Politics Of Indian History -2

[Guest]

I don't understand this - I guess logic is beyond the comprehension of "mere engineers" or "mere physicans" or "mere bank employees" (as Farmer or Vinay Lal would put it). Maybe some here can help:


In interview with Marxist historian K N Pannikker
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>How do students of history know what is real history if the historians start quarrelling among themselves and start propagating their own versions of history? </i>
A historian is known by a methodology which he uses. It may be biased because no historian is without a bias. You know a methodology itself is biased in a way. And those historians who do not use certain methods of history are no historians at all. <b>I, for instance, use the Marxist method. I look at the social evolution and the movement of history in terms of Marxist methodology. And, I use the method of Marxism in understanding and analysing history. </b>

<i>As you say, you are biased towards Marxism... </i>
(Immediately) I am not biased towards Marxism. <b>I believe that Marxism is the scientific method to understand history. </b>

<i>You say you use Marxism as a scientific method to understand history. What is wrong if the Rightists use Hindutva to understand history? </i>
I don't think there is anything wrong with people using another methodology to define history. <b>But there is nothing called a Hindutva methodology. There is nothing like a religious methodology in history. </b>If somebody uses empiricism, it's okay, because it is a method.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
source or rediff