05-07-2006, 05:45 PM
Ancient Indian history is very much intertwined with religion, mysticism, mythology and spirituality. It is difficult separating them from each other. Thus, what tends to happen, the contributions made by the ancient Indians tend to be dismissed as religious - Hindu.
For example, many don't want to believe in the Indian historical events, such as the Mahabharata. There is perhaps good reason, as the Mahabharata does mention a sophisticated urban society, underwater kingdoms, human cloning, weapons that yeild the power of modern day nuclear weapons and flying vehicles. Although this is recorded as Indian history, few are prepared to accept it in it's entirety.
While most rationalists just consider it a fiction, some make a compromise, and accept it as a fictionalized historical event.
We are quite selective when it comes to accepting parts of Indian history. For instance, we might accept that Indians manufactured steel, but will stop short of accepting Indians manufactured aeroplanes. We might accept that the Indians devised the theory of atoms, but will stop short of accepting that they had contributed quantum theory and relativity. We might accept that the Indians did have scientific thought, but will stop short of accepting that they were technological.
For some, even the notion that Indians manufactured steel, devised the thoery of atoms, and had scientiftic thought is dubious.
So what we know of ancient Indian history becomes a matter of belief; a subjective matter. This dearth of objectivity is why ancient Indian history is not treated seriously by academics.
What do you believe?
For example, many don't want to believe in the Indian historical events, such as the Mahabharata. There is perhaps good reason, as the Mahabharata does mention a sophisticated urban society, underwater kingdoms, human cloning, weapons that yeild the power of modern day nuclear weapons and flying vehicles. Although this is recorded as Indian history, few are prepared to accept it in it's entirety.
While most rationalists just consider it a fiction, some make a compromise, and accept it as a fictionalized historical event.
We are quite selective when it comes to accepting parts of Indian history. For instance, we might accept that Indians manufactured steel, but will stop short of accepting Indians manufactured aeroplanes. We might accept that the Indians devised the theory of atoms, but will stop short of accepting that they had contributed quantum theory and relativity. We might accept that the Indians did have scientific thought, but will stop short of accepting that they were technological.
For some, even the notion that Indians manufactured steel, devised the thoery of atoms, and had scientiftic thought is dubious.
So what we know of ancient Indian history becomes a matter of belief; a subjective matter. This dearth of objectivity is why ancient Indian history is not treated seriously by academics.
What do you believe?