11-24-2006, 05:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Nov 23 2006, 05:00 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 23 2006, 05:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fictional market's been cornered by Marxists historians and Western Indologists. So, let's stick please with facts and leave role playing to the 'experts'.
[right][snapback]61168[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are getting deeper and deeper. Maybe thats the great thing about a discussion, you question each other and together get into a deeper meaning of things.
Thanks Mr. Ram for giving me this term "counterfactual" for the arguments put across earlier. Viren, I have a my own view of history, which you may not agree with. Thats where all my arguments come from. Hence let me put across the way I look at history. To start by giving an example. There are a whole lot of events that occur today. Dozens of TV news channels and other media bombard us with information 24x7. So necessarily there is no dearth of sources of information. Yet take any issue even with all the facts available, a dozen commentators on the subject will give wholly different views. Say the question is "Who is responsible for Indian cricket team's debacle at Durban two days back". The match broadcast live to crores of cricket fans across the country. W.r.t to cricket even the average man in the street has an opinion. With everybody having the same facts with them, you speak to a dozen people, you will get as many different opinions. This is with regards to something happening live, with many sources of information, different commentators having analyzed it from every angle possible. The point is you cannot give a definite prognosis, that this happened because of this, that this person was responsible or X is this kind of man. I admire Sourav Ganguly, there are many who like him, but as many who detest him. The information or facts available to those who like him or detest him is not very different. Yet is produces antipodal reactions, so much so that any discusssion on such issues becomes very emotional. Another point is when we discuss any issue, we need to understand that different people will have different points of view based on their background, education and biases. We all have biases. Maybe as Mr Ram says I have a colonialist bias and maybe you can bring me to a balanced view of things, but please be open to the fact that I can do the same to you and accept it as such. Otherwise we'll find each other a wall of rock.
With so many facts available we still cannot be definite about the present, then how with less amount and more vagueness in information, we can make definite claims about the past. When we quote sources of history, should we also not look at what kind of biases the writer had and how do we adjust it to interpret history. Lets say a thousand years from now, there is no other source of information on the "Kargil War" save Musharraf's autobiography. And if people start quoting it verbatim, without trying to understand Musharraf's bais and interests, then it would make a hero out of Musharraf and a villian out of India. I hope I am not baised on this, but based on what I know of Kargil War, Musharrafs book at least in the Kargil section (from what I know whats written in it thru media) is mostly a bunch of lies. Secondly by removing interpretation from the study of history, I believe you are removing something very essential to the study of history. Take Achyuta Deva Raya, the step brother of Krishna Deva Raya. His reign over Vijayanagar was during a tumultous period. There can be so many different interpretations of his personality based on the same facts. Some people can sympathetically view him as a courageous, capable person braving tough circumstances, others can see him at best as incompetent. I also think we should not let the "fictional" (I would put it as interpretative) market cornered by only certain sections, as interpretations by like minded people will not remove their inherent biases. Please excuse this long digression from the main topic.
[right][snapback]61168[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are getting deeper and deeper. Maybe thats the great thing about a discussion, you question each other and together get into a deeper meaning of things.
Thanks Mr. Ram for giving me this term "counterfactual" for the arguments put across earlier. Viren, I have a my own view of history, which you may not agree with. Thats where all my arguments come from. Hence let me put across the way I look at history. To start by giving an example. There are a whole lot of events that occur today. Dozens of TV news channels and other media bombard us with information 24x7. So necessarily there is no dearth of sources of information. Yet take any issue even with all the facts available, a dozen commentators on the subject will give wholly different views. Say the question is "Who is responsible for Indian cricket team's debacle at Durban two days back". The match broadcast live to crores of cricket fans across the country. W.r.t to cricket even the average man in the street has an opinion. With everybody having the same facts with them, you speak to a dozen people, you will get as many different opinions. This is with regards to something happening live, with many sources of information, different commentators having analyzed it from every angle possible. The point is you cannot give a definite prognosis, that this happened because of this, that this person was responsible or X is this kind of man. I admire Sourav Ganguly, there are many who like him, but as many who detest him. The information or facts available to those who like him or detest him is not very different. Yet is produces antipodal reactions, so much so that any discusssion on such issues becomes very emotional. Another point is when we discuss any issue, we need to understand that different people will have different points of view based on their background, education and biases. We all have biases. Maybe as Mr Ram says I have a colonialist bias and maybe you can bring me to a balanced view of things, but please be open to the fact that I can do the same to you and accept it as such. Otherwise we'll find each other a wall of rock.
With so many facts available we still cannot be definite about the present, then how with less amount and more vagueness in information, we can make definite claims about the past. When we quote sources of history, should we also not look at what kind of biases the writer had and how do we adjust it to interpret history. Lets say a thousand years from now, there is no other source of information on the "Kargil War" save Musharraf's autobiography. And if people start quoting it verbatim, without trying to understand Musharraf's bais and interests, then it would make a hero out of Musharraf and a villian out of India. I hope I am not baised on this, but based on what I know of Kargil War, Musharrafs book at least in the Kargil section (from what I know whats written in it thru media) is mostly a bunch of lies. Secondly by removing interpretation from the study of history, I believe you are removing something very essential to the study of history. Take Achyuta Deva Raya, the step brother of Krishna Deva Raya. His reign over Vijayanagar was during a tumultous period. There can be so many different interpretations of his personality based on the same facts. Some people can sympathetically view him as a courageous, capable person braving tough circumstances, others can see him at best as incompetent. I also think we should not let the "fictional" (I would put it as interpretative) market cornered by only certain sections, as interpretations by like minded people will not remove their inherent biases. Please excuse this long digression from the main topic.