What Should Be The Principles On Which A History O

10-13-2004, 12:34 AM

I may have posted this before. I am looking for feedback on these principles. we are looking for overarching principles and not those which lack generality in their scope. This can be merged with the history thread after a couple of weeks

What should be the principles on which a History of India be based?

There is no single answer to this question. But some ideas for such a historiography suggest themselves.

Primary among such considerations is the notion that the Indic civilization not unlike other civilizations characterized by longevity, was a substantial net exporter of ideas and values in addition to being a recipient of ideas originating elsewhere. Cultural influences should be regarded as the result of a complex interplay of ideas, languages and religions. For example, instead of concentrating on migrations to India, one can ask how the Indo-European languages spread over such a vast area of Europe and Asia with a common substratum of words. Could it have been the result of significant commerce and/or academic exchanges, such as occurs today? It is important to remind oneself that unlike the India of the 19th century, the Ancients of the Indian subcontinent were in the top rungs of the Maslow hierarchy of needs, and had the time and inclination to pursue what they believed to be essential ontological issues in relation to the human species. It is conceivable therefore that such academic exchange was more than likely over vast regions even considering the more primitive modes of travel prevalent during that period. It can therefore be postulated with a fair degree of credibility, that Indian academics of antiquity played the same role that the Anglo Saxon academics play in the world today. After all, Adi Sankara was able to traverse the entire subcontinent more than once on foot without much difficulty or absence of safety to his person.

Another principle in developing a historical narrative for India that suggests itself is the notion that Indian History should not be subject to reductionist arguments and be boxed in or essentialized into a watertight compartment such as South or South East Asia. India has much in common with various disparate cultures and is in fact the quintessential melting pot of cultures, and the Indic civilization is one with a Universal Weltanschauung. The reason that Indic philosophies have appeal is because of the Universalist principles on which they are based and the resort to ontological arguments. It is in this context that Indians find exhortations to secularism to be particularly incongruous. The secularist imperative of Indian society is merely a subset of ontological principles celebrating the universality of the human spirit. The Indic civilization has always welcomed a catholicity of views and ideologies as alternate paths suitable for human beings at different stages of their development. Reminding the Indian to be secular is as redundant as reminding the Chinese to revere their ancestors.
Grammar School education in India in general and the teaching of History in particular must be undertaken with a great degree of deliberation and seriousness, comparable to that which is done in most European countries. A history of an entire nation should never be relegated for the most part to the subjects of another power or nation, much less a colonial power. In developing a curriculum for History education in India, we must be far more accepting of our oral tradition of transmitting knowledge which predates the development of scripts by several millennia

Last but not least the Indian must once again be encouraged to have pride in his/her historical tradition, regardless of religious affiliation. The current practice where all activities remotely considered nationalistic are immediately ridiculed, as jingoism is a practice that appears peculiarly Indian. Under no circumstances should the modern Indian let the History of India be driven and directed by a small group of people alien to the traditions of the subcontinent and who are accountable to no one in the subcontinent.

Again the point here is not to concoct a history that speaks only in glowing terms of the past accomplishments of India while ignoring the inevitable blemishes which certainly India was not immune to. The purpose is to avoid broad generalizations and to accept as fact, events in history without any evidence whatsoever that they occurred and merely because it was asserted by a European.

10-13-2004, 01:05 AM

Kaushal Garu,

The points below might not be exactly amount to the kind of feedback you are looking for, but my 2 paise (I might find more paise in the recesses later <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> ).

A decisive blow to indigenous education was by British. The British agenda called
for educational policies that were dictated by the requirements of running the empire rather than the welfare and true education of colonized. Macaulay noted that "the object of the British Government ought to be the promotion of European literature and Science among the natives of India and that all the funds appropriated for the purpose of education would be best employed on English education alone".

Unfortunately even after Independence, we (rather the system) have not shed the colonial legacy while looking for an alternate educational system. The history teaching in particular, typified and continued the relationship that exists between the colonizer and the colonized. Thus even till today schools teach more European history than Indian history. It is in this context and experience, we continue to breed brown sahibs with roots cut off.

In 1975 (I believe) a new framework to teach history in schools evolved under the framework of "socialism, democracy and secularism(?)". The framework was (and
the main objectives of teaching the history of humankind are the following):

to promote an understanding of the processes of change and development through which human societies have evolved to their present stage of development
to promote an understanding of the common roots of human civilization and an appreciation of the basic unity of humankind
to develop an appreciation of the contributions made by various cultures to the total heritage of humankind
to foster the understanding that the mutual interaction of various cultures has been an important factor in the progress of humankind
to promote the study of the history of specific countries in relation to, and as a part of, the general history of humankind

[THe frame work mentioned above, I cut & paste from an incomplete paper of Dharampal (I believe, hence I am not listing it here) from my archives]

From the same paper it also mentions that "The teaching of history should be objective and free from any communal, parochial, and other prejudices. The students should be introduced to the stages of development of human civilization and to the historical forces and factors that have shaped the modem world. Their understanding of India's heritage and struggle for freedom should be enhanced because understanding the past aids the students' understanding of contemporary developments. Challenging assignments and prolects should encourage independent work by students".

However the teaching part of the history becomes a pedagogical exercise with little interaction from students, the quality of history education imparted to the student depends heavily on the bias of the teacher. However if one goes through the framework, in its original and pristine form, was a very good effort in coming up with the principles of teaching history. Then we all know who hijacked it, and now we now know why our people turn out the way they do <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' />

10-13-2004, 09:30 AM

QUOTEThe teaching of history should be objective and free from any communal, parochial, and other prejudices

Let us take ths quote and analyze it. Does the above mean one should have no pride in the achievements of members of one's community. Surely this runs against human nature. Would it not be much better if each community ermulated the leaders from its community (in addition to those from other communities). It is only natural that a Tamil should have pride in the achievments of the Chola empire. Does that make it parochial to take pride inthe achievements of ones region and woould we term the person prejudiced as a result.

There is an implicit assumption here that pride in one community is antithetical to pride in one's country. Frankly I dont see why that should be. There is no question that many Andhras felt a degree of pride when PVN Rao became PM of India, the first south indian to do so. Is that communal to say he was an above average PM among the sixteen or so PMs of India since independence.

The problem with objectivity is that like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder. That does not mean one should not be objective, it merely means that one should perceive the truth as one sees it, and if there is a little exaggeration in blowing ones trumpet, so be it,everytbody understands where it is coming from.

It is far better in my view to build upon communal pride (or pride in ones community) and extend that to the nation. Tribal loyalties will not disappear easily simply because we decree that they are communal. As the average Indian becomes more well read and literate, he will himself leave the fold, cut the umbilical cord, without any iducement from Mother India and venture forth in the brave new world and go beyond his tribe to find comraderie and a shared system of values.

I am just thinking aloud engaging in dialectic and I am not necessarily disagreeing with the gist of these statments.

Again i am looking for broad principles or those paradigms that have universality in application. I am not sure whether the above qualifies as a broad enoug principle, but thank you K.ram for venturing forth.

OK it is time to hear from the silent majority, the 400 odd members who hardly or never post, Dont be bashful, the worst that coould happen is that your ego takes a beating (something we avoid as much as possible)

10-14-2004, 12:17 AM

Dictionary -- History: an account of what has happened, in the life of a people, country etc., all recorded past events.

Ancient Indic civilization history is well preserved in form of Hindu religious text e.g Ramayana, Mahabharat, puranas etc or in folk lore form. Only Hindus who read these text and other communities treat them as blasphemy.

Indian government or writer should take information from these texts as recorded historical events. Past government never tried to promote Indic History from exiting text but followed western theory which was twisted to suit some party and interest.

Every Indian should read these texts to understand Indic culture and History.
I donât think language can change culture, language is used for expression.

In recent time Yoga, meditation and spirituality concept are Indic civilization concepts. Whole world is adopting them. It should be projected as Indic civilization impact on other civilization. But currently, only western historians or west educated Indians thoughts are valued who disregards exiting written literature.

Muslim or Christian atrocities are completely ignored in Indian History books. Ignoring actual facts means deviating from truth about past and not correct way to present History.

**acharya** · 10-14-2004, 03:28 AM

OK I think a book has to be read to get an idea how the west looks at history

The Evolution of Civilizations
by Carroll Quigley

This is a fascinating book and definitely worth the time and money. In the beginning of the book, Quigley makes the case for the introduction of the scientific method to the social sciences. As a matter of fact, the first 170 pages of the book lays the rationale behind and need for analytical tools to study history. He states that the alternative would be just the presentation of facts with no explanation for what is actually happening. One needs to know what is happening to be able to determine which facts to present, which requires analytical tools. The first 170 pages also deal with distinctions between societies and civilizations, as well as between parasitic and productive societies. He defines civilizations as producing societies with an instrument of expansion

He then states that civilizations proceed through the following stages:
1. Mixture - different societies come into contact and produce a society with an outlook different from any of the parts.
2. Gestation - the period of time between the mixing of the different societies and the expansion of the civilization.
3. Expansion - the surplus generated by the society is invested in activities that benefit the civilization. This can include an increase in knowledge, increase in area, technological advancements that increase efficiency, etc. Civilizations have different instruments of expansion. He calls a social organization or unit an instrument if it meets social needs.
4. Age of Conflict - The rate of increase using the social instrument slows down which brings interesting times. The instrument can be reformed or a new instrument consistent with the civilization's outlook can circumvent the old instrument. If reform is achieved, a new age of expansion begins. If the vested interests of the previous instument of expansion increasingly consume resources while serving no social needs, Quigley says that the instrument has then become an institution. Expansion can continue, but it is at the expense of neighbors, which leads to imperialist wars. When the vested interests have crushed all internal opposition, the next stage appears.
5. Universal Empire - typically a state or politcal unit on the peripheral of the civilization gains power over the whole civilization. The illusion of a golden age appears. The social organization remains stagnant.
6. Decay - lack of belief in the civilization's outlook or inability to meet needs of the people leads to people opting out of the system.
7. Invasion - external forces disrupt the civilization's social organization and it is unable or unwilling to defend itself. That spells the end of the civilization.
The civilizations that he analyzes are the following: Mesopotamian, Caananite and Minoan, Classical, and Western. His examples are excellent as is his analysis. I particularly liked his example of the the Pythagorian rationalists love for rationality went beyond their love for the truth, as a disciple of Pythagoras proved the irrationality of reality using the Pythagorean theorem. We have that lot to blame for discrediting the scientific method for about two thousand years!
A very enjoyable read!

This is a history book like no others. The author developed a detailed model of civilization life cycle analysis. According to him, civilizations pass through 7 predictable stages. Typically the 7th and last stage of one civilization is the first stage of another one that is succeeding the first dying civilization.

Using his model, he analyzes in detail the life cycle of several major civilizations, including: the Mesopotamian, Minoan, Classical, Russian, and Western.

Reading this book almost feels like uncovering a manuscript of secret knowledge. Although I have read quite a bit on this subject, other historians and authors rarely refer to Quigley. Yet, I feel that he is the giant within his field of historical analysis. And, that his model could serve well in better understanding current affairs. 

President Clinton took Professor Carroll Quigley's freshman history course on "The Evolution of Civilizations," for which this book was the required text. No one who ever experienced Quigley in the classroom ever can forget him. He was akin to Robin Williams in "The Dead Poets Society." Quigley provided a framework for understanding history as "everything that has happened to this moment that is worth remembering." Everything else to him was "mere antiquarianism." What is "worth remembering" at any given moment changes from time to time. One of Quigley's favorite lecture techniques was to take the morning paper and show how an understanding of the underlying history clarifies each headline. For example, were Quigley alive today, he would point to an article on Bosnia and ask his freshmen to explain Balkan history. Heaven help them if they failed to mention the Battle of Kosovo in the 1380's, the key to understanding all Balkan history since! At a White House function on the morning of 9 July 1996, I mentioned to the President that, for summer reading, I was re-reading Carroll Quigley's writings. "That's funny you should mention that," replied the President, "as I was reading him last night!"

**acharya** · 10-14-2004, 03:47 AM

This is a striking book. When one is past the formative years, it rarely happens that a single book can substantially change one's view of the world. For me the "Evolution of Civilizations" influenced my understanding of history more than anything I've read in many years.
The most important author's contribution to historical analysis is identification of the growth mechanism - "instrument of expansion", which can be quite different in different civilizations. It must include two necessary conditions - generation of surplus output, and its investment in productive economic activities. Later, this "instrument of expansion" becomes institutionalized, when surplus is spent on maintenance of status quo of ruling elites and various vested interests, and a society enters "Age of Conflict".

One of the distinctions, which Quigley attributes uniquely to the Western civilization, is that it passed through the "Age of Expansion" and reached the "Age of Conflict" three times in its history. First - during Middle Ages (he specifically puts dates 970-1270) with the feudalism as an instrument of expansion, which became institutionalized as chivalry and municipal mercantilism. The second period is the Renaissance era (1440-1630), with the commercial capitalism as instrument of expansion, which ended in the "Age of conflict" of the brutal Thirty Years War, absolutism, and state mercantilism of the emerging nation-states. The third "Age of Expansion" is associated with the Industrial Revolution, beginning in the second half of the 18-th century. It had the industrial capitalism as an instrument of expansion, which became institutionalized in the monopolistic capitalism and imperialism.

Quigley puts the end of the third "Age of Expansion" specifically in 1929, with the Wall Street crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. This is an americentric view; in fact the process of institutionalization and monopolistic excesses can be traced to late 19-th century, and by early 20-th century they were plainly evident. Western economies still expanded, but financial crashes, increasing in frequency and magnitude, underlined new fragility due to the exhaustion of the expansionary mechanism. In this sense the WWI was a typical "Age of Conflict" war, similar to the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War of the previous "Ages of Conflict" in Europe - not a clash of civilizations, or the conflict between the old and the new. Instead it was pointless, horrible slaughter underlying the conflict between vested interests of various elites and countries belonging to one civilization, and largely devoid of irreconcilable ideological differences.

Yet, contrary to the author, it is unlikely that the Western civilization is unique in this sense. The ascendance of every civilization includes several distinct stages. In fact it is more historically consistent to talk about the probability of the civilization's survival after a period of crisis, brought by institutionalization of the "instrument of expansion" and solidifying status quo. One can argue, for example, that the Islamic civilization experienced at least two distinct "ages of expansion" - the first centered at times of Abbasid Caliphate, the second - during the ascent of the Ottoman Empire, in 14-16th centuries.

In the case of Orthodox Christian (i.e. Russian) civilization Quigley puts the "Age of Expansion" in the interval 1500-1900, and then - a new one beginning with the Soviet era. In fact, just like Western civilization, the Orthodox one experienced three very distinct stages of expansion before 20th century. The first one was Kievan Rus, which flourished along the North-South trading routes between the Baltic and Black seas (hence the duality of the most important cities - Kiev in the south and Novgorod in the north), which entered the "Age of Conflict" near the end of 12-th century and was conquered by Mongol invasion. The next period of expansion probably began around 1350 (its first show of strength was the victory over Mongols in Kulikovo Pole in 1380) and was centered around Moscow. It lasted probably until institutionalization of the part of the boyar elites loyal to Ivan IV (Grozny), around 1560. Its instrument of expansion was oriental-style autocracy, based on the ideas of civil and military administration borrowed from China, Golden Horde and Islamic countries. The subsequent "Age of Conflict" included terrible repressions of later-stage Grozny period, "Time of Troubles" in early 17-th century, and early period of the Romanov dynasty. The next stage began with Peter the Great, and was associated with St. Petersburg period. Its instrument of expansion was European-style absolutism, with westernizing aristocratic elite and bonded peasantry. It reached its zenith around 1815 with the victory over Napoleon, and began to stagnate around 1830.

I would argue that Quiglean interpretation of the subsequent period included unsuccessful attempt at the new instrument of expansion (western-borrowed industrial capitalism) in late the 19-th and early 20-th century, which was aborted and instead a new civilization was born. This socialist (or atheistic) civilization rapidly expanded to about the third of the globe and exerted strong influence on the western world. Its "instrument of expansion" included Communist party as an organization responsible for investing economic surplus (which later became institutionalized in "nomenclatura") and social engineering, which allowed rapid industrialization and development of education and health care. It reached its zenith in victory over Hitler, launch of the Sputnik and Gagarin's flight. This civilization entered its first "Age of Conflict" around 1965, apparent in progressing economic stagnation, intra-civilizational tensions with China (including a small war in 1969), one of the first manifestations of its crisis was defeat in the Moon landing race. Soviet regime collapsed around 1990, but the civilization did not, which is evident in strong economic performance in China throughout 90-s (which can be viewed as Quiglean "geographic circumvention") and the fact that Russia, despite some religious revival, remained overwhelmingly secular and didn't revert to many previous monarchic and religious traditions. After a period of painful reforms it will have the potential for the new "Age of Expansion", probably based on some western and some of its own ideas.

I simply want to say that "The Evolution of Civilizations is the first book any prospective historian should read. The book simply is an educational tool not so much of history, (Though it is full of History.) as it is a teaching of the scientific method of historical information gathering. Useing the concepts taught in this book will prepare the future and current history student or historian to properly examine History and will actually help you predict future history.
This book will offer insights into the past that can quite possibly change the way you view the world.

The great value of this work is that it goes beyond the mere "what happeneds" and "who did whats." Quigley asks the much more important and valuable question: "how." How do new civilizations come into being? How do they change? How do they die? (And the unspoken echo: What will happen to our own civilization?)

Because he was trained as a scientist, Quigley proceeds to develop a methodological basis for answering that question of "how." He then demonstrates the soundness of that method by examining the great civilizations of history, pointing out not just the forms they took but _how_ they came to take those particular forms.

That makes this book sound pretty dry. It's not. One of the charms of Quigley's writing is his obvious impatience with what he considered to be "wrong" ideas. At some points, he's downright grumpy. Yet he never gives the impression of disagreeing from personal reasons; instead, every one of his views that he asserts as likely true is shown to be supported by the available evidence. It's actually great fun trying to guess what respected belief he'll casually demolish next. (Though it's a bit unsettling when its one's own ox being gored, as Quigley didn't play favorites. Getting the most out of this book will call for real objectivity.)

To be more specific about this work, it's one that should appeal to anyone who is more concerned with understanding systems as a whole than with how to win some short-term game or just memorize names and dates. Quigley treats history as a science: he gathers historical information, proposes a testable hypothesis about how civilizations evolve into their particular forms, and then tests this hypothesis by checking it against real civilizations. As fascinating as the details of this "seven stages of a civilization's life" model are (and his study of Western civilization is both stimulating and sobering), the real value is Quigley's insistence on treating the study of history as a science. That's the good habit Quigley tries to inculcate in the reader. It's why the subtitle of this work is "An Introduction to Historical Analysis."

Those looking to understand civilizations from a systems analysis perspective (what James Blish in his "Cities in Flight" stories called "cultural morphology") will find this book a gold mine of sound thinking, good information, startling insights, and inspirational ideas.

Footnote: Some of Quigley's other works deal with shadowy global conspiracies and the like. This work has nothing to do with the CFR, Trilateral Commission, black helicopters, or other such concerns. It's about the evolution of civilizations.

10-18-2004, 12:19 PM

I believe there are two different things: 1) History the science and 2) The national narrative.

History the science is like any other science an investigative reconstruction of the past. So I believe there are no other principles beyond the basic scientific principles in doing history, when it is pursued as a science.

The national narrative on the other hand is a narrative by which the people of a nation conceive their tradition. All civilized and "uncivilized" cultures have had this. It is the Ithas-Puran for India. The other nations of the world we may see narratives like: Secret History, Gesta Danorum, the Sagas, Kalevala, the early kings of Rum, Shah Nameh etc. They are commonly cloaked in mythology which is dependent on the mythological prelidictions of the people whose narrative it is.

After Christianization, the narratives in the West have tended center themselves on the basic Semitic or Abrahamic narrative with an angle of Abrahamizing the whole world. One god- one president- one "correct" system, universal democracy is all a part of this. In the more recent times the left-leaning academics in the Anglo-Saxon world have tended to engage "Deconstructing" these narratives due these being at odds with their own Marxist trans-national narrative. The Anglo-Saxon foreigns policy makers decided to make the most of these windy academics by turn them towards the "deconstruction" of the narratives of other nations. There by they kill two birds with a stone.

The net result is we see a profound confusion between narratives and histories among the people who are being targetted for this action.

10-18-2004, 11:59 PM

Rajita, that is an excellent insight. The telling and retelling of the narrative does not always adhere to the same set of principles as that of investigating the history itself. Our own narrative was tied till very recently to an oral tradition (e.g. Harikathas in my part of the country) and we were late in developing the skills in written communications (as opposed to merelyauthoring a text) partly because the colonizer stifled the avenues of communication by various means at his disposal.

This may be developed into an essay (would you be interested in doing the honors ?)

10-20-2004, 09:50 AM

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Oct 18 2004, 11:59 PM) Rajita, that is an excellent insight. The telling and retelling of the narrative does not always adhere to the same set ofÂ principles as that ofÂ investigating the history itself. Our own narrative was tied till very recently to an oral tradition (e.g. Harikathas in my part of the country) and we were late in developing the skills in written communications (as opposed to merelyauthoring a text) partly because the colonizer stifled the avenues of communication by various means at his disposal.

Kaushal, it is not entirely original. These thoughts sprung from discussion we were having with our friends including our forumite HH.

As for writing a essay- I agree it is worth considering- though I must consult with HH what his thinking in this direction is.

gangajal · 10-29-2004, 02:00 AM

QUOTE(Rajita Rajvasishth @ Oct 18 2004, 12:19 PM) I believe there are two different things: 1) History the science and 2) The national narrative.

History the science is like any other science an investigative reconstruction of the past. So I believe there are no other principles beyond the basic scientific principles in doing history, when it is pursued as a science.


Can history be really studied as a science? Will a muslim historian view the islamic invasion of the Indian subcontinent in quite the same light as a Hindu historian? History can not be studied from a purely objective angle because history is the past viewed through the particular individual lens of the historian. All one can say is there are several possible versions of history and their rightness or wrongness will depend on the ideological bent of the reader of history.

11-06-2004, 07:27 PM

email from an acquaintance...


"It is impossible at the present time to write history without using a whole range of concepts directly or indirectly linked to Marx's thought and situating oneself within a horizon of thought which has been defined and described by Marx. One might even wonder what difference there could ultimately be between being a historian and being a Marxist"

- Michael Foucault.

11-17-2004, 10:51 AM

QUOTEWhat Should Be The Principles On Which A History... 

QUOTEI believe there are two different things: 1) History the science and 2) The national narrative. 

As a dabbler in history, I had long been searching for a conclusive answer to this question. Historical narratives, I felt, will have meaning and depth only within a certain framework of principles. A writer may term this as the search for the "principal axis" along which his/her history aligns itself. Once the axis is established, a piece historical writing would acquire its own distinctive style. However, in the absence of such an axis, one is pulled in different directions by the conflicting views of different historians. The end result is a "historical mosaic" of views of co-opted from various historians (often half-baked).

QUOTEI believe there are two different things: 1) History the science and 2) The national narrative. 

I do believe that this question has been finally set to rest here by lucidly bringing out the dichotomy between "History, the science" & "History, the national narrative". I'm glad that I finally found my answer to this long-standing question which had plagued me so much... its great that you could put it so lucidly. (I always had vague idea of this sort, but I could never crystallize it in words). I think, RR, the forum must owe a lot to you for making this basic point so clear.

With this as the guiding principle historians may embark at the daunting task of framing the ideal history textbooks for kids. I guess both aspects have to be weaved in right quantities: the former is essential to ensure rigor, lest all-and-sundry not pass off as history, while the latter is essential for breeding patriotism/nationalism. The enemies of our nation state will certainly not be enamored and are bound to emit shrill cries "brainwashing of young minds", "Talibanization of history", "Saffronization" etc. But like them, the preservers of a nation's cultural heritage too must have an agenda.

**acharya** · 11-26-2004, 12:19 PM

Hinduism and Its Sense of History
by Arvind Sharma "The view that Hinduism as a religion, or the Hindus as a people, lack a sense of history has been expressed so often as to..." (more)

The author convincingly argues that Hindus have a sense of history and

amazon

Login




Remember me Lost Password?