01-25-2008, 02:52 AM
I think this is a problem deriving from a larger problem -problems with historiography about India
1. The foundations laid by etic scholars has not been revised in face of new evidence (at most cosmetic adjustment have been made - but the overall frame remains unrevised). Modern historiographers are content to model thier theories within frames developed with insuffecient scholarship.
Notably
i) All early historians who developed the idea of indian history were victorian englishmen or europeans.
ii) Thier work has been found to be inaccurate, biased, unscholarly, having extrenious motivations on many counts
iii) Thier familiarity with thier subject of study is questionable , biased , unsuffecient.
iv) They have tried to reconstruct history from the wrong sources
v) Primary motivation to develop a history of india was to give europe and europeans a high seat in the ancient world and is highly questionable
2. Reconstruction of Indian history does not use Indian historical sources as primary sources. Indian sources are insufficiently investigated or cursorily dismissed as
i) improbable - most certainly mythological
ii) not fitting into existing theories
iii) leading to improbably ancient dates
iv) having dubious chronologies
3. Modern Indian historians have not done serious historiography.
Probably because
i) the subject is studied as a western subject - and appendage of European history using western methods and techniques without critically analyzing thier objectivity.
ii) being more interested in political activism they wish to construct a history favourable to thier political persuations.
iii) being in awe of the âwhite scholarâ they are loath (scared) to confront them on so fundamental a point as basic frame of indian historiography.
iv) they associate genuine prestige to being âshabashâed by the western scholar - do not attach any importance to homegrown opinion.(Hence thier casual dismissal of very penetrating insights of a highly respected archeologist, and that of an independent historian )
v) are fundamentally of a Eurocentric persuation ie a macaulayist or a marxist or a âgunga-dinâ or are mercenaries who are doing dishonest work due to monetary considerations.
vi) are fundamentally ignorant of and do not have scholarly expertise on the tools (languages, techniques) for an emic analysis of history.
vii) indulge in cirular references to materials within thier clique to support and buttress theories
4. Modern western historians
i) Counldnt care less about indian history
ii) Are presumptious to think that thier supposedly unbiased and allegedly scientific methods are beyond reproach.
iii) Are Eurocentric, are brought up in a Judeo-christian tradition - where study of the outsider generally boils down to anthropological analysis of other cultures with a view to establishing dominance of the Eurpean viewpoint.
iv) Are too engrossed, subsumed within the Western Grand Narrative to pay much attention to any other viewpoint.
v) Are culturally so different that they are incapable of understanding the subtelities (going beyond gramattical textual analysis) ; are unaware of the nuances and historical/mythological/symbolic connections to draw ready inferences from any historical document of suitable antiquity.
vi) Are unwilling to understand the viewpoint, unable to communicate with indegenious scholarship with a non-western viewpoint.
vii) have a vested interest in protecting thier academic dominance of scholarship on other cultures and thier histories.
viii) lack suffecient funding from sources sympathetic to the indegenious indian viewpoint,
Serious indepth studies of ancient texts have not yet been done. A majority of ancient sanskrit(and other sources) lie untranslated , uninterpreted and insuffeciently placed within the framework of history.
There is need for unbiased indegenious scholars to reconstruct i) ancient history of indian subcontinent from original sources
ii) ancient history of most non-european cultures with indegenrious sources
iii) try and correlate these indegenious histories
iv) try to derive accurate/approximate dates and inferences from indegenious sources
v) then and only then associate our history with european histories and sources.
1. The foundations laid by etic scholars has not been revised in face of new evidence (at most cosmetic adjustment have been made - but the overall frame remains unrevised). Modern historiographers are content to model thier theories within frames developed with insuffecient scholarship.
Notably
i) All early historians who developed the idea of indian history were victorian englishmen or europeans.
ii) Thier work has been found to be inaccurate, biased, unscholarly, having extrenious motivations on many counts
iii) Thier familiarity with thier subject of study is questionable , biased , unsuffecient.
iv) They have tried to reconstruct history from the wrong sources
v) Primary motivation to develop a history of india was to give europe and europeans a high seat in the ancient world and is highly questionable
2. Reconstruction of Indian history does not use Indian historical sources as primary sources. Indian sources are insufficiently investigated or cursorily dismissed as
i) improbable - most certainly mythological
ii) not fitting into existing theories
iii) leading to improbably ancient dates
iv) having dubious chronologies
3. Modern Indian historians have not done serious historiography.
Probably because
i) the subject is studied as a western subject - and appendage of European history using western methods and techniques without critically analyzing thier objectivity.
ii) being more interested in political activism they wish to construct a history favourable to thier political persuations.
iii) being in awe of the âwhite scholarâ they are loath (scared) to confront them on so fundamental a point as basic frame of indian historiography.
iv) they associate genuine prestige to being âshabashâed by the western scholar - do not attach any importance to homegrown opinion.(Hence thier casual dismissal of very penetrating insights of a highly respected archeologist, and that of an independent historian )
v) are fundamentally of a Eurocentric persuation ie a macaulayist or a marxist or a âgunga-dinâ or are mercenaries who are doing dishonest work due to monetary considerations.
vi) are fundamentally ignorant of and do not have scholarly expertise on the tools (languages, techniques) for an emic analysis of history.
vii) indulge in cirular references to materials within thier clique to support and buttress theories
4. Modern western historians
i) Counldnt care less about indian history
ii) Are presumptious to think that thier supposedly unbiased and allegedly scientific methods are beyond reproach.
iii) Are Eurocentric, are brought up in a Judeo-christian tradition - where study of the outsider generally boils down to anthropological analysis of other cultures with a view to establishing dominance of the Eurpean viewpoint.
iv) Are too engrossed, subsumed within the Western Grand Narrative to pay much attention to any other viewpoint.
v) Are culturally so different that they are incapable of understanding the subtelities (going beyond gramattical textual analysis) ; are unaware of the nuances and historical/mythological/symbolic connections to draw ready inferences from any historical document of suitable antiquity.
vi) Are unwilling to understand the viewpoint, unable to communicate with indegenious scholarship with a non-western viewpoint.
vii) have a vested interest in protecting thier academic dominance of scholarship on other cultures and thier histories.
viii) lack suffecient funding from sources sympathetic to the indegenious indian viewpoint,
Serious indepth studies of ancient texts have not yet been done. A majority of ancient sanskrit(and other sources) lie untranslated , uninterpreted and insuffeciently placed within the framework of history.
There is need for unbiased indegenious scholars to reconstruct i) ancient history of indian subcontinent from original sources
ii) ancient history of most non-european cultures with indegenrious sources
iii) try and correlate these indegenious histories
iv) try to derive accurate/approximate dates and inferences from indegenious sources
v) then and only then associate our history with european histories and sources.