but not for long, it will happen, we will come to know more about our own lives.

T

my paper was also stolen, I am afraid, after giving it to a professor for his comments. And that too my first academic paper. I didnt hear about it after my submission, so I figured that I didnt get it. After an year or so, when I was in Manchester, I then found out that it had been published under that worthy gentleman's name.

And it is extremely difficult to move universities specially when you are doing a research degree. Actually anywhere in the world, unfortunately. If your supervisor is crap, then you are stuffed, moving is a worse option, and dropping is better. Which is why you have such a high drop out rate in research degrees.

BD,

Totally agree that it is not that easy to come up with counter histories when the usual outlets for publications are managed by certain well-entrenched gate-keepers. However with the internet etc. the situation is not totally all that bleak. In any field, and especially so in the humanities and the social sciences, there are many more avenues for the publication of articles/papers that go against the grain of academic orthodoxies. Contrary to all appearances, I am NOT defending any school of thought, but arguing that IN THEORY at least, the only recourse intellectuals have AS INTELLECTUALS is to provide either (1) a better argument or (2) a counter argument to existing academic orthodoxies. This is the rational, intellectual way to address controversial issues. It provides a framework for taking on board aspects of contradictory theories and moving forward, rather than being locked up in heremetically self-enclosed, self-referential non-dialogues. That is the way of religious fundamentalists, ideologues and demagogues, not scholars who have sincerely opted for the scholarship as a vocation.

I relly don't recall defending plagiarism nor the non-completion of manuscripts that were promised, nor the bullying of graduate students. If I said it happens not just in JNU but in most universities, I did not intend to condone it. Rather, it is a sociological truism for all organizations where reputations are at stake etc. Look, even Watson-Crick appropriated the work of Rosalind Franklin and did not give credit to her for the DNA "discovery". Another Nobel Laureate, David Baltimore was actually fired from Rockefeller University, for his role in a high-profile scientific fraud case, although he was never directly accused, and now he is the president of caltech. This is rampant in most universities, which is not to condone it. Much of this is discussed in the very interesting, entertaining and depressing:

Daniel Kevles _The Baltimore Case_

Marcel C. LaFollette, Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing( University of California Press; 1992)

Robert Bell, Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific Research (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1992)

It is interesting BD that you mention the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune! It was vandalized in 2004, not by any scholar, much less an JNU historians, but by some group called the "Sambaji Brigade". Manuscripts beyond value were destroyed because somebody did not like a book on Shivaji by James Laine. Read all about it here:

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2102/stories/20040130003802800.htm


This is one of the problem when purely political ideologues seek to control everything, including intellectual production. To cut to the chase, if somebody is writing shoddy history, pillory him or her by writing better history. I know it is not that easy, but how do ad hominem attacks help in sustaining a genuinely intellectual community? This is the intellectual way. The other way is Sambaji Brigades' uconscionable attack on such a national treasure as the Bhandarkar Insitute of Oriental Studies. Of course, this is an extreme case, the attack on the Bhandarkar institute...but rotten eggs hitting Wendy Doniger while whe was talking at the University of London; mullahs instigating attacks on Irfan Habib for supposedly insulting Islam and Muslim rulers in his book (he was almost killed and certainly was not allowed to enter the university for over a year by these mullah gangsters...in the late 1970's), is surely not the way to go?! Surely there's enough space and resources for multiple views on any complex event...It does not make sense to me...

I "plagariaze" from a recent issue of the Times Literary Supplement (Oct. 12, 2007). About the 1857 uprising:

"The marxist historian saw it as a popular peasant revolt; the solider historian felt the whole thing rested on the unfair treatment of the sepoy; the political historian pointed to the changing role of the East India Company; the economic historian thought the changing balance of trade had a lot to do with it; the social historian was sure the reason lay in the Evangelical movement in Britain; the Muslim communalist hitorian saw in it the alienation of Muslims; the historian of technology saw it as the effects of modern inventions such as the railroad and the telegraph at work..."

Even if we read the only two eyewitness accounts of 1857: ie. Sita Ram's _From Sepoy to Subedar_ (1973) and Noah Chick's _Annals of the Indian Rebellion_ (Calcutta, 1857), we still will not get the whole truth from God's point of view. All of these accounts, sometimes contradictory, sometimes complementary however, will help in cobbling up a credible narrative, that will again be revised as new sources and interpretations are developed in the future...

On a lighter note: as the saying goes, "Even God cannot changed history; only historians can!!"

will respond in detail when have a moment but very quickly:

CS: AIT is the only widely accepted historical theory that is not backed by archeological, literary or ethnographic evidence but relies on a few colonial scholars noticing linguistic similarities.

Two - counter narratives are all very well but the issue is the imbalance of power. So reality is still that a Doniger will have greater power of discourse (rhetoric of hegemony at its best) than a historian in Aligarh or Jhansi. So its not enough to pen the counter-narrative (which I do btw) but to actually have it published and acknowledged which doesn't happen.

Btw - I dont know Doniger well enough but the two people I consider my gurus are both Sanskrit scholars and both have issues with her on specific points of language. So I reserve judgement.

Oh one point re counter-narratives: we know for example there exists a Palestinian "counter" narrative. But see what the balance of power does? :-)

Oh dont worry about my research career - I continued overseas and will one day go back to India anyway.

Temp: JNU unfortunately is the premier university in India for social sciences and certain other subjects. Its a little like being at Harvard when there is no other ivy...so moving to another university was a serious step down and very complicated given the way "eminent" academics work. But ek din aisa hoga....

Anamika,

As it is with any community, in virtual communities too, a certain amount of respect and trust develops. Since you have personally experienced the viciousness of the JNU "eminent historians" (and I don't for a moment doubt that you had a very bad experience) I will not question that. So, in the interest of continuing with a modicum and respect for each other, it's best that I do not discuss this. Seriously, I mean that sincerely! :) Mainly because this is discussion is rapidly moving into an area where we can respectfully agree to disagree, since I am confident that neither of us is a supporter of sectarianism, either in social or intellectual life! :)

(It just struck me that one of the biggest case of academic gangsterism occured when I was a grad student somewhere in Canada, way back in the medieval ages! Some physicist (or perhaps business studies person?) at Concordia U in Montreal, actually shot and killed three of his colleagues, because he claime they stole his paper and data and published it under their name. His last name was Fabrikant...he was sentenced to a few years in prison...for killing his colleagues, one of whom happened to be Indian...)

for those interested, here is the lowdown on academic gangsterism in universities...(concordia U faculty shooting his colleagues)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Fabrikant

>>>Most people are upset at Romilla Thapar re: the AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory.<<<<

Another idiotic statement. Now he is claiming that Romilla Thappar invented AIT theory only you are crediting her with AIT no one else does. I guess I do not know what Muller came up with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gill, even the "foolest of fools" aka commonsense knows that Thapar did not "invent" the AIT. She supports it. BTW, it is just a "theory" that can be disproven aka it is not a fact written in stone...anyway, enjoy your enjoyment...

Since I respect everyone, including even Gill, I have to say, that he is indulging in what philosophers call the "genetic fallacy" ie. dismissing a theory due to its presumably tainted origins (ie. left-wing, right-wing) without paying attention to the actual content of the argument. Also known in the philosophy of science as the distinction between "the context of discovery" and "the context of justification". Because a theory is of right-wing or left provenance, has no bearing to the claim it puts forward...otherwise we are back to ad hominem attacks...as in "ha, you are saying this because you are left wing" or vice-versa. Most of us are tempted to do this, but it is not of any serious significance in intellectual debates, although it does win converts in purely political, ideological, and debates that depend on demagoguery....

Anamika,

aadat sey majbur, so here goes, with all due respect of course!

Anamika:
""CS: AIT is the only widely accepted historical theory that is not backed by archeological, literary or ethnographic evidence but relies on a few colonial scholars noticing linguistic similarities."'

If this is the case, then it won't last long, especially when there is no evidence to back it up. Not too much to worry about then. It surely cannot be that it survives simply because a few colonial scholars are backing it up...

Anamika:

""Two - counter narratives are all very well but the issue is the imbalance of power. So reality is still that a Doniger will have greater power of discourse (rhetoric of hegemony at its best) than a historian in Aligarh or Jhansi. So its not enough to pen the counter-narrative (which I do btw) but to actually have it published and acknowledged which doesn't happen.""

Sure, imbalance of power makes a difference, but it is not everything in scholarly discourse! Srinivasa Ramanujam was just a clerk in Madras, but was recognized for his genius, spent a few miserable years in Cambridge, but his ideas still inspire a lot of basic and applied science. For medieval Indian history, Aligarh is better recognized than Harvard or Princeton. It is the Centre for Advanced Studies in medieval Indian history. No other department anywhere comes close to it. About Jhansi, I agree. But surely it is not simply a Foucauldian power/knoweldge axis. People do have independent means of judgment, and power does not by itself legitimize knowledge all the time, although it does happen sometimes...

Anamika:
""Btw - I dont know Doniger well enough but the two people I consider my gurus are both Sanskrit scholars and both have issues with her on specific points of language. So I reserve judgement.""

Trust me on this one! Sanskrit is almost her first language, in addition to Greek, Italian etc. But that in itself does not mean she is RIGHT!

Anamika:

""Oh one point re counter-narratives: we know for example there exists a Palestinian "counter" narrative. But see what the balance of power does? :-)""

Sure, I agree! But there are many palestinian counter-narrativeS, and many are not that different from Rabbi Kahane's narrative: ie murderous ethnic cleansing of the Jews...but it is a different cup of tea when one talks of scholarly versus purely political rants/narratives, although one cannot always separate the two...

Anamika:

""Temp: JNU unfortunately is the premier university in India for social sciences and certain other subjects. Its a little like being at Harvard when there is no other ivy...so moving to another university was a serious step down and very complicated given the way "eminent" academics work. But ek din aisa hoga....""

When one picks a university as a research destination, I am sure one looks at the faculty, what kind of research they do, what their ideological orienation is etc. If their interests and orientation does not fit with mine, I'd rather go to a less prestigious university so to speak, rather than slug it out with a Wendy Doniger at U of Chicago or Habib in Aligarh, when I know that I won't make any headway. Sad, but true! Not all the best scholars are at Harvard, and not all the scholars in Iowa or Jhansi are worthless! We have to decide who we want to work with and where they are...

CS: Interesting points but you're right that we must agree to disagree.

Ramanujam's reference is disingenuous at best as mathematics is not nearly as politicized a field as history, nor does it play a palpable political role in polity. Can you think of a "great" social scientist that was similarly plucked out of obscurity for challenging colonial hegemony?

Re: counter-narratives, I did not suggest that there is a SINGLE Palestinian one but rather there is an asymmetry of power. The same exists when it comes to research on India (and more so with other former colonies who are not able to challenge contemporary balance of hegemony. You seem to be willfully obfuscating the point which doesn't exactly extend the discussion but whatever...

AIT has been held up since Muller by an extra ordinary co-incidence of interests. If it were just a handful of 19th century colonial interests being served, the theory would die a quick death. But it continues to play its part in neo-imperialist (military/non-military) enterprises even today. And it helps to secure US/EU research grants if you work on proving AIT rather than refuting it.

Interestingly, the archeological evidence discovered in the past 60 years is ignored right across the board both in India and abroad for a range of political reasons. Or twisted beyond belief - my favourite is when amphoras found in Kerala were declared as proof of Greco-Roman "colonies."

Even Indian school books work off AIT absolutely uncritically. And we still talk of the rise and fall of a "Harappan" civilization rather than the Indo-Gangetic civilizations that seem to be spread far across the subcontinent.

Even on an Indian scale, the issue becomes very messy because our polity insists on a pseudo "secular" ideology where anything Hindu has long been derided in academic circles. It it not for nothing that the ASI excavations at Fatehpur Sikri have been stopped repeatedly by governments since independence. Even the NDA that restarted the excavations gave up under pressure from "secular" allies when ASI started finding evidence that great "secular" Akbar had been defacing Jain and Hindu statues there. And guess what? The "eminent" historians agreed with this deliberate suppression of history for political reasons.

I for one find that suppression makes things worse. Its time we actually looked at ourselves - and ALL periods - for all the good/bad/ugly. And that won't happen if we keep omitting stuff that is inconvenient or doesnt match our beliefs.

You obviously have great admiration for Habib while I find his work systematically omits and distorts history - for the rather "noble" aim of "secular India." What this basically means is that he is another ideologue rather than a historian (to use your dichotomy). So perhaps its best to leave this discussion now...

CS: Re your final point in 29, re how one chooses a university to work or study:.

Let me respond to what I felt is rather a self-righteous attitude on your part. Yes, I realise that much work on medieval Indian history is produced at Aligarh, but there is also a very clear political agenda on WHAT is produced, and that - whether you accept or like the fact or not - is determined by idiotic sectarian politics. It would be more accurate to say that Aligarh is a great centre of medieval Indian Muslim history rather than of medieval Indian one (just as other centres seem to focus on Maratha, Rajput, or "bhadralok" histories).

Moreover, for me as an unmarried Hindu woman, and in social/living terms, Aligarh is not equivalent to choosing Iowa or Wisconsin (which produces better work on India than Harvard) but more like picking Lahore university over Harvard!

That is ALSO a consideration in the places I choose to or can work/study. And that is another reason I had hoped JNU was a "better fit." Besides, its reputation as the premier institution of the country, of course.

Its exactly what I said to temp earlier: things are changing and this generation of "eminent" historians (and scholars from other disciplines) is slowly being pushed out. The next generation appears far more open- minded and capable of genuine research. So ek din aisa hoga...

As I said earlier, its rather obvious you have a blind spot for Habib and his ilk, so its best to agree to disagree and leave this discussion here....

Anamika,

I'd hate to question your personal experience at JNU. Of course anyone can understand how you must feel if you expected certain scholars to behave as scholars not as scheming gangsters. So, I will briefly respond to the other points in an uncharacteristically level-headed :) manner! Not that I am right, but because this is how converstations are carried forward. So, not with the intention of scoring points, that's not the spirit here:

""Ramanujam's reference is disingenuous at best as mathematics is not nearly as politicized a field as history, nor does it play a palpable political role in polity. Can you think of a "great" social scientist that was similarly plucked out of obscurity for challenging colonial hegemony?""

Point taken. Used Ramanujan as he is a spectacular example of a situation where his ideas not his location mattered. Other examples, albeit not so spectacular include: (these are all scholars who did not study abroad at all, but all home-grown, with Indian Phd's. Srinivas got a second PhD at Oxford, after a first one in India.). Also these scholars were not "picked up" by any sponsors, but made it due to their scholarship alone:

1. M. N. Srinivas, the "father" anthropology and sociology in India. A special chair was created for him at Oxford by the great British anthropologist A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. Srinivas got tired after a couple of years (as in what the fish am I doing here, teaching Indian anthroplogy), resigned, went back to found the Departments of Sociology in Barod and Delhi U. Major anthropologist not just of India but globally, who got all his education in India, except for a second PhD at Oxford. He was INVITED to do this Phd.

2. Andre Beteille. A student of M. N. Srinivas and possibly the greatest sociologist India has produced. Never studied abroad, not a single course, completely home-made, indigenous as they come! No shortage of invitations at all the premier universities in the world, including permanent appointments, but chose to stay in India and made his global mark from India, mostly Delhi U, plus a year initially at the Indian Statistical Institute. Currently the president/director of ICSSR.

3. Veen Das: another leading Indian anthropologist and sociologist who never studied abroad ever. Absolutely brilliant scholar. Did not go abroad. Also a student of M.N. Srinivas. BTW, totally at home in Sanskrit and half a dozen languages. Much of her career spent in Dehi with many visiting appointments at Harvard, U Penn, U Chicago etc. After retirement at Delhi U, appointed to a titled distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins U in Baltimore...

4. Sanjay Subrahmanyam: The Parveen Doshi Distinguished Professor of History, UCLA. Never got a single degree at any foreign university. A totally home-grown product. Speaks, reads and writes (in addition to Hindi, Tamil, Urdu and English of course) French, Portugese and Italian fluently. When he was only in his thirtees, was appointed full professor at CNRS Paris, then a special chair was created for him at Oxford. And then a special endowed professorship for him at UCLA. Probably one of the youngest full professors at Oxford when he was appointed. Did not get a single degree abroad.

5. Muzaffar Alam, Professor of History at U of Chicago: Another totally home-grown product (and taught at JNU as you would know, for thirty years, so one of those eminent historians!), not a single degree abroad. An ex-student of Irfan Habib; used the sources that Habib had neglected, to provide a different interpretation of the Mughal empire. He carried to historical converstation forward and now does so at U of Chicago. No foreign degrees, not a single course taken abroad...

I could go on and on...but the example of Srinivasa was not disingenous. I am more familiar with the natural sciences and dabble in the social sciences as a diversion.

Anamika wrote:

""AIT has been held up since Muller by an extra ordinary co-incidence of interests. If it were just a handful of 19th century colonial interests being served, the theory would die a quick death. But it continues to play its part in neo-imperialist (military/non-military) enterprises even today. And it helps to secure US/EU research grants if you work on proving AIT rather than refuting it.""

I do not see any american and european conspiracy at work here. If this is the case, there is nothing to stop our govt from providing excess funds to disprove it. The jury is stil out on it. In the end, it will be accepted or rejected, based on historical research...

Anamika:

""Even the NDA that restarted the excavations gave up under pressure from "secular" allies when ASI started finding evidence that great "secular" Akbar had been defacing Jain and Hindu statues there.""

Well, then the "government with a difference" has something to answer for! Shame on the eminent historians for obstructing the excavations...

Anamika:

""Let me respond to what I felt is rather a self-righteous attitude on your part. Yes, I realise that much work on medieval Indian history is produced at Aligarh, but there is also a very clear political agenda on WHAT is produced, and that - whether you accept or like the fact or not - is determined by idiotic sectarian politics. It would be more accurate to say that Aligarh is a great centre of medieval Indian Muslim history rather than of medieval Indian one (just as other centres seem to focus on Maratha, Rajput, or "bhadralok" histories).""

Sorry about the self-righteous attitude. Seriously, quite unintended. But I take issue with the characterization of the AMU history scholarly agenda being driven by "sectarian politics" or that it focuses on the "Muslim" period.

1. The department of history, and not just Habib, but many others such as Athar Ali, Shireen Moosvi, Ikhtidar Alam Khan, K.A. Nizami etc. etc. have actually moved away from a sectarian agenda by focusing on the nitty gritty of social life, peasant uprisings, technology, economic history etc. At least Habib as a self-confessed and advertized Marxist historian has tried to look at the larger social proceses at work and to shift attention from the iron-clad Hindu vs. Muslim divide.

2. Unfortunately, despite some variations, northern medieval India is dominated by the Mughal behemoth. Not too surprising that the focus of the historians is on it, and not on Maratha history. However, it is not exclusively so. Much intersting work on Rajasthan, Marwar etc. is being produced at AMU by these faculty members: Rashmi Upadhyaa, Manvendar Kumar Pundhir, B. L. Bhadani, Pushpa Prasad etc. The division of labour really is of course based on facility with the relevant languages. Without a knowledge of Persian and Arabic, no credible history of the Mughal empire is possible. Even the enemies of the history department of AMU have NEVER blamed it for pursuing a "Muslim communal" agenda. In fact, as pointed out earlier, they have been blamed for pursuing a Marxist, hence non-communal or non_Muslim agenda. This is why Habib and his colleagues are constantly pilloried by the mullahs.

As for my personal admiration for Habib: yes, he did lift the history of Mughal India from an obsession with kings and queens to real social history in his _Agrarian Systems of Mughal India_
by focussing on the production and crisis, rather than hagiographies and praise of the rulers. Was he totally successful? Nobody is. His blindspots were later rectified by Muzaffar Alam (a JNU eminent, now at U of Chicago) and by J. F. Richards at Duke University. So, instead of dismissing Habib because he did not use certain sources, others have used those sources, to refute him. Either way, he facilitated the progression of historical research.


Anamika wrote:

""Moreover, for me as an unmarried Hindu woman, and in social/living terms, Aligarh is not equivalent to choosing Iowa or Wisconsin (which produces better work on India than Harvard) but more like picking Lahore university over Harvard!""

Totally agree! With the caveat that AMU, despite its name, is not necessarily such a dangerous place for non-Muslim single women. Many students from Delhi, and non-Muslim ones, do go there, precisely to seek out the history department. Two names come to mind: Nalini Taneja rec'd her PhD from there and now teaches at DU. Parvati Menon, likewise, and now works for The Hindu magazine, Frontline. But your general point is well-taken. It is not that easy to pack and move, especially for a single woman in India. There are many other considerations, and not all of them are purely academic.

""That is ALSO a consideration in the places I choose to or can work/study. And that is another reason I had hoped JNU was a "better fit." Besides, its reputation as the premier institution of the country, of course. ""

True, true. However, without intending to be self-righteous, there is a slight contradiction here. If JNU is a premier university as you say, it would be due to the quality of its faculty. Since it is a new university, not like DU, Allahabad or Calcutt, ie. with a history, surely it became reputable, as most universities do, because of its faculty. And it is well known for its humanities and social sciences faculty. But then you say that their faculty produce bilge by the bucket-fuls! If it is premier research university then its faculty cannot be so bad in terms of research, although they can behave gangsters, like elsewhere.


Anamika:

""Habib while I find his work systematically omits and distorts history - for the rather "noble" aim of "secular India." What this basically means is that he is another ideologue rather than a historian (to use your dichotomy). So perhaps its best to leave this discussion now...""

Agreed that he is an ideologue for secularism. But he is a serious historian too, ie. he does do real research (albeit with limitations) and does not write only pamphlets (which he does write too). It is impossible to step out of ideologies, they are our lenses. But because he deploys a certain perspective does not make him a non-historian! There is no God's eye view of the world, either in the natural or the social sciences. (EH Carr again!) His blind-spots and there are many of course, have been fixed by J.F. Richards at Duke University and Muzaffar Alam. The latter will also necessarily have other blind spots and so the cycle goes...Show me a historian without an ideological framework and I will show you a hypocrite! Big difference between a mere ideologue/demagogue (Shourie for example, when it comes to history at least) and a historian who pursues an issue from a particular interpretive framework.

It would be nice and I mean that sincerely, if you could review Habib or any other historian you seriously disagree with and put the review on DC. Surely nobody is gatekeeping here and you would have seriously interested readers...I know, constraints of time, teaching etc. but brief critical reviews would move the conversation forward, intellectually....

Bhai Commonsense # 5

Perhaps you never read original article at all. You are trying to defend/justify the crimes of `eminent historians' by describing the `research methodlogy and probablity of not being able to find out something publishable'?

My freind Money was allotted to `write textbooks' and not do any reasearch. I am sure text books for kids are written based on current `state of the art' and not any new research.

Yes for aperson writing something on Ancient India and medival India need to be well versed in Sanskrit.

A person writing mediaval India need to be well versed in Turkish, Persian and Arabic for sure along with sanskrit.

Those who are not can never be `eminent' my freind.

I'll give you just one Example. Country name as Aryavarta has a well defined boundary in Bhavishya Puran (Bhaham parva sholak 7/56) which says " Aasamudratu vai poorvadasamudrutu pashchimat, tayorevattaram giryo aryavata vidurbudha'

which means the land mass surounded by ocean on east and west and covered by mountain on north(Humalayas) and south(Vindhyachala) is known as Arya varta.

Indians wrote about themselves who they are and where they originated and where their religion culture and other things developed very well. But associates of invaders always `ridiculed' everything done by their forfathers as `tota maina ki kahani'.

Bhagwat Puran also says that Bhakti originated from Dravid Desha, All items used in rituals of Yagna are South Indian origin and I gave list in some other post.

Simple commensense punctures the results of your `eminent historians' who are communist party card holeders my friend beffoling secular minded innocent Indians.

This negative attitide towards Indian sources reflects nothing but `inferiority complex' of some of our friends nothing more then than that. This attitide kills their capacity to see the truth.

# 5 Yes fro deers Lion is equally cruel. It is true my freind and Deer's point of view also should be given due weightage.

Bottom line is what's good for India my freind.

I'll go for a interpretation of History that benefits Indis, that makes it strong and united and integrated, the interpretation that gives me sense of belongingness to my motherland and an interpretation that boosts my self confidence that if my forfathers could be `Vishvaguru' then why not me?

I can be for sure. I have potential. We should use the positive interepreation of History while reading all points of views. That boosts morals of generations opposite to that negative interrpetation creats `inferirity complex' about India, its culture, religuions and civilisational values in generations and I can clearly see that in you.

Take seriously what your mom says my freind as she knows the best about you and not your neigbours or outsided? Trsu your mom who's you father more ten even DNA report as DNA test involves human involvement and succspetibe to error, change in sample and ...

Trust your Mom and start working hard to grow without wasting time in hearing the opinions of neighbours, invaders and looters of your house.

They all have vested interest. Your Mom is selfless of course and most trust worthy person on earth.

Anamika,

Ooops I forgot the mother of all home-grown intellectuals, or at least this is how he sees himself:

6. Ashis Nandy: total local product but global fame and cache. Not a scientist, but a social psychologist. Thinks of himself as the original anti-colonial thinker, perhaps even the only one.

7. Rajeshwari Sunder Rajan: totally homegrown, phd from bombay U. Distinguished Professor of Global Studies at New York University. Permanent position at George Washington U. Committed anti-Eurocentric scholar.

8. Dilip Chakrabarti, Archaeology, Cambridge U. Formerly at Delhi U.

The larger question is of course: why do we need sponsorship from Europe or America to be "recognized"? Should we be craving for it?

And now to come to Indian scholars in the humanities and social sciences who have been "contaminated" (I don't see it as such, but the votaries of indigeneity do) by just one foreign degree. As their affiliations amply signify, they are anything but marginal on the global intellectual scene: (and I am listing only those intellectuals who explicitly seek to dismantle Eurocentrism/Americo-centrism, if there is such a word!)

1. Gyan Prakash, History, Princeton U
2. Homi Bhabha, English, Harvard U
3. Partha Chatterjee, Politics, Columbia U
4. Gayatri Chakravarti Spivak, English, Columbia
5. Gauri Viswanathan, Formerly, Columbia, now somewhere in the UCalifornia system.
6. Arjun Appaduarai, U of Chicago much of his career, then Yale, now at New School as its Provost.
7. Dipesh Chakrabarti, U of Chicago
8. Leela Gandhi, U of Chicago
7. Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Syracuse U, formerly Cornell.
8. Akhil Gupta, Anthropology, UCLA
9. Purnima Mankekar, Anthropology, UCLA
10. Raka Ray, Sociology, UC Berkeley
11. Arvind Rajagopal, New York University
12. Arvind Sharma, McGill U
13. Sudipta Kaviraj, University of London
14. Vasudha Dalmia, UC Berkeley
15. Atul Kohli, Politics, Princeton
16. Vinay Lal, History, UCLA
17. Vivek Chibber, Sociology, New York University

I could go on for another few hours...trust me I'm not googling here, but just going by memory. These are anything but marginal scholars at marginal locations....just my hyper-response to the response that my selection of Ramanuja was disingenous. In the natural sciences, of course C. V. Raman was also completely home-educated with no degrees from the global centres of excellence...

A simple Question to all readers?

A Book on history of India shoulbe be chaptered based on what which invader did in India or what Indians did to defend or develope their land?

Books written by `Eminent hsitorians' associated with Communist terrorists, have follwed first stretegy ie glorification of invaders.

name of Chapter is not on Guru Gobind Singh, it is after `Aurangjeb'. Guru Gobind Singh Ji has been described in two lines in that chapter.

Name of Chapter of should be in the name of `Shivaji' or `Mughals', it is in the name of Mughals.

name of Chapter should be in the name of `maharan Pratap' or `Akbar'?

There are simple things of commonsense very clearly telling the story of Indian history text books.

It has nothing to do with reasearch or different opinion of others. It is simply crookedness used in writing history books by `professional eminent historians'.

Indians please realise it earlier the better.

Lions have to write their own history otherwsie hunters will be glorified by associate of hunters.

Its for us if we are with Hunters or with lions?

It is interesting, the "strategy" adopted by some commentators here, by getting "personal" and throwing "names" around. The issue is NOT about name calling or who is "right" or "wrong", the issue is what goes for History in a land with over 300 million kids going to school.

I am all for researching Indian History if I can request online access to authentic documents that are only accessible to "emminent" historians.

I agree, we need more Indian writers in Indian History. Owing to the lack of money and a "traditional" education, we need access to information- what we can get to.

Indian History has been so busy denigrating "Hinduism" that "historians" have shut up that one huge corpus of cultural and literary clues we can get from the very practice and interpretation of "Hindu" texts and practices.

Modern researchers have built up a huge corpus of works citing earlier works, all leading to colonists like Muller, that we get back to "ground zero".

No one has bothered to ask why Indic writers who have been published by Indic Publishing houses like Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan have been excluded in being cited by "historians" on INDIA? How about Aurobindo? How about Vivekananda? How about Ramana Maharishi? How about Swami Chandrashekarendra Saraswathi? Hey, our 1st pesident Radhakrishnan has written some very interesting stuff on Hindu thought. Even he is rarely quoted.

Interestingly, when we look at the "innovations" made in the field of Education in India, the list of "Educators" who made a difference to the Indian education system will make an impressive list of philosophers and social reformers and serious freedom fighters! Some of the luminaries are Swami Dayanada Saraswati (DAV), Vivekanada (Ramakrishna Mission), Rabindranath Tagore (Shanthiniketan), Aurobindo (Maitri), J Krishnamoorti (Rishi Valley) etc.

The focus of education is not about fighting and saying "I am better than you", it is about seeing the world and relating to it through the "lens" of language, culture and philosophy that harms neither our own self-esteem, nor denigrate another's.

When a historian does just that, it is totally unacceptable and does not bespeak well of them or their "education". In that context, Romila Thapar's brahmin bashing is uncalled for and brings an imbalance in "describing" Ancient India or its culture. That includes the "description" of varnashrama dharma where we find the "untouchability" ISSUE. There is a big difference between fact and ISSUE.

Brahmins are made the villains of Ancient India. I would like to see records of who these bad guys were. How many they numbered, how they lived, how they "crushed" the "lower" "castes" under their feet IN ANCIENT INDIA etc.

I asked an American teacher whether she would like to teach about the Reformation of the Church when teaching the chapter on the Rise of Christianity which deals with the Birth of Christ.

Untouchability is an issue that still rises its ugly head in modern day India. We cannot say it existed in its current form in Ancient India. There is a HUGE difference in that statement. In my simplistic, non-researcher way, my exposure to Ancient Indian texts have no mention of untouchalibility. Yes, I do see the word Acchyuta, my divine Krishna who is untouched by the matters of the world!!

Meenakshi and Man Singh: very interesting rhetorical questions that come with built-in answers.

However, let me take a stab at a couple of points that Meenakshi raises:

Since you criticise me for naming names (I did it in reponse to a valid request from Anamika), but you yourself have mentioned a few. I will pick up on a couple of them:

The "eminent" philosopher S. Radhakrishnan, and the fact that nobody remembers them. Well, his son, one of the eminent JNU historians, Sarvepalli Gopal did write a great book about his father and his important ideas. Unfortunately S. Gopal is also in the cross-hairs of Shouries' attack on "eminent" historians from JNU.

You mention Rabindranath Tagore's Shantiniketan. Among the many other illustrious product of this incredible venture in alternative education, is Amartya Sen, also pilloried by the Hindutvadis.

If you are not into research but wish to use history to primarily glorify or denigrate this or that, there is little possibility of a conversation.

Man Singh: what can I say? Lions or hunters...not sure...I'm confused as usual.

Man Singh Bhai,

As I have said before, at the end of the day, all of us will join the world's truly fastest growing religion: Daoism or the worship of Dow Jones, the pre-eminent deity in NY and its various subsidiaries in all countries. A couple of generations later, we will totally fuck up the environment beyond belief, such that there will be no lions nor hunters left, nor any sectarian community to fight for. Not a happy ending for this kahanee, is it?

commonsense # 38

what you are saying again a concept of Dhrama where people are judged based on talent and character and not based on way of worship. I wish your utterance comes true soonest people think.

But during this transitional period from current Chaos to your dream organised cosmos, I want to live with dignity in this world. I do not interefere in anybody's way of life and I expect rest of the world to reciprocate the same.

usually that doesn'nt happen specially in current circumestances and therefore I have to defend myself and my values against any agression.

I want to glorify the concept of `live and let live' and side by side condemn the Agressors.

Those who belive in `kill and get killed' and `my way is only true way and hence I have divine right to interefere in others affairs' are simply not acceptable.

Let's make this planet a better place to live. This goal can be achived by promoting `live and let live' and demoting `kill and get kileld' or `my way is only true way' type of thinking.

Man Singh Bhai,

Maybe, but then, maybe not. As in what I'm saying is what I'm saying and what I'm not saying is what I am not saying and you are free to read anything into what I am saying or not saying since I am not into religion if you know what I am saying or not saying while I pretend not to know what I am saying or not saying in response to what you said about what you thought I was saying or not saying.

Commonsense wrote

>>>>that he is indulging in what philosophers call the "genetic fallacy" ie. dismissing a theory due to its presumably tainted origins (ie. left-wing, right-wing) without paying attention to the actual content of the argument.<<<<

No it is a wrong misconception you have. No one dismisses it because left supports it or right supports it etc. I and others dismiss it for similar reasons as Anamika mentioned "not backed by archeological, literary or ethnographic evidence but relies on a few colonial scholars" and sadly the colonial scholars who invented this theory were not trained Historians or Archeologists. They had their own reasons and agenda for propagating AIT.

Problem is with Lefts staunch support of AIT and presenting it as "fact" and "proven" history. As I mentioned in my previous post as what the leftist "gang" did in 2005 and they want to propagate this AIT as "fact" in NCERT. Why is left trying to brainwash young minds with "half-truths" as acceptable historical facts? They can always mention it as "disputed" or present "both" sides. But they will never do that!

In fact it is the leftists and its supporters who indulge in "genetic fallacy" (including you). In India anything that does not prescribe to established "leftist" domain of "thoughts and convictions" is always "labeled" as "Hinduvta". Why is that? Or it is that in last two decades everyone has become a "renegade" and has somehow been "taken over" by Hinduvta.

It is Indian NCERT books controlled by gang of leftists that are full of "fallacies". Another example of "fallacy" - NCERT books mentions "Arabic Numerals" are they really "Arabic"????? Arabs themselves have always called them as "Hindu" numerals. But why are leftists bent over to still propagate them as "Arabic". And anyone who questions it is "labeled" as "Hinduvta". Does that mean that Hinduvta has influenced the Arabs themselves???????

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196109/zero.key.to.numbers.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921509.900.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/arabic/glossary.html

I guess who indulges in "genetic fallacies"!!!!!!!!!

PS another fallacy propagated by leftist gang in India is the Manusmriti as "Book of Hindu Law". What supporting historical or archeological proof are there to support it? But again "brain wash" young minds on "half-truths" using NCERT. When in fact as per Hindu system only shruti can be "law" and not "smriti". But I guess again it "genetic fallacy" on our part.

Bhai Commonsense , Gill has give a nice refernce. I am sure after reading this you will rethink about your calling ancinet Indian texts as `Tota maina ki kahani'.

Such ridiculing wordings were usually used by Communists in India for Indian civilisational things.

They used to say `India discovered Zero and hahahahaha remained at zero only' hahahaa.

I am sure a person like you with due intellectual ability will never be so shallow not to recognise the greatness of Indian knowledge relative to those timings(dun compare it with today's advanced knowledge).

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196109/zero.key.to.numbers.htm

"Far to the east, however, as early as 200 B.C., Hindu scholars were working with nine oddly shaped symbols and a dot that eventually would bring order out of a world of mathematical chaos. The dot and nine symbols were the earliest known forerunners of the numbers 0, 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Comprised of only ten symbols and based on multiples of ten, the Hindu system was easily learned and easily used. It was the dot that made the system unique because with the dot came a written expression of the place system of numbers--the system that allows the nine basic numbers in different combinations to represent every possible quantity and assigns a different value to the nine numbers depending on their place or position in a series."

Gill Sahab,

Once again, you have provided answers to your own rhetorical questions. Thankless as this task surely is I will offer a straight-laced response with a straight face.

I don't recall saying that either AIT is true or it is not. I am not an archaeologist and neither are you. What I did say is that I will follow experts in this field rather than those who are primarily professional politicians and ideologues. While the origins of AIT lie in colonialist thinking, contemporary professional historians and archaeologists who are looking at this issue are not primarily in the business of denigrating us. It might have been so in the past, but the larger issues of patterns of migration, intermixing of cultures and institutions animate these archaeologists. And they will continue to debate and will keep coming up with tentative conclusions. Either way, my point was that it in connection with issues we are facing now, it matters little to me personally whether AIT is correct or not. And by the way, one of the early proponents of the "Out of India" (the counter to AIT) was also a European by the name of Frederich Schlegel. Either way, I don't recall accepting AIT as fact or disputing it. I did say the jury is still out and will be out for a long time.

As for the Indian numerals being labelled as "Arabic" numerals: this mistake has to do with the fact it was transmitted to the Europeans through Arab sources. Hence even your Microsft Word calls it Arabic numerals, which of course is a mistake.

The larger question is: so what if AIT theory is true or not. Does my sense of self depend on it? Mine doesn't and if yours is riding on such issues, please go ahead and do something about it. And if there is a majority BJP government next time, ie when they don't have the excuse of giving in to the compulsion of not upsetting secular political allies, they should just re-write all the textbooks any which way they want. As simple as that.

Would I lose sleep over it? No, because I am a hybrid mongrel who cares not whether my ancestors came from East Africa, Central Europe, grew from the soil of India itself or actually descended from Mars. Would it matter to me if the numerals were suddenly re-branded as "Indian"? Would I be able to calculate differently then? Would it boost my sense of self and ego, everytime I saw the term "Indian numerals"? Not at all. Duniya mey aur bhi gham hai is kind ki pride key seva, is my attitude. To go further, it is this kind of hurt pride and the attempt to restore it that is a cause of many problems in this world. Would India or the whole world would be paradise on earth if everyone had all the nationalist, ethnic, communal, linguistic, gendered whatever, pride? Maybe, but I doubt it. At the end of the day, we are still back to the many other urgent issues that confront us.

If it makes you happy: If your sense of self is indeed so brittle, devoid of any self-confidence, let me publicly accept your propositions. Indeed, I am happy to promote them too.

1. The AIT is garbage, always was and always will be. It should be scrapped right away. All those who promote it should be censored; the archaeologists who make claim to come up with so-called evidence, should be rounded up, and perhaps should even be buried in the very sites they have dug up. They have literally been digging their own graves; poetic justice indeed for the years of hoodwinking us and sapping our self-confidence and justifiable nationalist pride. Once this happens, our self-confidence will be evident, and nobody in the world will ever be able to question our capabilities or capacities. We will walk with our heads help up high with a gait never witnessed before.

2. The so-called Arabic numerals should be re-branded Indian numerals. All Indian software engineers should from now on boycott any product that uses so-called Arabic numerals. They should not support such products that deliberately and painfully denigrate our nationalist pride. Any engineer who works on any software is ipso facto a colonialist lackey and should be denounced without any further ado. A global internet based petition should be sent to Microsoft and other companies. Bill Gates should not be allowed into India until he relents and publicly acknowledges his devious intention of undermining our self-confidence, our very maryada and sanskriti. But until Bill Gates visits India, there is no reason why we should not put pressure on our local software companies by boycotting them until they use Indian numerals.


3. I agree that in India, everything was fine as long as cultures, people and religions that emerged from its own soil were there. Lions played with deer, snakes danced with mongooses, scorpions refused to stin, and bees voluntarily deposited honey at our doorsteps. We had invented all the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics was right there in the Vedas and we had sent many men on the moon. There was no need for Sumanth and SIFFERS, as gender relations were perfect. There is no need to say that it was paradise on earth, since India was the true paradise that semitic religions used as the model for imagining paradise. Then came the invasions, first the Muslims, then the British. Confronted with an obvious superior civilization, they denigrated us since they were so jealous. Macaulay is only a minor example of it. Lackeys latched on to him for crumbs he and his ilk threw at us. The caste-system was invented by them to divide us etc. etc. etc. Even though colonialism is formally over, we have not shaken off the shackles of colonized mentalities. The prime suspects who continue to propagate this mentality are the leftist historians who propagate secularism to divide us, and the so-called intellectuals in so-called centres of excellence around the world, who humiliate us and taunt us by producing so-called intellectual discourses whose only purpose it is to keep us in mental servitude. They are helped by the internal enemies, those leftist historians who would do anything just to get a research grant, to travel abroad or simply to win approval from their former colonial masters. However, we are now aware of this fact, and this will not last too long. We cannot rest until we bring these culprits to heel and force historian Bipan Chandra to use his real name "Sud" that he discarded a long time ago in order to display his secular credentials and to heartlessly humiliate all the Suds.

I'm an ignoramus when it comes to history but, comm-sen, you made an almost paranthetical reference to archeologists, etc.

How abt evo biologists and geneticists (Cavalli Sforza, eg)? There's an archaeological record that could put speculation to rest. Does anyone do that in the subcontinent? Just curious. Have no political axes to grind.

Gill Sahab,

Now that you have gained one convert to your enlightened viewpoint, rest easy, sleep well. Don't be surprised if, when you wake up, it will be the same crap (I don't mean my posts, but maybe that too!!), different day...but I can keep emailing this to you everyday whenever you instant confidence inflation.

Repeat this to yourself everyday: Every idea, institution and thing that was ever invented or will ever be invented in the future is basically of Indian origin. We must take pre-emptive measures to ensure that this basic truth is never forgotten. I will work with you and Man Singh together to work out a fool-proof pre-emptive plan. In order to ensure that it is truly fool proof, I, as the only foolish person of this trio, will agree to simply listen and follow, rather than contribute any ideas.

And to anticipate your question: how do I get the time to dish out so much nonsense and bullshit. Well, you never asked, but since when has that stymied my verbal diarrhea? Well, I am on sabbatical this year, trying to master the Japanese language, so I have all the time in the world! By next year, I hope to complete a book that will decisively prove that the Japanese language too was invented in India. All of it, not just words like "dera" for temples or "namae" for our indigenous "naam". That ought to warm the cockles of your heart substantially further. If there's anything else I can do to constantly shore up your self-confidence and sense of self, please don't hesitate to let me know...it's free!

PH,

Oh sure Sforza at Stanford argues that such genetic markers cannot be used to prove the migration of peoples....I have posted stuff from him once, but on another topic ie. whether there are "real" races or not. His argument and a right one too, is of course that if one draws fine distinctions, people from towns a hundred miles away in Italy for example, and ostensibly Italian, will appear to be belong to "real races"...so genetic analysis cannot be used, according to him, to prove or disprove the migration into or out of India.

The wikipedia is not a fount of truth, far from it. But these two entries provide a reasonably good account (not true account, that's for prophets!) of the current research on both scenarios ie. migration into or out of India. As you or anyone can see, it is a minefield of theories, interpretations, tentative evidence etc. such that it is unlikely that one fine day somebody will conclusive say Ha, this did happen or did not happen. In any case, these archaelogists, populations biologists, physical anthropologists are pursuing these questions for a variety of intellectual reasons, as well as for reasons of getting more research grants, stronger careers etc. and not for denigrating or praising India. If you click on the links below, you can see that Cavalli Sforza's ideas are discussed too. So, there is an intellectual approach to this issue, which is also of course driven by ideological frameworks, but these frameworks are internal to the debates within the community of scholars. And of course there are rivalries, based on the usual factors: professional jealousies, pet theories, vindictiveness etc...the usual that all of us who work in universities are exposed to. Despite all these peroblems, I would rather listen to what they have to say, rather than political ideologues who have a lot resting on whether this theory is valid or not. For me, it really does not matter whether it is true or not! The link below and a brief relevant cut/paste quote about the politics of it all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory

From the wiki article above:

""Political debate
The debate over such a migration, and the accompanying influx of elements of Vedic religion from Central Asia is politically charged and hotly debated in India. Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) organizations, especially, remain opposed to the concept, for political and religious reasons. Outside India, the perceived political overtones of the theory are not pronounced, and it is discussed in the larger framework of Indo-Iranian and Indo-European expansion.""

PH:

The brief quote from Cavalli Sforza in the wiki article I was looking for:

""Cavalli-Sforza (2000) states that "archeology can verify the occurrence of migration only in exceptional cases".""

The larger point is that this "theory" cannot be conclusively pro