S.L. Bhyrappa in his book - a FICTION exposes the leftist plan for the last 40 years
to change the Indian history right under the nose of vast millions of people.
The entire Indian history writing in the last 40 years has been hijacked and a historian and a literature expert has openly acknowledged it.
His biggest contribution is that he says it bluntly
THE CURRENT SOCIAL HARMONY IS SUPERFICIAL
He has understood that a artificial public debate, artificial public topic and news discussion has taken over the Indian society and has caused an artificial sense of harmony. It is not based on free debate
Sandeep Blog about Ananthamurthy
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->URA has always pandered to the ruling class and has moulded his ideology based on the prevailing fashion. The Bharatipura days were exciting times for Socialists/Communists. And a novel like this pleased the people who needed to be pleased. URA and his fellow-travellers established a cult in Kannda literature that for more than a decade throttled any work which didnât toe the line dictated by this cult. One victim of his vitriol was the noted novelist, SL Bhyrappa whose novels he dismissed as regressive, retrograde and outdated. URA could manage this largely due to the political patronage he had garnered by then. The same political patronage that later proved handy when he lobbied for the Jnanapith. His close circle of friends included most notably, J.H. Patel, Ramakrishna Hegde and the Socialist leader Gopala Gowda.
URAâs political âachievementsâ far outnumber his literary ones: his tenure as Vice Chancellor of the Mahatama Gandhi University in Kottayam was marked by an allegation of embezzlement, he was also appointed the chairman of National Book Trust, president of the Sahitya Academy, and the Indian Literature Academy. All these are governmental institutions. I donât need to elaborate on the kind of lobbying that goes on for such appointments. That URA managed to get himself these coveted positions is not a mean (political) âachievement.â
Another of URAâs favourite ideological postures is his âbattle against communalism.â Like his other mutual-admiration-club member Girish Karnad, URA has spoken strongly against the âcommunal forcesâ that threaten to rip the countryâs âsecular fabricâ apart. Case in point: Ayodhya and the Bababudangiri controversies. Unlike Karnad, URAâs methods are indirect, subtle, and sophisticated. The rewards apart from the coveted appointments are numerous: the JH Patel government allotted a plot in the prestigious Dollarsâ Colony in Bangalore, which led to an overwhelming number of literateurs condemning URA.
To his credit, URA has been keen to sense the direction of the wind. He was a Socialist/Communist par excellence in the days it flourishedâin fact, he visited Beijing during the Tiannmen massacre at taxpayersâ expense and wrote an essay on the incident in Kannadaâhe was secularer than the secularists in condemning the Babri masjid demolition and now, he is more Dalit than the real Dalits what with his regular public photo-sessions with Dalit/backward caste ministers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunday Slug Fest: Anantha Murthy and Bhyrappa
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because Aavarana uncovers the gory extent of Aurangzeb's--and Islamic--brutality, it has delivered a blow where it hurts the most: to Aurangzeb, the darling of the secularists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At best, Anantha Murthy's attacks are cheap efforts to dissuade the public from reading Bhyrappa's books. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vijaya Karnataka reports (free subscription to access the link; the report is in Kannada) that it received more than 2000 responses condemning Anantha Murthy's "insolence."
This grand drama ended predictably. Anantha Murthy claimed
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
...he was "misquoted" and in the wake of strong criticism of his comments, decided not to take part in any literary functions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bollywood makes entry into NCERT text book
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember the Amitabh Bachchan-starrer "Deewar" in which a boy who earns his livelihood by polishing shoes at the footpath refuses to pick up a coin thrown at him.
The plot may be part of Bollywood folklore, but the message of "self dignity" it conveys has enabled it to find a place in the Social Science and Political Life-II text book prepared by the NCERT for Class VII students. The text book also carries the still of the scene from the film.
"The particular scene shows how the boy feels dignity in work and he insists that money be given respectfully. <span style='color:red'>This will inculcate a sense of self dignity among students who will respect others' self esteem also</span>," NCERT spokesman B C Patro told PTI.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Archaeology has often been used in different parts of the world to support nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist claims. There does not seem to be a way to exclude religion and politics from archaeology, which is after all a social science and hence political and partial. This can among others be seen in the Middle East and the Holy Land, where Archaeology has been used to serve modern political goals.
In spite of growing self-reflection in archaeology today (January 2005), archaeologists practice a profession that ought to engage with larger social and political contexts. While one may question whether the concept of global human rights is truly international or one that denies the diversity of human cultures, it is certainly an endeavor in which archaeology is emerging as a legitimizing voice. By excavating the past and living in or alongside communities that are threatened in the present, archaeologists have within their remit both a tool for change and obligations to the people they work with. Archaeologists are participants in a social and political praxis.
Novel Histories: Politics of narration
<span style='color:blue'>
Most history books in the past were written like a form of fiction where the authors did not apply the rules of present day forensic (evidence based) research, thought in all better Universities today (January 2005).
Instead politics of narration include the author's relations of production and the construction of a relational past. The conditions in which authors work merit more consideration than historian-archaeologists are willing to admit. Issues of class, religion, nationality, language, connections to publishers, and affiliations with institutions all help to structure a highly unequal field of discourse.
Even academic renderings of the past are normally quite close to popular stories. Following a present fashion in archaeology and inserting "living people" into the past would be equal to succumbing to a historically unrealistic closure and harmony. If the goal of "peopling" a narrative is to reach out to non-specialist readers, one could insert presentent-day figures who conceive of the past in different ways.
</span>
Unfortunately, professional ideologies produce the impression of a level field. However some "voices" are folded into mainstream discourse as a means to domesticate them, as has happened with some strands of archaeology.
Any narrative about the past is diachronically relational since it establishes a link between a past and a specific present. The metaphor of a "distant mirror" is employed by authors and literary critics alike to characterize writings that emphasize similarities between past and present. On the other hand, an explicit rift may be created in order to preserve the past's alterity. Academic history diverges from these possibilities in that pasts are at best shattered distant mirrors or fragments of alterities.
But the political implications are comparable. Archaeologists opt implicitly for one or the other of these links. Constructions of past world systems are a clear case of mirroring, as is a recent book on women in the ancient Near East (See Zainab Bahrani , Women of Babylon, 2001).
Currently relevant issues serve as the foreground for an interpretation of the past. The present is conceived as inherently "better" because more complex than the past. A remedy would be the construction of non-directional, truly historical alterities. This entails the development of a "hermeneutics of the unfamiliar" as has been proposed by Hans-Robert JauÃ.
Historians construct meaningfulness by arbitrarily dissecting past residues into clearly delimited items, documents, and contexts - sources - only to merge the disjointed fragments into a new continuum. However, the new entity has a profoundly different character from the originally encountered residÂual: it is linked in a linear textual narrative. Yet History needs to be seen as cultural and historical praxis that occurs in specific social relations of production. Like the standard novel, what we know as standard history is a textual product.
Does this mean, that we should abandon the pursuit of narratives about the past altogether? I do not think so. However, there is a need to continually rethink their form. Historical and archaeological narratives are ideological in that they generally claim facticity, at least of sources. And the production of relations among sources in the "rejoining" process of historiography involves fiction.
In contrast a task must be to analyze the dialectical relation between the construction of datasets and the creation of an interpretive narrative from them. This process is a social praxis that cannot simply be seen as creative ingenuity or academically rigorous method. It is driven by conventions, which in turn are recreated by the act of narrative production.
The present use of linear textual accounts in much of Near Eastern archaeology, with (suppressed) omniscient narrators and an unreflective use of language for example , is in need of change unless one accepts the implications for content that come with this particular narrative form. Postmodern conditions should not have a place for know-it-all historical narrators who skillfully weave autonomous "data" into meaningful wholes.
When reflecting on narrative form, authors often refer to the erroneous belief that comprehensibility of a story is reduced when multiple perspectives are considered. Indeed, our notion of perspective itself is a historical product. "Perspective," or "looking through," has its origin in the individualistic gaze that originated in Renaissance art and can be compared to strict points of view in literature.
History and archaeology have remained impervious to the end of perspectivism because its demise weakens the rarely questioned fundamentals of professions concerned with the past. Particularly in hermeneutic approaches, a single-narrator perspective leads by necessity to an unrealistic representation of the past. It conceals conflicts by telling a story from one angle.
Media
Although reasons that reports on archaeology of the Middle East appear in the news are limited solely to the connections that can be made to contemporary politics, it striking that such stories proliferate at times of political crisis. Of course, in the broader scheme of things, reports a archaeology were just one small part of the total coverage of Iraq or Afghanis in the context of mobilization for the Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanis These wars would undoubtedly have happened even if no mention had ever made in the press of ancient civilizations and biblical connections of sites in or the destruction of the Buddhas in the Bamiyan Valley. Yet, stories about archeology contributed to the overall efforts to construct U.S. public opinion in favor war.
Yet during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), not a single article that concerned itself with possible war- damage to archaeological remains in either country appeared in the Washington Post or New York Times, newspapers that frequently reported on archaeology in the Middle East during the Gulf and Afghan wars.
<span style='color:red'>
The notion that Western civilization as well as "Western" religions (Christianity and Judaism) are rooted in the ancient Near East runs deeply in the minds of most educated people in the West. This underlying belief made it easy for reporters to link the archaeology of Iraq to contemporary political issues and identities, whether by claiming the great achievements of the Mesopotamian past as our legacy or connecting the modern government of Iraq to the most aggressive and unappealing aspects of that past. Either way, military intervention in Iraq was thereby "justified" in order to preserve the material remains of "our" heritage and wrest humanity's (read, the West's) legacy from the hands of tyrants who would misuse or jeopardize its preservation.
</span><b>
Journalists seem to have found it more difficult to construct direct ancestral ties between the Afghan past and the contemporary West. This may have been in large part because the prominent, historically attested religions in Afghanistan have been Buddhism and Islam rather than Christianity or Judaism. For the most part journalists highlighted the exoticness and difference of Afghanistan's past and its status as a crossroads of other, more familiar "great civilizations.</b> That past was often cast as part of world heritage, offering a reason for the U.S. to intervene to preserve its material remains. In other instances, its destruction was treated as principally a problem for Afghans, whose history and culture were to be understood as decimated by the barbarity of their own people, the Taliban.
Despite the variety of different rhetorical strategies used in the news articles, they nearly all worked to support the same hegemonic position - demonization of the declared enemy (Saddam, the Taliban) and therefore justification for a U.S.-led war. The appearance of diversity in the stories could lull readers into thinking that they were reading diverse perspectives when in fact the underlying message was the same. One means by which this is accomplished is by pitting "experts" against each other in collections of quotes (or in talk shows), but ensuring that the disagreements among them are actually trivial.
The past can be used to demonstrate continuity and precedent but also, in a more liberatory fashion, to imagine possibilities for change and a different future. Nonetheless, using identity as a basis for a vision of change often carries with it problems of essentialism and the static assumptions that lie at the heart of many concepts of identity. Identity claims are necessarily selective and partial, and from an "objectivist" position they can be critiqued and deconstructed. Rather, practices of identity are part of the basic fabric through which people constitute their senses of self; in that respect, they are no trivial matters to be lightly demolished with the wave of an academic hand.
An alternative is for archaeologists to focus of exposing the interests that are served by the selective uses of the past in contemporary identity building, including in media portrayals. Such an approach would point up the partiality of these depictions, highlighting how particular interests structure specific uses of the past. By exposing interests, one does not attack a collectivity's existential basis but rather lays open the grounds on which a group claims to be distinctive and, in many cases, privileged.
Reports about the archaeology of the Middle East are likely to evoke for most non-specialist readers the daily images of the contemporary Middle East which flood the news media, a place that is regularly portrayed as one of violent and persistent conflict, of virulent hatreds and rampant anti-Americanism.
This dialectic relationship of narrator and story is complicated by the changing point of view of the narrator who propagates on the one hand "life as it recounts itself" as the historical original, declaring that he represents events in accordance with their truthful reality.
http://www.sociologyesoscience.com/civiliz...archeology.html
<b>K-caution at Dwarka site </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, Aug. 17: The Archaeological Survey of India has found âsubmerged structuresâ off the Dwarka coast but is treading cautiously to avoid triggering a hue and cry over âLord Krishnaâs cityâ.
<b>If political parties can sink their teeth into the matter, Krishnaâs mythical city in Gujarat can become an emotive issue.</b>
In recent months, claims that underwater sand dunes off the Tamil Nadu coast were actually âRamâs setu (bridge)â had sparked saffron efforts to stop the dredging of Palk Strait for the Sethusamudram navigation project.
The ASI, which carried out the underwater excavations in Dwarka with navy help, is determined not to stir controversy by hazarding a guess about how old the finds might be.
Three wooden blocks, each of them three metres long, will be sent to more than one testing centre for dating so that thereâs no allegation of bias.
âThese samples will be sent to laboratories in India and abroad,â superintending archaeologist Alok Tripathi told a news conference in New Delhi today.
The existence of submerged manmade structures off the Dwarka coast was already known, Tripathi said. But this was the first underwater excavation at the site.
â<b>The main purpose of the dig was to date these structures, not to validate a myth,â </b>the archaeologist said.
âA lot of work has been done on Dwarka. Itâs a major underwater site. The government wanted the ASI to conduct an excavation there,â another ASI source said.
âWe also carried out an excavation on land and found antiquities. There were lots of coins. These will have to be chemically cleaned, which will take time,â Tripathi said.
An interim report on the Dwarka excavation and its findings will be presented at a seminar on âMaritime heritage of the Indian Oceanâ in Delhi later this month.
The ASI and the navy had earlier joined hands to explore a shipwreck off Lakshadweep five years ago. A joint excavation had found temples near Mahabalipuram in 2005.
Before the Dwarka excavation, navy divers had been taught how to handle antiquities
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can bet, Sonia led UPA and Left run historians will deny and will stick to myth and will destroy evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Experts survey seabed off Gujarat for Dwarka evidence</b>
link
New Delhi, Aug 17 : A group of archaeological experts and Indian Navy divers have conducted the first scientific survey off the Gujarat coast to establish whether or not the ruins on the seabed are of the mythological city of Dwarka, the capital of Hindu god Krishna.
"The area off the Samudranaraya temple at (present day) Dwarka is known to contain structures which have been widely reported and interpreted by renowned scholars. However, no scientific study of the area had been conducted so far," Alok Tripathi of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) told reporters here Friday.
"We found building blocks and collected samples. These have been sent for dating to establish the antiquity of the site," Tripathi, who is the ASI's only marine archaeologist, added.
A 21-member team conducted the survey in January-February. It comprised 10 specialists from the ASI and 11 divers of the Indian Navy. A report on the survey will be presented at a seminar on the Maritime Heritage of the Indian Ocean here Aug 23-24.
"While the ASI has the requisite data and archaeological expertise, the Indian Navy has the necessary wherewithal and expertise for subsurface search, exploration and recovery of artefacts," Rear Admiral, S.P.S. Cheema, assistant chief of naval staff (Information Warfare and Operations), explained of the collaboration.
"Before the excavation, naval divers were indoctrinated by ASI experts on the procedures and method to be followed during the investigation. These included aspects like documentation, controlled digging, and the retrieval, packaging and transportation of samples," Cheema said.
"The idea was to achieve maximum extraction without damaging the environment," he added.
Before commencing diving operations, a specialised naval hydrographic team systematically surveyed the area off Dwarka with the help of multi-beam sonar and side-scan sonar. The navy had deployed its survey ship INS Nirdeshak for this in November 2006.
"This enabled us generate a 3D model of the seabed so we could narrow down the area of search. We initially marked out a 200 metre by 200 metre area and eventually narrowed this down to 50x50 metre area," Tripathi explained.
This is the third time such a joint operation has been undertaken. The first was in 2002 off Bagram in the Lakshwadeep Islands in the Arabian Sea to unearth the remains of the Princess Royal, a British passenger ship that sank in the 19th century.
In 2005, submerged remains off Mahabalipuram in Tamil Nadu were unearthed. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guys I have a question, Please look into this,
http://www.indianmuslims.info/history_of_m...s_in_india.html
How true is this? What is the earliest account we can find? wikipedia states that of Chach-Nama was the earliest account of Bin Qasim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Bin_Qasim
Is this true what indian-muslims.info site claims, why not challenge their position if not true? If it is false such histories being read by a lot of peoples really makes me literally mad, History should be proven based on what how old proof can prove it. Just like Francois Gautier says on Aurungazeb's article in Rediff
"History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents."
If this is not the right post for this pelase tell me where do I post it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jaggu+Aug 28 2007, 02:55 AM-->QUOTE(Jaggu @ Aug 28 2007, 02:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guys I have a question, Please look into this,
http://www.indianmuslims.info/history_of_m...s_in_india.html
How true is this? What is the earliest account we can find? wikipedia states that of Chach-Nama was the earliest account of Bin Qasim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Bin_Qasim
Is this true what indian-muslims.info site claims, why not challenge their position if not true? If it is false such histories being read by a lot of peoples really makes me literally mad, History should be proven based on what how old proof can prove it. Just like Francois Gautier says on Aurungazeb's article in Rediff
"History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents."
If this is not the right post for this pelase tell me where do I post it?
[right][snapback]72559[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me not comment too much on what that writer Zahoor has written. Suffice to say its not much accurate history. I would rather like to comment on the the "no historians being there in India before Muslims came" part.
When somebody claims that a particular piece of work is historical while something else isn't, how does one distinguish one from the other. What makes people claim that what the Muslim scholars have written is history, while what some local scholars have written is not. To put the point clearer, just about a century before the invasion of Sind, in the first half of seventh century, Banabhatta wrote his Harshacharita on the life of Harshavardhana a biographical work. It is eulogistic, not very objective, put it gives us a basic idea about Harsha's life, the key events of his life, what made him successful etc. It may not satisfy the rigorous standards now set for a standard historical work. But what is a proper historical work depends on what is your world view. If Indian authors tended to be eulogistic, Muslim authors, even a pretty sober minded person like Barani tend to be prejudiced against Hindus. Again Barani seems prejudiced from our outlook. From Barani's point of view he may not at all be prejudiced. Similarly all these people who subscribe to this "no historians being there in India before Muslims came", Bana may as well get back and deny he was overly eulogistic. We have similar other works like Prithviraj Raso of Chand Bardai or Vikramankadevacharita of Bilhana to give some examples.
From a Muslim historian's point of view, there was nothing wrong in castigating infidels. Also their reason for writing history was not just to recount events, but rather as a guide to later rulers on the principles of ruling and how to further the cause of Islam through their reign. Thus they used to be critical of even great rulers who caused much bloodshed (especially of Muslims) like Barani was critical of Ala-ud-din Khilji. So the historical work satisfied some functions and a "proper history" was not just recounting of actual facts, but getting some lesson out of them. Similarly for a Hindu scholar, history had a purpose. Sometimes it was of establishing the legitimacy of a ruler by putting forward a mythical lineage descending from Gods etc. or extolling his great deeds to show how powerful he is. So in either case history served primarily some other functions rather than simply the writing of history. If we look at from this point of view, we did have historians predating the arrival of Muslims in India.
Also in India since at least the time of Rudradaman (the Shaka Satrap in 2nd century AD) inscriptions in the form of prashastis written partly in Sanskrit and partly in the local language were one of the most important sources to understand history of the period. The word prashasti itself means something written in praise (please correct me if I'm wrong) Those nameless inscription writers have also contributed a lot to us in reconstructing our history. The inscriptional eulogies at Aihole of Ravikirti on the great Chalukyan emperor Pulakeshin II give us so much information about his life, because of which we know a great deal about the man who defeated Harshvardhana. Skandagupta's inscriptions give a lot of info about the struggle with Huns and so on. Thus we do have works of history but they may not necessarily come in the package the people tend to expect. Also the histories written by Muslim historians may also not necessarily be accurate. Barani again maintains his silence on some controversial parts of Muhammad ibn Tughlaq's reign because Muhammad was his patron. Amir Khusrau's historical works are very eulogistic and exaggerated.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jaggu+Aug 28 2007, 02:55 AM-->QUOTE(Jaggu @ Aug 28 2007, 02:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guys I have a question, Please look into this,
http://www.indianmuslims.info/history_of_m...s_in_india.html
How true is this? What is the earliest account we can find? wikipedia states that of Chach-Nama was the earliest account of Bin Qasim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Bin_Qasim
Is this true what indian-muslims.info site claims, why not challenge their position if not true? If it is false such histories being read by a lot of peoples really makes me literally mad, History should be proven based on what how old proof can prove it. Just like Francois Gautier says on Aurungazeb's article in Rediff
"History (like journalism) is about documentation and first-hand experience. We decided to show Aurangzeb according to his own documents."
If this is not the right post for this pelase tell me where do I post it?
[right][snapback]72559[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me not comment too much on what that writer Zahoor has written. Suffice to say its not much accurate history. I would rather like to comment on the the "no historians being there in India before Muslims came" part.
When somebody claims that a particular piece of work is historical while something else isn't, how does one distinguish one from the other. What makes people claim that what the Muslim scholars have written is history, while what some local scholars have written is not. To put the point clearer, just about a century before the invasion of Sind, in the first half of seventh century, Banabhatta wrote his Harshacharita on the life of Harshavardhana a biographical work. It is eulogistic, not very objective, put it gives us a basic idea about Harsha's life, the key events of his life, what made him successful etc. It may not satisfy the rigorous standards now set for a standard historical work. But what is a proper historical work depends on what is your world view. If Indian authors tended to be eulogistic, Muslim authors, even a pretty sober minded person like Barani tend to be prejudiced against Hindus. Again Barani seems prejudiced from our outlook. From Barani's point of view he may not at all be prejudiced. Similarly all these people who subscribe to this "no historians being there in India before Muslims came", Bana may as well get back and deny he was overly eulogistic. We have similar other works like Prithviraj Raso of Chand Bardai or Vikramankadevacharita of Bilhana to give some examples.
From a Muslim historian's point of view, there was nothing wrong in castigating infidels. Also their reason for writing history was not just to recount events, but rather as a guide to later rulers on the principles of ruling and how to further the cause of Islam through their reign. Thus they used to be critical of even great rulers who caused much bloodshed (especially of Muslims) like Barani was critical of Ala-ud-din Khilji. So the historical work satisfied some functions and a "proper history" was not just recounting of actual facts, but getting some lesson out of them. Similarly for a Hindu scholar, history had a purpose. Sometimes it was of establishing the legitimacy of a ruler by putting forward a mythical lineage descending from Gods etc. or extolling his great deeds to show how powerful he is. So in either case history served primarily some other functions rather than simply the writing of history. If we look at from this point of view, we did have historians predating the arrival of Muslims in India.
Also in India since at least the time of Rudradaman (the Shaka Satrap in 2nd century AD) inscriptions in the form of prashastis written partly in Sanskrit and partly in the local language were one of the most important sources to understand history of the period. The word prashasti itself means something written in praise (please correct me if I'm wrong) Those nameless inscription writers have also contributed a lot to us in reconstructing our history. The inscriptional eulogies at Aihole of Ravikirti on the great Chalukyan emperor Pulakeshin II give us so much information about his life, because of which we know a great deal about the man who defeated Harshvardhana. Skandagupta's inscriptions give a lot of info about the struggle with Huns and so on. Thus we do have works of history but they may not necessarily come in the package the people tend to expect. Also the histories written by Muslim historians may also not necessarily be accurate. Barani again maintains his silence on some controversial parts of Muhammad ibn Tughlaq's reign because Muhammad was his patron. Amir Khusrau's historical works are very eulogistic and exaggerated.
Just to add, Ashoka's inscriptions in 3rd Century BC are pretty starightforward, objective and were one of the most important sources used to establish the chronology.
And to add to Kartiksri's excellent critique both the epics Ramayana and the Mahabharata are called <i>itihasas</i> and not kathas.
Most of the kings of Hindu India had genealogies that race theri descent to the two lines-Suryvanshi and Chandravanshi kings of yore.
Excellent analysis, I'm learning a lot, this forum is a information goldmine.
btw ramana How legitimate is the part of expert of History produced in the indian-muslims.info website, When it is based on Bin Qasims invasion from that article,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Their entry in India was prompted by an attempt to free the civilian Muslim hostages whose ship was taken by sea pirates in the territory of Raja Dahir, King of Sind. After diplomatic attempts failed, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor in Baghdad, dispatched a 17-year-old commander by the name Muhammad bin Qasim with a small army. Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir at what is now Hyderabad in Pakistan.
......
...............
Muhammad bin QasimÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s treatment of the Indian population was so just that when he was called back to Baghdad the civilians were greatly disheartened and gave him farewell in tears. There was a Muslim community in Malabar, southwest India as early as 618 C.E. as a result of King Chakrawati Farmas accepting Islam at the hands of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How legitimate is the part of pirates and that with invasion? This gives an impression to the readers there of non-expansionist nature of Bin Qasims invasion doesnt it? and My question is exactly based on what was the pirates the sole issue for the invasion of Sind by Bin Qasim? How true is the 'so just' treatment, and the PBUH angle?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jaggu+Aug 30 2007, 05:05 AM-->QUOTE(Jaggu @ Aug 30 2007, 05:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Excellent analysis, I'm learning a lot, this forum is a information goldmine.
btw ramana How legitimate is the part of expert of History produced in the indian-muslims.info website, When it is based on Bin Qasims invasion from that article,
[right][snapback]72650[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A link on Kashmiri literary history which gives info on Kashmiri historians like Kalhana, Bilhana, Jayanka etc.
http://www.koausa.org/Vitasta/12a.html
From Organizer, 16 Sept., 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Radhakumud Mukherjee: Pioneer of maritime history in India
By Dr Pranab Kumar Chatterjee
A foremost historian of modern India, Radhakumud Mukherjee, (1885-1963) had a brilliant academic career and obtained his PRS and Ph.D. degrees from Calcutta University. As an ardent nationalist, he was associated with the cause of national education during the Swadeshi Movement in Bengal.
In 1906 he was appointed Hem Chandra Basu Mallick Professor at the National Council of Education, Bengal, and the Bengal National College with Sri Aurobindo Ghose as its Principal. In 1916 he was appointed as the first Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandi Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture at the Benaras Hindu University. Then he joined the University of Mysore as the first Professor of History. Thereafter he became Professor and Head of the Department of History at the Lucknow University in 1921. After retirement, he was appointed Emeritus Professor of History in the same university.
Dr Radhakumud Mukherjee personified as an extraordinary blending of scholarship with political and social activities. He organised the Bengal Anti-Communal Award Committee as its Secretary with Poet Rabindranath Tagore as its President. He had also been a member of the opposition in the Bengal Legislative Council for six years (1937-43).
Having joined the Hindu Mahasabha he served it as the Vice-President for a number of years. He also presided over the Lahore session of All India Hindu Youth Conference. He had the foresight to assess the baneful designs of communalism in Indian politics. After Independence he became a member of the Rajya Sabha nominated by the President of India (1952-58).
Professor Mukherjeeâs seminal work The History of Indian Shipping and Maritime Activity from the Earliest Time traces the history of the maritime activity of the Indians in all forms from the earliest times to the end of the Mughal period. The contents of the book have been placed under three sections:
i) Isolation and Intercourse,
ii) Evidence and
iii) Epochs, from the point of shipping and maritime activity of India.
<b>Dr. Mukherjee mentions seven epochs; namely the pre-Mauryan epoch; the Mauryan epoch (BC 321-184); the Kushana period in the North and the Andhra period in the South; the period of Hindu imperialism in northern India under the Guptas and Harsha-Vardhana; the period of Hindu imperialism in southern India and the rise of the Cholas; the Mussalman (pre-Mughal) period and the period of Mughal monarchy from the 16th to the 18th century.</b>
Mukerjee asserts, <b>âFor full 30 centuries, India stood out as the very heart of the old world, and maintained her position as one of the foremost maritime countries.â He has explored the history of teeming ports and harbours of India, maritime regulations of the Mauryan epoch, the indigenous ship-building craft, the Indian classification of vessels and their build, the paramount part played by indigenous Indian shipping in the expansion of Indian commerce and colonization from the shores of Africa and Madagascar to the farthest reaches of Malaysia and the Eastern Archipelago; the auxiliary character of the foreign intermediaries, whether Greek, Arabian or Chinese, the sources of Indiaâs manufacturing supremacy for a thousand years in her advances in applied chemistry, etc.</b>
(The author is retired Director, West Bengal State Archives.)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
September 16, 2007
Page: 20/45
Home > 2007 Issues > September 16, 2007
Youth Folio
Western hold on Indian academia
By Shiv Shakti Nath Bakshi
<i>
âTAKING the late eighteenth century as a very roughly defined starting-point Orientalism can be discussed and analysed as a corporate institution for dealing with the Orient â dealing with it by making statements about it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient.â
âEdward; Orientalism; P. 3</i>
A debate on the kind of education we as a nation deserve has long engaged our attention seeking to undo the wrongs that were imposed on us mainly as a colonised society.
The issue of education dominated the concerns of the nationalist leaders right from the onset of the national movement. In fact the concerns about the content, system and direction of education constituted one of the core ideological issues. Indigenous system of imparting education was sought to be replaced by a system enunciated by Macaulay seeking to colonise Indian minds. The end of colonial rule did not end the system but it was further supplemented by Marxism and a kind of secularist discourse, which was located in the framework of Orientalism. A demarcation of academic vs. un-academic discourse was constructed; ânon-modernâ was un-academic and âmodernâ was academic thereby initiating a process of rejection of the knowledge systems which were pre-colonial hence âpre-modernâ.
It has been argued that the Macaulayâs framework of education was designed to colonise the minds of the conquered societies so as to prolong the western academic dominance in the country. It is not to say that India is alone in having had experienced such process of academic domination under which it continues to remain subordinated, but it may be emphasised that other societies in the world colonised by the European powers share such predicament. It may be noted that even after these colonies were liberated, the domination of the west in the academia continues and therefore western intellectual-academic dispensation enjoys a kind of power which gives it an exalted position to select/reject/legitimise/ sanctify any knowledge system and discourses.
Intellectual movements in the west culminated in the dawn of the modern age passing through the historical phases of enlightenment and renaissance. The post-enlightenment era saw the colonisation of the world outside Europe wherein the zeal to âciviliseâ and âmoderniseâ the world led the colonisers to wrought immense destructions in the colonised societies.
In many of the colonies, the language of the colonisers became the language of the elite circle that carved a domain for those having access to that language and helping them to monopolise the power structure of the state and the society. A large number of erstwhile colonies have continued to treat the language of the colonising countries as official, thereby allowing the western knowledge system to exercise its sway over the academic discourse. Such system of domination is further facilitated by publications, seminars, researches, etc of various hues. The university system created in colonial times along with Study Chairs/Departments is sought to be sustained by appointments and their connectedness to the global academic network. We are also witnessing a large number of Research Institutes that have sprung up as appendages to such academic structure built up over a long period of time especially in the colonies and sustained by imparting it a global power structure.
Similarly in India, a situation prevails wherein the debate regarding Indo-centric education system and western-colonial system is yet to be settled. Marxism, by its virtue of being rooted in western environment, continues to play second fiddle to the Macaulayian academia. It refuses to recognise Indian knowledge system as legitimate and attempts to dub it obscurantist and obsolete. Like the colonial masters, the Marxists too are very much interested in controlling the intelligentsia by monopolising the space within academia. The communist leadership in India tried to build its hegemonic presence in academia right from its very inception using every occasion that they found in course of extending support to various coalition governments in the country.
The debate that we witness today on the textbooks has its origin in the struggle between those who want to rescue the country from Macaulay-Marxist academic nexus and those who want to perpetuate it. There have been sincere academic initiatives to weaken the hold of this nexus in the academia, which has led to the erosion in its legitimacy but still a lot of ground has to be covered.
Its monopolising tendencies have been so often challenged and certain individual initiatives have exposed its soft underbelly. But as long as the erstwhile colonies show reluctance in approaching it through sincere initiatives of institution building its monopolising tendencies would keep reinforcing it and the goal of a free academia would remain elusive.
(The author is Research Scholar in JNU.)
09-11-2007, 06:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2007, 06:46 PM by Shambhu.)
Good to see such views (116) coming from a guy at JNU..maybe the tide is starting to turn..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Abolish ASI </b>
Pioneer.com
Prafull Goradia
<i>Instead of excavating and preserving our cultural heritage, ASI has been involved in concealing it</i>
The Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, Mr C Dorjee, is reported to have claimed in his affidavit before the apex court that ASI has to be scientific in its approach. To quote him, "ASI is a science and technology department. The issue has to be approached and examined in a scientific manner." There is no historical or scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or the other characters of Ramayan, he added.
ASI has been presumptuous in claiming to be scientific. If one reads its performance since independence, it would appear that it has been mostly burying communally embarrassing places of worships rather than excavating new sites. Let us detail two of the prominent temples that were the targets of concealing, rather than revealing, ancient heritage. They are Bijamandal at Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh and the Rudramahalaya Complex at Siddhpur, Gujarat.
<b>One night during the monsoon of 1991, heavy rain washed away the wall of the Bijamandal, a temple in Vidisha, desecrated four times and last converted into a mosque by Aurangzeb in 1682. The broken wall exposed so many Hindu idols that ASI was left with no choice but to excavate. For three centuries, the idols were buried under what was used as the prayer hall. The district collector in 1991 happened to offer protection to the surveyors of ASI, who were otherwise reluctant to expose themselves to the wrath of bigots. Treasures of sculpture were salvaged. </b>
Some of the statues were splendid and were as high as eight feet. The work of the archaeologists, however, did not last long. ASI soon received instructions to stop further work. The officer of ASI working on the excavations was transferred, as was the collector. Whether this had anything to do with the new Human Resource Development Minister, Mr Arjun Singh, 1991-94, is not certain. Since then, the Bijamandal is marking time with a great deal of sculpture hidden under it.
Alexander Cunningham had visited Malwa twice in 1874 AD 1876. He wrote in Volume X of the ASI Report: "<b>Inside the town there is a stone masjid called Bijay Mandir. This Hindu temple was thrown down by the order of Aurangzeb, and the present masjid erected in its place; but Hindus still frequent it at the time of the annual fair." </b>
<b>It is difficult to redeem the pristine glory of Vijay Mandir, whose scale and dimensions are reminiscent of the Konark temple. Nevertheless, is it scientific for ASI to deliberately bury architectural treasures?</b>
<b>Coming to Siddhpur, the National Minorities Commission in 1983 prevented ASI from carrying out excavation in or around the Rudramahalaya complex, where once existed the tallest temple in Gujarat. From its top could be seen glimpses of Patan, the capital of the ancient kings of Gujarat. From the top it is believed were visible some temple mashaals in Ahmedabad, which was 112 km away. The National Minorities Commission influenced Governments, both in Delhi and Gandhinagar, into freezing the excavation work that was begun by ASI in 1979. The details are available in the Commission's Fourth Annual Report, 1983. </b>
An improvement of the environment around the masjid was conceived in 1959 in response to a complaint repeatedly made by the local Muslims that ASI had been neglecting the repair and upkeep of the masjid. Yet, after 1983, the commission not only had to ensure that the work was frozen but also that all the excavations made had to be covered up. On my visit to the site in June 2000, I was able to see a dozen or so statuettes including a stone Nandi bull in a mutilated condition. The rest of the relics had been covered up.
According to the commission report, Begum Ayesha, MLA, played a leading part in the cover up operation. KT Satarawala, the then Adviser to the Governor of Gujarat, also played a yeoman's role in the concealment. AS Quereshi, advocate, for the (Muslim) Trustees, issued a notice dated February 6, 1980, to the Superintendent, ASI, asking the department to build compound walls in order to cover up the temple remains.
The Superintendent explained in person the importance of the discoveries made and the need for revision of the Muslim demand in the interests of preserving the precious cultural heritage of the country. Quereshi visited Siddhpur on March 8, 1980, alongwith the Superintendent. At first, he agreed to the preservation but later insisted on getting the trenches closed. The Superintendent complied with all his demands as recorded in the commission's report.
<b>How scientific or technological was the performance of ASI in Siddhpur and Vidisha is for the reader to judge. There is no doubt that instead of excavating and preserving our cultural heritage, ASI has been involved in the concealing of heritage. Should ASI not be wound up to prevent its destructive role as well as to save public money?</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
10-02-2007, 01:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2007, 03:23 AM by acharya.)
Send this Article to a Friend
Where fusion cannot work â faith and history
Romila Thapar
If there is strong religious faith among millions of people, it does not require to be protected through massive political demonstrations and the killing of innocent persons. Nor do archaeology and history have to be brought in to keep that faith intact. Faith finds its own place and function, as do archaeology and history. And the place and function of each is separate.
Faith and history have been brought into conflict once again by being forced to jointly occupy the same public space in contemporary India. In effect, there should be no conflict if it is recognised that the two are irreconcilable and that they cannot be fused together. They are independent of each other. Their premises, their methods of enquiry, and their formulations are dissimilar. So instead of trying to conflate them, it might be better to concede the difference and m aintain the distance.
When historians speak of the historicity of person, place, or event, they require evidence â singular or plural â that proves the existence of any of these and this evidence is based on data relating to space and time. The two important spaces in the Valmiki Ramayana are Ayodhya and Lanka, on the location of which scholarly opinion differs.
The location of Lanka, for example, has been disputed by Indian scholars for the past century and remains unidentified with any certainty. Some have located it in the Vindhyas â in Amarkantak or in Chota Nagpur â and others in the Mahanadi delta. The identification with present day Sri Lanka is problematic. The earliest name for Ceylon judging by Indian and Greek and Latin references of the Mauryan and post-Mauryan period was Tamraparni (Taprobane in Greek). Ashoka in the third century BC, in one of his edicts, mentions Tamraparni as on the frontier. Later, the more commonly used name was Sinhala or Sinhala-dvipa, (Silam or Sieledib in Greek). It would seem that the name Lanka was a later adoption of the centuries AD.
This becomes puzzling for the historian. If Valmiki was referring to Ceylon, then the name should have been the one by which the island was known, either Tamraparni or else Sinhala, at the time of his composition. But since the name used is Lanka, which at this time appears not to have been the name for Ceylon, then perhaps Lanka was located elsewhere. The location of the Ram Setu would have to be reconsidered. This has been suggested by scholars who have argued that the setu was more likely located in a small expanse of water in central India and not in the Palk Straits. Nor is the setu referred to in every version of the story. Alternatively, if Lanka in the text is a reference to Ceylon, then the composition of the Valmiki poem would have to be dated to a later period when the island came to be called Lanka. All this uncertainty is quite apart from the question of the technical viability of building a bridge across a wide stretch of sea in the centuries BC.
It is said that the Ram Setu is cultural heritage and therefore cannot be destroyed even if it is a natural geological formation and not man-made. Has the idea become the heritage? To search for a non-existent man-made structure takes away from the imaginative leap of a fantasy and denies the fascinating layering of folk-lore. It would be more appropriate to recognise the undersea formations in the Palk Straits as a natural heritage and protect the relevant areas. We pay no attention to the fact that such marine parks are as important to our ecological future as those visible on the landscape.
That Rama is central to variant versions of the story is, in itself, not evidence of historicity. If the variants contradict each other as they do, this may create problems for those who believe that only one of the variants is true. But multiple variants enrich the interest of historical and comparative analyses in assessing the degree to which each approximates, if at all, to the historical past or what the divergence symbolises.
The two closest in time to the Valmiki are the Buddhist and Jaina variants. The Buddhist version in the Dasaratha Jataka differs entirely from the Valmiki. Rama is the son of the raja of Varanasi; exile is to the Himalayas; and there is no kidnapping of Sita by Ravana.
The earliest of many Jaina versions, the Padmacharita of Vimalasuri, dating to the centuries AD, contradicts all earlier versions and states that it is doing so in order to present the correct version of what happened. It differs substantially from the Valmiki narrative. Ravana is not a demonic villain but a human counter-hero. It presents the story in the conceptual framework of Jainism.
These other versions might be objected to or dismissed by the person who has faith in the Valmiki version since the other versions differ. What is of interest to the historian is not the number of variant versions, which is impressively large, but why major changes were introduced into these.
This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad. Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the âofficialâ narrative of their life. Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations. The historicity of the Buddha, for example, is established, among other things, by the fact that a couple of centuries after he died, the emperor Ashoka on a visit to Lumbini had a pillar erected to commemorate the Buddhaâs place of birth. This is recorded in an inscription on the pillar.
If the current debate had grown from a genuine sense of enquiry, historians might have participated. Human activity has a historical context and this is open to historical comment. But it is only too evident that the issue of the Ram Setu has become a matter of political strategy on the part of those who are mobilising in the name of faith, and on the part of those who are reacting to the mobilisation. From the point of view of archaeology and history, the Archaeological Survey of India was correct in stating that there is to date no evidence to conclusively prove the historicity of Rama. The annulling of this statement was also a political act. Reliably proven evidence is of the utmost significance to history but not so to faith. Blasphemy does not lie in doubting historicity.
The historian is not required to pronounce on the legitimacy of faith. But the historian can try and explain the historical context to why, in a particular space and time, a particular faith acquires support. And we need to remind ourselves that our heritage has been constantly enriched not just by those of faith but also by those who contend with faith.
If there is a strong faith â in the religious sense â among millions of people, then it does not require to be protected through massive demonstrations and the killing of innocent persons, through political mobilisation. Nor do archaeology and history have to be brought in to keep that faith intact. Faith finds its own place and function, as do archaeology and history. And the place and function of each is separate.
<b>
To say that the partial removal of an underwater formation in the Palk Straits is going to hurt the faith of millions is not giving faith its due. Is faith so fragile that it requires the support of an underwater geological formation believed to have been constructed by a deity? Making faith into a political issue in order to win elections is surely offensive to faith?</b>
What is at issue is not whether Rama existed or not, or whether the underwater formation or a part of it was originally a bridge constructed at his behest. What is at issue is a different and crucial set of questions that require neither faith nor archaeology but require intelligent expertise: questions that are being wilfully diverted by bringing in faith. Will the removal of a part of the natural formation eventually cause immense ecological damage and leave the coasts of south India and Sri Lanka open to catastrophes, to potential tsunamis in the future? Or can it be so planned that such a potentiality is avoided?
What would be the economic benefits of such a scheme in enhancing communication and exchange? Would the benefits reach out to local communities and if so, how? Equally important, one would like to know precisely what role will be played by the multinational corporations and their associates in India. Who will finance and control the various segments of such an immense project? It is only when such details are made transparent that we will also get some clues to the subterranean activities that are doubtless already simmering. These are the questions that should be asked of this project and that at this point in time should be occupying public space.
(Romila Thapar is a distinguished historian of ancient India. She is the author of several books, including Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, 1961; A History of India: Volume I, 1966; Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, 2002; and Somanatha: The Many Voices of History, 2005. An expanded version of this article will be published in Economic and Political Weekly, 29 September 2007.)
Romila Thapar's fusion of politics and history
10/1/2007 5:20:14 AM Dr.B.V.Subrahmanyam
A letter to the Editor, The Hindu (which may or may not be published).
Sub: Ms. Thapar's article "Where fusion cannot work â faith and history" in the Hindu d. Sept.28, 2007
Faith never needs support from any quarters. It can stand on its own. But what is expected of Archeologists and historians is that they must be impartial, truthful, objective and be without prejudice.
It is a fact that no investigations worth the name have been made post-independence to verify the phenomenon of Sri Rama. Under the circumstances, without adequate studies and basis, it was inappropriate for ASI to make statements and for us to look for correctness in such statements. ASI and historians tend to look for concrete evidences. Due to the very large time difference from the present, and as time takes its toll, very little is available by way of evidence. But such absence in itself is not adequate to negate the phenomenon.
There is a very long and hoary tradition indicating that Sri Rama did indeed exist. Sri Rama stands tall above all other Indian personages. This itself is a prima-facie evidence.
The only studies mentioned are the very limited geological explorations made by GSI at Rama Sethu during 2002 -2005. Interestingly, the near sea level information obtained in this investigation seems to point out to the existence of the Sethu. Unfortunately, this was not pursued by subsequently. The need of today is for detailed, sincere, and multi-faceted investigations.
Ms. Thapar vaguely mentions opinion of some Indian scholars that Lanka is somewhere in Vindhya mountains. A reading of Valmiki Ramayanam shows that Sugriva clearly mentions the geography of south India when he directs Hanuman to search for Seetha , crossing the Rivers of Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri, and Tamraparni and the provinces of Andhra, Pundra, Chola, Pandya, Kerala. He further mentions the southern ocean and the 100 yojana distance to the island capital of Ravana, the Lanka.
This is a direct reference to the presence of Lanka in the southern end and beyond the ocean. And the distance to it is mentioned as 100 yojanas , which is ratified later when Hanuman crosses the ocean. That should settle the issue of location of Lanka. Moreover, would it not be patently silly for one who has seen the mighty rivers of Godavari, etc , to mistake a pond in the Vindhyas to be the southern ocean ?
Also from the times of Rama to date, River Tamraparni continued to be in Southern India. According to Valmiki Tamraparni is a river and Lanka is the island capital of Ravana. Ms. Thapar assumes that Valmiki made a mistake. But could a weary, foreign , Greek or Latin traveler not make that mistake of recording Lanka to be Taprobane (Tamraparni), due to misunderstanding of the local language. Can we thereby override what Valmiki and Sugriva, who have better local information ?
Thapar goes on to unfairly compare the Valmiki Ramayan (written many millennia before) to the Buddhist and Jaina versions which were written about the time of Christ.
Let us consider this. We all are seeking to reach the same God, but is there not an unfortunate rivalry and spirit of competition among the different religions ? Given the disagreement in concepts between Vedic Ritualistic and Buddhist philosophies, how correct and true could a Buddhist text be about Sri Rama's life and details ? Thus, if at all, the Buddhist and Jain texts can be taken as supportive of the existence of Sri Rama, as they mention him. But their details have to be discounted and ignored, in favour of the details given by Valmiki.
Ms. Thapar takes it to be fantasy and wonders if the technical ability was there for Rama's team to build the causeway. With the natural curiosity of a historian, she can well read the 40 verses in Yuddha Kanda, wherein Valmiki details the construction of the Sethu as a Causeway-bridge. The selection of the traditionally trained engineer-builder (Nala), the selection of the appropriate location, the types of materials that were transported, the use of machines (Yantras) to transport the materials, the way the construction was done, how strings were used to align the construction, the rate of progress made on in each of the 5 days, and ultimately, the appreciation of the bridge as a stupendous effort and a marvel are all mentioned. It is also recorded "That colossal bridge, which was broad, well-constructed, glorious, well postured and held together firmly, looked beautiful like a separating straight line in the ocean.". Is it not a wonder that the NASA's satellite picture of today presents the same impression.
It is a great pity that a historian with the encomiums mentioned fails to see an issue by itself, and instead sees politics in it. At the risk of repetition it might be stated that all those who believe in Rama sethu are not against the Sethusamudram project, but are only requesting for rerouting the canal without disrupting the sethu, which is a matter of their faith and is also a beautiful spectacle seeable from the skies.
Yes, fusion cannot work â between faith and history. But fusion cannot work between politics and history, as well.
Dr.B.V.Subrahmanyam
29 Sept. 2007
A rejoinder to Romila Thapar
9/28/2007 12:40:47 PM
By VEDAPRAKASH
Historians have never been honest in dealing with the historical issues involving faith and history, and there only faith and history have been brought into conflict. It is not fusing faith and history or vice versa. Historians know very well that it is their belief that history can be only based on what is written or has been written. It is their faith that they do not believe that if lived man of one million or 1 billon did not live if he has not left any historical record. But how scientists would say about it?
Historians believe about past events that they should have happened like this; at the same time other set of historians interpret that the same events could have happened in different way. Historians have accepted that they do not require any objectivity in their historical studies or methodology. So again, it their strong faith that they believe that objectivity is not required. But any other professional would accept it? Therefore historical faith and history cannot be independent. Without faith of the past or faith on archaeological methods, historians cannot work independently. When historians have decided to differ, there would be difference only. Historians believed that Aryans invaded India destroyed Dravidians and so on. At that time itself, the believers and even Sanskrit scholars clarified that it was gross misinterpretation of Vedas. But none cared. Now, the historians have retracted, but the books remain containing such unhistorical writings. So how can their premises, their methods of enquiry, and their formulations be dissimilar?
You say, "When historians speak of the historicity of person, place, or event, they require evidence â singular or plural â that proves the existence of any of these and this evidence is based on data relating to space and time. The two important spaces in the Valmiki Ramayana are Ayodhya and Lanka, on the location of which scholarly opinion differs". Yes, what are those "scholarly opinions"? An opinion is nothing but belief or faith only as their views are estimated depending upon their attitudes and outlook.
What you say about the foot print of Mohammed kept in Jama Masjid or the hair kept in a Kashmir mosque? Have you ever recommended for chemical analysis or DNA test? Have historians ever tried their scientific methodology? Where has gone their scientific temper? You claim, "It is said that the Ram Setu is cultural heritage and therefore cannot be destroyed even if it is a natural geological formation and not man-made. Has the idea become the heritage? To search for a non-existent man-made structure takes away from the imaginative leap of a fantasy and denies the fascinating layering of folk-lore". When H. D. Sankalia asserted that there were no evidences for Asoka, Chandragupta Maurya etc., as no horizontal excavations had been done, historians did not worry and search for Asoka or Chandragupta. When Vincent Smith wrote that Asoka killed his brothers etc., you also repeated the song inn your book Accepting Kalhana as historian, you ignored the Asoka, as he recorded. So why can't deny this Asoka and accept the Asoka of Kalhana? It is only "the majority idea / opinoion / faith" that only this Asoka could be "Mauryan Asoka" in spite of lacking historical evidences, created and established one Asoka! So even existed person was consigned to imaginary leap of fantasy and made fable!
Even after the so-called "authorized edition", the mention of different Ramayanas is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent.
As a historian, it is surprising that you have lied to the whole world like this: "This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad. Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the `official' narrative of their life. Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations. The historicity of the Buddha, for example, is established, among other things, by the fact that a couple of centuries after he died, the emperor Ashoka on a visit to Lumbini had a pillar erected to commemorate the Buddha's place of birth. This is recorded in an inscription on the pillar".
à This does not happen with the biographies of those who were known to be historical figures and who founded belief systems: the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammad.
It is well known that there are no biographies of Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mohammed as you asserted. This is blatant lie. Give me references of such biographies. What was written after such existed or non-existed personalities after them perhaps even after 300 years cannot be a biography. About different Buddhas, I am surprised that you say nothing is there. You do not remember how a Buddha had to come to fight with Adi Sankara? Moreover, it is well known about the different versions of Jesus, Christs etc., even before and after the so-called Jesus Christ combine. About Mohammed, I am also afraid of giving details just like you. Any way, just I tell there are books.
à Their biographies adhere largely to a single story-line and this helps to endorse the `official' narrative of their life.
Why they should largely adhere to a single line? How this helps "official" narrative? How "official" it could be of "their life"? Why can't you write as a historian instead of believer here?
That the "biographers" were compelled or forced to accept or adhere to a single line proves that many lines were left out. And still small number of biographers who did not adhere to a single line is also exposed. Then, what you are talking about? Majority view and minority view? Condemn the "lesser" and accept or approve the Larger"! Adhere to one-line and forget many lines! What sort of historian you are? That man Karu has become a senile man and talks differently. Do you also do the same think as a senile lady?
How you endorse such one-liners? Is there any historical methodology to that effect? Which University teaches such approving of one-line biography by eminent historians like you?
Do not fool Indians. Ernest Renan, J. M. Robertson and so many reputed authorities are there on the subject matter of Jesus Christ and Christianity. Any way, it is your cowardice gets exposed, as you never whispered anything, when there was much Christian opposition to screening of "Da Vinci Code". However, when the so-called "Hindutva judgment" came out, you vociferously jumped and asserted that "We would go to Court". Everything appeared in "the Hindu" itself with your face. Madam, what happened? But now you come siding with atheists, anti-Hindus, anti-nationals as a historian suppressing the recent past and forgetting your own past!
à Their existence is recorded in other sources as well that are not just narratives of their lives but have diverse associations.
So also Rama.
Why then your argument goes differently.
In fact, their associations differ. But, Ramayana core story, as H. D. Sankalia in his "Ramayana Myth or Reality" that it had been there nearly for 3000 years.
How "That their existences is recorded in other sources" help you to decide?
It may be noted that historians and scholars have pointed out that Christ story was copied from Krishna! Rama was repeatedly mentioned in different literature not because of variance, but influence and impact created on the people well before 2500-3000 YBP. Was the Sangam poet a fool to record in his poem about his discussion with his army about the mode of crossing over the ocean to Lanka". How that poet was imaging that that Lanka should have been the Lanka of Ramayana in his times i.e, 2500 â 3000 YBP?
à The historicity of the Buddha, for example, is established, among other things, by the fact that a couple of centuries after he died, the emperor Ashoka on a visit to Lumbini had a pillar erected to commemorate the Buddha's place of birth. This is recorded in an inscription on the pillar
Recently, there has been lot of information coming out as to how the British historians including the ASI officials, specifically Alois Anton Furher had fabricated the Stone Casket with Asokan inscriptions and planted there. For his forgey, he was dismissed from the service. The sudden disappearance of Buhler also intriguing in the context. For more details see: http://www.lumkap.org.uk . note now also the ASI officials are in a soup!
à "From the point of view of archaeology and history, the Archaeological Survey of India was correct in stating that there is to date no evidence to conclusively prove the historicity of Rama. The annulling of this statement was also a political act. Reliably proven evidence is of the utmost significance to history but not so to faith".
The present ASI officials are not like A. A. Fuherer to fabricate or forge Asokan inscriptions or like John Marshall to suppress the ASI report of Banrejee. They could have verified the greatest Indian archaeologist view in their affidavit. But, evidently, being the stooges of politicians, as politicians they acted ad they would get the sack, unless they are innocent or have guts to expose the politicians, who ordered them to do so. Leave alone the ASI people. The ASGCS / other standing councils who drafted the affidavit, vetted the affidavits etc.., also are responsible. Therefore, if all acted as a gang to malign and blaspheme Rama, it is not history but mystery. And do not you think that such culprits should be punished?
à Blasphemy does not lie in doubting historicity.
Yes, Romila you doubt the historicity of others also as listed â Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed â Do not be contended with one-line official version. You are a historian. You should go by primary sources â historical documents. Nothing more, nothing less!
To what extent you can doubt the historicity of them along with Rama or otherwise, we are going to see. Or children will wait and see!
Of course the question of blasphemy, who will decide? The Courts? Let us see!
à The historian is not required to pronounce on the legitimacy of faith. But the historian can try and explain the historical context to why, in a particular space and time, a particular faith acquires support. And we need to remind ourselves that our heritage has been constantly enriched not just by those of faith but also by those who contend with faith.
Yes, you know very well if you start the legitimacy of faith of â Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed.
So you decide which faith has to be supported in a particular space in time?
Accordingly, it is evident that you do not support the faith of Rama.
Yes, Rama baktas have been living with content even after what you historians have doe in the case of Ramajanmabhumi issue.
Of course, they may not be knowing what your people have been doing in the Indian History Congress presenting papers taking Ayodhya to Afganisthan etc. Now that even in Calicut, during last IHC, you have to live on Rama just like Karyu. The lady who got selected as GC said some thing on Rama! Poor Rama-baktas kept quite.
à If there is a strong faith â in the religious sense â among millions of people, then it does not require to be protected through massive demonstrations and the killing of innocent persons, through political mobilisation. Nor do archaeology and history have to be brought in to keep that faith intact. Faith finds its own place and function, as do archaeology and history. And the place and function of each is separate.
Yeah, oh woman, you do not know how many Ramabaktas were burned and killed. You want Rama-baktas to forget everything. But try to interpret mischievously, what happened to the three in Bangalore. Note, it is because of Karu, that happened. Fighting with Karnataka, he earned enormous enimity with Kannadigas. And this man used to come there and say as he used to go to Gopalapuram and Oliver Road. So not vulgarise the issue with your perversity. Do not suppress the facts.
The honesty of archeologists and historians, only Indians have to certify.
à To say that the partial removal of an underwater formation in the Palk Straits is going to hurt the faith of millions is not giving faith its due. Is faith so fragile that it requires the support of an underwater geological formation believed to have been constructed by a deity?
You can blast Bamian Buddhas, you can destroy IVC. Like Aurangazeb you can go on demolish temples. Like Dr. F.J A. Flynn, you can smuggle artifacts and coins. Your historians and archaeologists aid and abet. But he would be caught red-handed in Delhi airport. So demolish Rama-sethu! Yes, nothing will happen or happens.
à Making faith into a political issue in order to win elections is surely offensive to faith?
Karu is doing that. Cong is coding that. None else links it with politics.
à What is at issue is not whether Rama existed or not, or whether the underwater formation or a part of it was originally a bridge constructed at his behest. What is at issue is a different and crucial set of questions that require neither faith nor archaeology but require intelligent expertise: questions that are being wilfully diverted by bringing in faith. Will the removal of a part of the natural formation eventually cause immense ecological damage and leave the coasts of south India and Sri Lanka open to catastrophes, to potential tsunamis in the future? Or can it be so planned that such a potentiality is avoided?
Scientists have discussed enough. I do not think you have any competency here.
à What would be the economic benefits of such a scheme in enhancing communication and exchange? Would the benefits reach out to local communities and if so, how? Equally important, one would like to know precisely what role will be played by the multinational corporations and their associates in India. Who will finance and control the various segments of such an immense project? It is only when such details are made transparent that we will also get some clues to the subterranean activities that are doubtless already simmering. These are the questions that should be asked of this project and that at this point in time should be occupying public space.
Oh now, it is clear. You write like what Karu talked and talking. Do you have any alliance with Karu? The "Mount Road Maha Vishnu" has marriage alliance with Karu. You have connection with Ram. So also Karu, Kanimozhi and Ramajayam with "The Hindu". So what is the alliance. At whose behest, you are writing and talking the language of Karunanidhi?
Any way thank you for exposing yourself.
Thank you for revealing that Karu, Cong, you and others are doing this only for election.
|
