ICHR member calls Indian Leftists Jihad-friendly

[temp1994]

The Internet has bred intellectual retards.

Why?

Is it because you have lost your captive audience, old man.

 

[Sky lord]

Why?

Is it because you have lost your captive audience, old man.

Hey guys lets not all pile on him

However I am still waiting for his arguments other than " I am too smart to talk to you "

I for one am completely ready to be floored by his brilliance and the size of his brain, but right now all I see is a laundry list of state famines.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

As far as I can make out he has not said anything at all. Stringing together a bunch of unrelated facts is not helpful. No doubt his mother used to wrap him up in mufflers and hot water bottles and clap when he spouted all the state capitals but to make a point it is necessary to string together three facts with a plausible narrative and without mocking your audience.

Mr. Mukherji was not publishing a paper genius, he was stating an opinion of his own.

 

[Sky lord]

Mr. Mukherji was not publishing a paper genius, he was stating an opinion of his own.

My bad, I thought you were talking about Mr. shearer 's opinion not the Opinion piece..... I caught myself after I posted the piece. I'll go edit it out . Sorry again.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

My bad, I thought you were talking about Mr. shearer 's opinion not the Opinion piece..... I caught myself after I posted the piece. I'll go edit it out . Sorry again.

Na crap happens, me sorry too.

As a result they have been critical of religions and as it would be in the Indian context, mostly hinduism. Thats where they made mistake and the historian took that opportunity to malign the whole lot of Leftists.

Not true. He mentioned 'with exceptions'. In any case a review was long overdue. At least more POVs are always to be welcomed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Actually I agree with couple of points in the article. I studied from CBSE and passed out a decade ago. In our history, we had chapters after chapters of Mughals, Delhi Sultanates and the British. When I was growing up, for me and most of my fellow classmates (atleast the ones interested in history) we had a view of our History starting from 1000 AD and ending with Indias independence, with a tinge of small events of our ancient rulers/ civilisations.

If not for the internet and preparation for other competitive exams (UPSC, RBI, etc.), we would have never been able to grasp the importance of our earlier kingdoms like the Guptas or the Satavahanas or even the Marathas.

For some of our resident liberals @Joe Shearer @hinduguy (what an ironical name btw), we were told the emphasis was on medieval India as it shaped our contemporary history. Now, I have a basic few questions regarding this viewpoint...

1) Even if this reason stands, why aren't the kids are taught a whole Chapter of the Marathas and their reconquest of India from the Mughals, or for that matter the Sikhs and their centuries of struggle against the Mughals? Even prior to 1500, there were so many non muslim rulers (Assam, Orrissa, South India). Didn't they belong to medieval period?

2) Why is it that our history starts from the Islamic conquests of our land? People say the prior history is not that important in today's world. Why not? majority of Indians are Hindus and yes, those historical events are as much important as the Arabic civilisations are for our secular brigade.

@SarthakGanguly @Biplab Bijay @Nicky G @jaatram

THE MYTH OF MUSLIM EMPIRE IN INDIA

Fact is, our history has been hijaked by nehruvian and left leaning self declared secularists like the ones we have on PDF. But in this internet age where information cannot remain confined to the shelves of libraries, more and more people will voice their concerns regarding this.

LOL.

Your adventures with the CBSE curriculum are unfortunate. However, a study of Indian history sometimes starts (in my opinion, incorrectly) with the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Generally, in traditional divisions of history, three separate sections considered include ancient history, from the oldest records to generally some time around the beginning of the thirteenth century, 1206 being a frequently used date.

There are those who argue that the next period 1206 to 1707 being considered as mediaeval history is inaccurate, and that this represents only the late, the developed, matured period of mediaeval history, there being an earlier, equally important period of transition. These historians take points of time such as the seventh century as a start, the thirteenth century as the mid-point, the division between 'early' mediaeval and 'late' mediaeval, and the seventeenth century as the end.

There is no dearth of history for the earlier years; why the peculiarities foisted on a generation by some bizarre choice of subjects should be taken as the standard, canonical version of Indian history is beyond comprehension.

The Internet is the least reliable of sources. It consists of a series of prejudices repeated by a series of biased and untrained commentators. There is ultimately no substitute for peer review.

Now for some specifics:

For some of our resident liberals @Joe Shearer @hinduguy (what an ironical name btw), we were told the emphasis was on medieval India as it shaped our contemporary history. Now, I have a basic few questions regarding this viewpoint...

Your syntax is as idiosyncratic as your views on education. Is it your case that @Joe Shearer was told that the emphasis was on mediaeval India, etc., etc., or is it your case that @Joe Shearer was doing the telling? Neither is correct. I was neither told such a silly thing, nor have I told anyone so.

Even if this reason stands, why aren't the kids are taught a whole Chapter of the Marathas and their reconquest of India from the Mughals, or for that matter the Sikhs and their centuries of struggle against the Mughals?

That is a question for the people who decided the curriculum for the CBSE, not for us. As far as I was concerned, I have had a full introduction to Maratha history, right back at undergraduate level, beginning with Sircar, and ending with the annals of the wars against the British. So, too, about the Sikhs.

Even prior to 1500, there were so many non muslim rulers (Assam, Orrissa, South India). Didn't they belong to medieval period?

This is a criticism that can be made even of a full-scale undergraduate or a post-graduate programme. The emphasis tends to be on north India, and on Delhi, in all major histories; many of the provincial histories are dealt with in a skimpy manner, either due to lack of materials, or due to an emphasis on what is deemed to be the mainstream. There are few general histories which deal in a satisfactory manner with the Ahoms, their origins, their entry into India, their conquests, their organisation, and their cultural legacy. There are even fewer that deal with Orissa or with south India in a satisfactory manner.

The reference to 1500 is misleading. 1526 marked Babur's incursion; the earlier period of the Sultanate saw as great a penetration of the peninsula or of the north-east, or as little, considering that it was only with Aurangzeb that the Mughals pressed on into the Deccan, and considering that both the Khiljis and the Tughlaqs had penetrated deep into the Deccan. Incidentally, those historians who believe that the period before 1206 saw 'early' mediaeval India would be baffled at your efforts to drag in Hindu kings and dynasties into the 'mediaeval' period: it is a given.

Why is it that our history starts from the Islamic conquests of our land? People say the prior history is not that important in today's world. Why not? majority of Indians are Hindus and yes, those historical events are as much important as the Arabic civilisations are for our secular brigade.

Ever heard of the straw horse argument? Where one sets up a phony argument for the pleasure of demolishing it?

Who argued that our history starts from the Islamic conquests of our land? I should like to know. I would be surprised if it is someone responsible on PDF. If it is an external argument, fought elsewhere and brought in kicking and screaming here, it can only be described as playing to the gallery.

It is a pity that your education in history did not continue after school.

Hence blame is assigned to people who did nothing to avoid it but instead chose paths that exacerbated the problem.

Well, yes, precisely. Your point being?

You seem to have lost track of the fact that the question of famines was brought in to illustrate that dips in demographic growth occurred as much in British times as they did earlier.

Why?

Is it because you have lost your captive audience, old man.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that.

My audience on Internet, on PDF, for instance, will remain long after an Internet Hindu here and there has vanished. I had the regulars' attention before, I have it now, and I will continue to have it as long as I am able to bring a logical, rational point of view to discussions.

On the other hand, will some of you exist in three months?

As for the audience in my classes, my ratings continue to be the highest in the department, although there are higher ratings in the university. I'm all right, Jack.

You dont know the logic, do you ?

The Indian Secular logic says :
Christian Missionaries converting Hindus : Everyone has the right to practice and preach their religion freely. Bad Hindus, Bad Sanghi etc are communal and opposing it.

Ghar Wapsi : Bad Hindus, Bad Sanghis are converting Christians and muslims into Hinduism. How dare they ? Bad Hindus, Communal Sanghis.

So get used to it . Ok ?



You will not get any where. Indian Seculars will reply with 2002 and 1984.[quote\]


Only Indian seculars are true intelligent people.

Silly statement.

Secularism is not a measure of intelligence. There is no causal relationship. While secular people may be intelligent people, it does not mean that people are intelligent because they are secular. Or that they are unintelligent because they are not......

Because this law is in Accordance with true Indian secular logic. You are a bad Hindu, bad sanghi.


He is saying that since more people have died because of natural calamities, we must forget the atrocities done by the invaders. It is just the same way Pakistani people say. They say since more people are dying because of car accident everyday, terrorism is not a big issue.

Umm, no.

The dip in demographics noted by the anonymous analyst, who is so indistinctly remembered but whose conclusions are nevertheless apparently of binding force, is no proof of massacres. Such a dip in demographics is noticeable due to other, natural forces,

Proof of massacres having taken place is available on historical record when it occurred. Trying to prove that they happened through statistical sleight of hand is not very good history, or anything else.

Apart from a little amusement, what one gets from these self-important little struts about a public platform is that most Indians are brought up bereft of more than elementary education in the social sciences, especially in history. I have no idea what school text-books say about Indian history; my school subjects were science. As an historian who teaches history (some of the time), l am keenly aware, on the other hand, of the huge number of historians who are not Marxian in their historiography, ranging right down from Sircar to recent times. One's own guru-parampara vividly illustrates the point:

Kuruvilla Zachariah (not Marxian)

Susobhan Sarkar (Marxist)

Ashin DasGupta (not Marxian)

Look at the plethora of Indian history writing, led by Sugato Bose, filled out by Mridu Rai and Chitralekha Zutshi, who are not Marxian. What is the Parivar groaning about?

I suspect it is a lack of its own historians.

 

[fallstuff]

I would ask the the RSS fan boys to give it a a rest. You are literally engaging a person with a history major, with a knack for history !!

 

[jaatram]

Apart from a little amusement, what one gets from these self-important little struts about a public platform is that most Indians are brought up bereft of more than elementary education in the social sciences, especially in history. I have no idea what school text-books say about Indian history; my school subjects were science. As an historian who teaches history (some of the time), l am keenly aware, on the other hand, of the huge number of historians who are not Marxian in their historiography, ranging right down from Sircar to recent times. One's own guru-parampara vividly illustrates the point:

Kuruvilla Zachariah (not Marxian)

Susobhan Sarkar (Marxist)

Ashin DasGupta (not Marxian)

Look at the plethora of Indian history writing, led by Sugato Bose, filled out by Mridu Rai and Chitralekha Zutshi, who are not Marxian. What is the Parivar groaning about?

I suspect it is a lack of its own historians.

As an historian, how would you describe Missionary activities in India since independence? Would you tell your students about how Miracle healing parties were sent out to dupe gullible poor tribal people in accepting Jesus as their Savior?

 

[Sky lord]

LOL.

Your adventures with the CBSE curriculum are unfortunate. However, a study of Indian history sometimes starts (in my opinion, incorrectly) with the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Generally, in traditional divisions of history, three separate sections considered include ancient history, from the oldest records to generally some time around the beginning of the thirteenth century, 1206 being a frequently used date.

There are those who argue that the next period 1206 to 1707 being considered as mediaeval history is inaccurate, and that this represents only the late, the developed, matured period of mediaeval history, there being an earlier, equally important period of transition. These historians take points of time such as the seventh century as a start, the thirteenth century as the mid-point, the division between 'early' mediaeval and 'late' mediaeval, and the seventeenth century as the end.

There is no dearth of history for the earlier years; why the peculiarities foisted on a generation by some bizarre choice of subjects should be taken as the standard, canonical version of Indian history is beyond comprehension.

The Internet is the least reliable of sources. It consists of a series of prejudices repeated by a series of biased and untrained commentators. There is ultimately no substitute for peer review.

Now for some specifics:



Your syntax is as idiosyncratic as your views on education. Is it your case that @Joe Shearer was told that the emphasis was on mediaeval India, etc., etc., or is it your case that @Joe Shearer was doing the telling? Neither is correct. I was neither told such a silly thing, nor have I told anyone so.



That is a question for the people who decided the curriculum for the CBSE, not for us. As far as I was concerned, I have had a full introduction to Maratha history, right back at undergraduate level, beginning with Sircar, and ending with the annals of the wars against the British. So, too, about the Sikhs.



This is a criticism that can be made even of a full-scale undergraduate or a post-graduate programme. The emphasis tends to be on north India, and on Delhi, in all major histories; many of the provincial histories are dealt with in a skimpy manner, either due to lack of materials, or due to an emphasis on what is deemed to be the mainstream. There are few general histories which deal in a satisfactory manner with the Ahoms, their origins, their entry into India, their conquests, their organisation, and their cultural legacy. There are even fewer that deal with Orissa or with south India in a satisfactory manner.

The reference to 1500 is misleading. 1526 marked Babur's incursion; the earlier period of the Sultanate saw as great a penetration of the peninsula or of the north-east, or as little, considering that it was only with Aurangzeb that the Mughals pressed on into the Deccan, and considering that both the Khiljis and the Tughlaqs had penetrated deep into the Deccan. Incidentally, those historians who believe that the period before 1206 saw 'early' mediaeval India would be baffled at your efforts to drag in Hindu kings and dynasties into the 'mediaeval' period: it is a given.



Ever heard of the straw horse argument? Where one sets up a phony argument for the pleasure of demolishing it?

Who argued that our history starts from the Islamic conquests of our land? I should like to know. I would be surprised if it is someone responsible on PDF. If it is an external argument, fought elsewhere and brought in kicking and screaming here, it can only be described as playing to the gallery.

It is a pity that your education in history did not continue after school.



Well, yes, precisely. Your point being?

You seem to have lost track of the fact that the question of famines was brought in to illustrate that dips in demographic growth occurred as much in British times as they did earlier.



Oh, I wouldn't worry about that.

My audience on Internet, on PDF, for instance, will remain long after an Internet Hindu here and there has vanished. I had the regulars' attention before, I have it now, and I will continue to have it as long as I am able to bring a logical, rational point of view to discussions.

On the other hand, will some of you exist in three months?

As for the audience in my classes, my ratings continue to be the highest in the department, although there are higher ratings in the university. I'm all right, Jack.



Apart from a little amusement, what one gets from these self-important little struts about a public platform is that most Indians are brought up bereft of more than elementary education in the social sciences, especially in history. I have no idea what school text-books say about Indian history; my school subjects were science. As an historian who teaches history (some of the time), l am keenly aware, on the other hand, of the huge number of historians who are not Marxian in their historiography, ranging right down from Sircar to recent times. One's own guru-parampara vividly illustrates the point:

Kuruvilla Zachariah (not Marxian)

Susobhan Sarkar (Marxist)

Ashin DasGupta (not Marxian)

Look at the plethora of Indian history writing, led by Sugato Bose, filled out by Mridu Rai and Chitralekha Zutshi, who are not Marxian. What is the Parivar groaning about?

I suspect it is a lack of its own historians.

Hmmm.... A very marginal improvement in courtesy, not much but discernible nevertheless


So you were asked 2 questions by @Tridibans on why we concentrate too much on North Indian history and you said "ask the board and maybe it's because it is of more interest to a larger number of people" . The other question on why we started from a certain point of time, you said was a straw man argument. OK fair enough, you also felt that information available on the internet was prejudiced, so do you feel that maybe what gets selected for the school curriculum could also be prejudiced? That is all that is being said here, that there is some cherry picking of what goes on to the syllabus. What goes on to the school syllabus is decided by both politicians and academics. Could it be at all possible that they have their own slant on what to cover and what not to? Or is that simply out of the question for you ?

Sorry will continue my post at a later time, having some trouble with the internet

 

[Joe Shearer]

As an historian, how would you describe Missionary activities in India since independence? Would you tell your students about how Miracle healing parties were sent out to dupe gullible poor tribal people in accepting Jesus as their Savior?

Of course.

And I would put it in the context of European attitudes to India and Indian culture and Indian society, from the early adulation and incredulous disbelief that there was so much wealth of knowledge and information, to the increasing pressure to represent these same soaring developments of the human intellect, as they were seen in the past, as nothing but a crude and depraved series of perversions, distortions of thought, philosophy and social structure. I would tell my students about how the older generations took to Indian ways and customs, modes of dress and food, and developed emotional relationships with Indian women, and how the memsahib, coming into India in increasing numbers, was among the several influences, as well as missionaries, who led the increasing drawing apart of European from Indian.

Post-independence missionary activity is a linear continuation of what happened before independence.

History is not taught in newspaper headlines.

Hmmm.... A very marginal improvement in courtesy, not much but discernible nevertheless


So you were asked 2 questions by @Tridibans on why we concentrate too much on North Indian history and you said "ask the board and maybe it's because it is of more interest to a larger number of people" . The other question on why we started from a certain point of time, you said was a straw man argument. OK fair enough, you also felt that information available on the internet was prejudiced, so do you feel that maybe what gets selected for the school curriculum could also be prejudiced? That is all that is being said here, that there is some cherry picking of what goes on to the syllabus. What goes on to the school syllabus is decided by both politicians and academics. Could it be at all possible that they have their own slant on what to cover and what not to? Or is that simply out of the question for you ?

Sorry will continue my post at a later time, having some trouble with the internet

Courtesy was never the question; the equipment of those engaged in this conversation was. The arguments trotted out by you in the first instance were incredibly jejune, and I saw no reason to disguise my amusement. That may have seemed to you to be discourteous, perfectly understandably, as no doubt you expected a respectful reception.

My answers were certainly not what you make them out to be. Why the board decided what it decided is not known to us; we can only make educated guesses.

For the excessive emphasis on north India, and on imperial politics, my answer was that provincial and regional histories are difficult to 'do', historically; there is not enough information. Plus there is the need to compress, to do a lot within a limited amount of time.

For the beginnings of the teaching with the Muslim period, rather than the mediaeval period, we have to thank the traditions in teaching history, traditions now under increasing criticism. Plus there is the need to compress, to do a lot within a limited amount of time.

That last applies to my answers as well. If this were a 4 credit course programme, I should have taken time to present and to display for closer inspection the British historiography, that for the first time split Indian history into the absurd sub-sections of the Hindu period, the Muslim period and the British period. A split which does not yield a little amusement to the more disillusioned and detached observer, who observes the religious right use precisely the same sub-divisions, merely shifting the emphasis to the Hindu period. How shallow and derivative can people get?

As for school education, and what the politicians and government ordained, I teach undergraduates and post-graduate students; I have to suffer the consequences of the murderous assault on the educational system that has left most UP Board graduates, for instance, impossible to teach. With so little influence on the system, it becomes painful even to comment on the general architecture of education in India.

I doubt they have a slant. They only have mediocrity and stupidity in monumental quantities.

I would ask the the RSS fan boys to give it a a rest. You are literally engaging a person with a history major, with a knack for history !!

You are fighting a losing battle. This takes place every three to six month, as the fresh crop of Internet Hindus comes in.

I would ask the the RSS fan boys to give it a a rest. You are literally engaging a person with a history major, with a knack for history !!

I also happen to teach history.

 

[jaatram]

Of course.

And I would put it in the context of European attitudes to India and Indian culture and Indian society, from the early adulation and incredulous disbelief that there was so much wealth of knowledge and information, to the increasing pressure to represent these same soaring developments of the human intellect, as they were seen in the past, as nothing but a crude and depraved series of perversions, distortions of thought, philosophy and social structure. I would tell my students about how the older generations took to Indian ways and customs, modes of dress and food, and developed emotional relationships with Indian women, and how the memsahib, coming into India in increasing numbers, was among the several influences, as well as missionaries, who led the increasing drawing apart of European from Indian.

History is not taught in newspaper headlines.

And that part in bold is what an average Internet hindu or Sanghi is deprived of, they hang on to every little thing they can grab on to from internet and try to peddle it as far as they can. One can't deny the fact that narrative somewhere has veered off the path (how far is debatable) in the text books. But certain things have to be changed to bring about the course correction. A healthy debate is what is required among the historians before changes are introduced. But some changes are required.

thank you for the frank reply. Apologies for trying to put my question in a provoking manner.

 

[fallstuff]

Of course.

And I would put it in the context of European attitudes to India and Indian culture and Indian society, from the early adulation and incredulous disbelief that there was so much wealth of knowledge and information, to the increasing pressure to represent these same soaring developments of the human intellect, as they were seen in the past, as nothing but a crude and depraved series of perversions, distortions of thought, philosophy and social structure. I would tell my students about how the older generations took to Indian ways and customs, modes of dress and food, and developed emotional relationships with Indian women, and how the memsahib, coming into India in increasing numbers, was among the several influences, as well as missionaries, who led the increasing drawing apart of European from Indian.

Post-independence missionary activity is a linear continuation of what happened before independence.

History is not taught in newspaper headlines.



Courtesy was never the question; the equipment of those engaged in this conversation was. The arguments trotted out by you in the first instance were incredibly jejune, and I saw no reason to disguise my amusement. That may have seemed to you to be discourteous, perfectly understandably, as no doubt you expected a respectful reception.

My answers were certainly not what you make them out to be. Why the board decided what it decided is not known to us; we can only make educated guesses.

For the excessive emphasis on north India, and on imperial politics, my answer was that provincial and regional histories are difficult to 'do', historically; there is not enough information. Plus there is the need to compress, to do a lot within a limited amount of time.

For the beginnings of the teaching with the Muslim period, rather than the mediaeval period, we have to thank the traditions in teaching history, traditions now under increasing criticism. Plus there is the need to compress, to do a lot within a limited amount of time.

That last applies to my answers as well. If this were a 4 credit course programme, I should have taken time to present and to display for closer inspection the British historiography, that for the first time split Indian history into the absurd sub-sections of the Hindu period, the Muslim period and the British period. A split which does not yield a little amusement to the more disillusioned and detached observer, who observes the religious right use precisely the same sub-divisions, merely shifting the emphasis to the Hindu period. How shallow and derivative can people get?

As for school education, and what the politicians and government ordained, I teach undergraduates and post-graduate students; I have to suffer the consequences of the murderous assault on the educational system that has left most UP Board graduates, for instance, impossible to teach. With so little influence on the system, it becomes painful even to comment on the general architecture of education in India.

I doubt they have a slant. They only have mediocrity and stupidity in monumental quantities.



You are fighting a losing battle. This takes place every three to six month, as the fresh crop of Internet Hindus comes in.



I also happen to teach history.

Well sir your efforts are certainly commendable, even though at times it may seem not enough against a tsunami of these boys ( most are ) !!!

 

[magudi]

And that part in bold is what an average Internet hindu or Sanghi is deprived of, they hang on to every little thing they can grab on to from internet and try to peddle it as far as they can. One can't deny the fact that narrative somewhere has veered off the path (how far is debatable) in the text books. But certain things have to be changed to bring about the course correction. A healthy debate is what is required among the historians before changes are introduced. But some changes are required.

thank you for the frank reply. Apologies for trying to put my question in a provoking manner.

What healthy debate? There hasn't been even an attempt to hear our narrative by the liberal poster boys out there over the past 5-6 decades. Need of the hour is to promote free thinking independent research without any left or right bias provided that's possible at all.

I would ask the the RSS fan boys to give it a a rest. You are literally engaging a person with a history major, with a knack for history !!

RSS fanboys are here to start no matter what
Its the birth right and sheer responsibility of liberatis alone , however small in number , to engage with them and restore what they perceive as 'balance and sanity' to the debate.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And that part in bold is what an average Internet hindu or Sanghi is deprived of, they hang on to every little thing they can grab on to from internet and try to peddle it as far as they can. One can't deny the fact that narrative somewhere has veered off the path (how far is debatable) in the text books. But certain things have to be changed to bring about the course correction. A healthy debate is what is required among the historians before changes are introduced. But some changes are required.

thank you for the frank reply. Apologies for trying to put my question in a provoking manner.

A response with many facets. Let us consider the issues seriatim.

And that part in bold is what an average Internet hindu or Sanghi is deprived of, they hang on to every little thing they can grab on to from internet and try to peddle it as far as they can.

But why? Why must we, as a civilisation, as an agglomeration of cultures, as an aggregation of polities, as a sovereign nation be either dependent or counter-dependent on the two-centuries old praise of others - of dead, white men? Is it not possible to study ourselves, using the tools and methods evolved and refined over millennia, to ask ourselves the worthwhile questions that need to be asked, and seek with integrity and dispassionate minds but passionately engaged psyches the answers to these?

What I find hilarious is that the average Sangh Parivar mobista is frantic in a search for an occidental, a western mode of expression, and, even more, in western facts and factoids. Their very arms and ammunition give the lie to their proud assertions, frequently repeated with increasing bombast, of intellectual autonomy. Only some of this is due to the dead hand of English. Even in their own languages, these retrogressives have to use the tropes of the western intellectual: they have none of their own.

One can't deny the fact that narrative somewhere has veered off the path (how far is debatable) in the text books.

From what I have read on this thread, the people setting the social sciences curriculum should answer with extended and severe penal servitude.

But certain things have to be changed to bring about the course correction. A healthy debate is what is required among the historians before changes are introduced. But some changes are required.

This is among the things that bring tears to my eyes - tears of laughter - and leave me helpless on the floor, with my family looking on with concern and worry.

The healthy debate is healthy and on-going; history is not practised by Marxists and Marxians alone. There is a vigorous interaction between various schools. It is quite true that some practitioners of stellar quality happened to be Marxists uniformly and thereby dominated, overshadowed the profession. It is also true that others had quietly gone about their work, published their research and established a solid layer of diverse elements, a layer that has never felt intimidated by the Marxist ubermensch.

Whatever change is required is best done through peer review, not by majority thronging to one side or the other on the Internet.

thank you for the frank reply.

I had rather hoped for the adjective 'honest'. However, I will gladly settle for the undeserved and stronger 'frank'. Praise is so hard to come by that even a hint of appreciation fills the morning air with fragrance.

Well sir your efforts are certainly commendable, even though at times it may seem not enough against a tsunami of these boys ( most are ) !!!

It appears, from past experience, that tsunamis recede at approximately the same speed as that at which they surge forward.

What healthy debate? There hasn't been even an attempt to hear our narrative by the liberal poster boys out there over the past 5-6 decades. Need of the hour is to promote free thinking independent research without any left or right bias provided that's possible at all.

There has been no narrative to hear! What we have instead is a series of whines and complaints about not being heard. You have to supply the narrative to be heard first, before complaining bitterly of never being heard.

RSS fanboys are here to start no matter what
Its the birth right and sheer responsibility of liberatis alone , however small in number , to engage with them and restore what they perceive as 'balance and sanity' to the debate.

Liberati? Liberatis?

The debate does not exist. It exists only on the Internet, on public platforms where idiots from the ranks of the RSS fanboys make a collective mockery of our country by explaining the aerodynamics of the Pushpak Vimana, and in the minds of the mindless.

The debate that does exist is in learned journals, and it is vigorous, challenging and iconoclastic. We do not find wearing underwear of a particular hue a necessity to participate in that.

 

[magudi]

A response with many facets. Let us consider the issues seriatim.



But why? Why must we, as a civilisation, as an agglomeration of cultures, as an aggregation of polities, as a sovereign nation be either dependent or counter-dependent on the two-centuries old praise of others - of dead, white men? Is it not possible to study ourselves, using the tools and methods evolved and refined over millennia, to ask ourselves the worthwhile questions that need to be asked, and seek with integrity and dispassionate minds but passionately engaged psyches the answers to these?

What I find hilarious is that the average Sangh Parivar mobista is frantic in a search for an occidental, a western mode of expression, and, even more, in western facts and factoids. Their very arms and ammunition give the lie to their proud assertions, frequently repeated with increasing bombast, of intellectual autonomy. Only some of this is due to the dead hand of English. Even in their own languages, these retrogressives have to use the tropes of the western intellectual: they have none of their own.



From what I have read on this thread, the people setting the social sciences curriculum should answer with extended and severe penal servitude.



This is among the things that bring tears to my eyes - tears of laughter - and leave me helpless on the floor, with my family looking on with concern and worry.

The healthy debate is healthy and on-going; history is not practised by Marxists and Marxians alone. There is a vigorous interaction between various schools. It is quite true that some practitioners of stellar quality happened to be Marxists uniformly and thereby dominated, overshadowed the profession. It is also true that others had quietly gone about their work, published their research and established a solid layer of diverse elements, a layer that has never felt intimidated by the Marxist ubermensch.

Whatever change is required is best done through peer review, not by majority thronging to one side or the other on the Internet.



I had rather hoped for the adjective 'honest'. However, I will gladly settle for the undeserved and stronger 'frank'. Praise is so hard to come by that even a hint of appreciation fills the morning air with fragrance.



It appears, from past experience, that tsunamis recede at approximately the same speed as that at which they surge forward.



There has been no narrative to hear! What we have instead is a series of whines and complaints about not being heard. You have to supply the narrative to be heard first, before complaining bitterly of never being heard.



Liberati? Liberatis?

The debate does not exist. It exists only on the Internet, on public platforms where idiots from the ranks of the RSS fanboys make a collective mockery of our country by explaining the aerodynamics of the Pushpak Vimana, and in the minds of the mindless.

The debate that does exist is in learned journals, and it is vigorous, challenging and iconoclastic. We do not find wearing underwear of a particular hue a necessity to participate in that.

Yes sir exactly my point - saffron chaddis are making a mockery of us all . I hate to think this'll continue and may even get worse in time to come . I hope honest and scholarly people like you speak up against these morons and keep showing em mirror to deflated their self inflated ego