What's new

The Reign of Non-History

You need to get a Reading lenses ,they rate me ,I don't ,so it's quite logical who follows whom ;)

You mean rating is done from behind, to the backside of the rated? You really have an original point of view.

You know a lot about history .But these are difficulties faced by our dept?Am I right?

There are two things that history departments lack: (1) Funds; (2) Access to Internet and online resources, partly due to lack of funds, partly due to lack of infrastructure.

Funds are used for access to resources (as described at #2), buy books, attend conferences, organise conferences, take on research workers and pay them for doing research, without doing anything else, pay salaries to teaching staff, and so on.

Indian departments lack in these two respects, compared to foreign departments.

Is there anything else you'd like to know?

I dont know ask a Pakistani. some say rss hindu terrorist lol. How is this related?

Only someone extremely stupid or extremely sly would have to ask the question you asked.
 
Last edited:
You mean rating is done from behind, to the backside of the rated? You really have an original point of view.



There are two things that history departments lack: (1) Funds; (2) Access to Internet and online resources, partly due to lack of funds, partly due to lack of infrastructure.

Funds are used for access to resources (as described at #2), buy books, attend conferences, organise conferences, take on research workers and pay them for doing research, without doing anything else, pay salaries to teaching staff, and so on.

Indian departments lack in these two respects, compared to foreign departments.

Is there anything else you'd like to know?



Only someone extremely stupid or extremely sly would have to ask the question you asked.

Nope,I'm not telepathic. Why are you afraid to write something. Are you saying we should be presenting the other sides perspectives in our history..?
 
Nope,I'm not telepathic. Why are you afraid to write something. Are you saying we should be presenting the other sides perspectives in our history..?

1. You don't need telepathy, just brains and gumption.
2. I am not afraid to write anything, but don't like being baited by morons with two-dimensional ideas.
3. You don't have to present the other side's perceptions unless you want to. You do have to be consistent, however, and can't shift your position as it suits you.

Now join the dots. And buzz off.
 
1. You don't need telepathy, just brains and gumption.
2. I am not afraid to write anything, but don't like being baited by morons with two-dimensional ideas.
3. You don't have to present the other side's perceptions unless you want to. You do have to be consistent, however, and can't shift your position as it suits you.

Now join the dots. And buzz off.
lol, so much anger. "Baited" ahaha, nice one.

You still dont make much sense, perhaps you also see, JeM as freedom fighters and the Indian army as human rights violators/evil occupiers :lol:, maybe that your way of being "consistent", okay good for you :)
 
lol, so much anger. "Baited" ahaha, nice one.

You still dont make much sense, perhaps you also see, JeM as freedom fighters and the Indian army as human rights violators/evil occupiers :lol:, maybe that your way of being "consistent", okay good for you :)

I thought you were either stupid or sly. Obviously, from your last post, you aren't sly. If you like standing on your head and viewing things, go ahead. Just don't involve me. Don't do clumsy things like putting words in my mouth. Nobody gets fooled by such silly tricks.
 
I thought you were either stupid or sly. Obviously, from your last post, you aren't sly. If you like standing on your head and viewing things, go ahead. Just don't involve me. Don't do clumsy things like putting words in my mouth. Nobody gets fooled by such silly tricks.
Awww I see you are all hurt. And gave me a negative rating That is so bad :lol: I never involved you you quoted my post first.
 
Now, Indians have greater to internet and history is no more feeding like version in old days. People can learn different perspective and can decide it themselves.
It does not matter at all where we can gather all our knowledge from. Most important part should be "what" we are reading, not "how" we are reading. Isn't it?

The very dating system used in current History is itself based on the existence of Christ as a fact, but when someone asserts that Mahabharatam and Rama might have been real, it is called fundamentalist hindu dogma......okay.

The dating system that we are using today does not necessarily assert the fact that Jesus did exist, or does it? Theologians, academic scholars, historians debate extensively whether Jesus really existed or not. I am not sure how dating system can be treated as a evidence of existence when it had nothing to do with it.

Correct version of history?

I am afraid, the author of the article is not much worried about how words are chosen or how a certain word can be interpreted differently by different people. What is worrisome is the deliberate mixing of faith with history when the later demands academic research not mythologies or folklore as proof of a nation's glorious past.

Only Quasi-Marxist history where demons become Dravidians,Freedom fighters become terrorist,islamic barbarians become peace loving souls is correct ,all else is fascist !
Can you please tell us a better way to define "Raksasa" other than that is given by Marxist historians here? Or do you really believe in demons?
 
Last edited:
The very dating system used in current History is itself based on the existence of Christ as a fact, but when someone asserts that Mahabharatam and Rama might have been real, it is called fundamentalist hindu dogma......okay.

Dil kush kardiya yaar

Because genetic studies don't support the North Indian are Aryans and South India are Dravidians race instead it shows people are mixed from common races. So, many people openly told me genetic studies are 'Hindutva' propaganda. :sarcastic::sarcastic:

Meme se reply kara karo eise logo ko
 
Last edited:
Can you please tell us a better way to define "Raksasa" other than that is given by Marxist historians here? Or do you really believe in demons?

The Deva and Asura divide was between Indo-Aryans and Iranians relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices but the colonial historians faked it into the Aryan and Dravidian thing to create North-South divide. Moreover, if Ravana of Lanka was an asura, so was Jarasandha of Magadha and Kansa of Mathura. So, we can surely see what was done to our history by screwing it.
 
The Deva and Asura divide was between Indo-Aryans and Iranians relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices but the colonial historians faked it into the Aryan and Dravidian thing to create North-South divide. Moreover, if Ravana of Lanka was an asura, so was Jarasandha of Magadha and Kansa of Mathura. So, we can surely see what was done to our history by screwing it.
I am in no way a supporter of an such theories which are plainly based upon mythologies,ancient scripts or preoccupied ideological dogmas. In fact I am glad that genetics have proved Marxist historians wrong in terms of AIT. But this is what we all are demanding right? A methodological study based on scientific methods. Any distortion of history or resorting to wrong historiography to find what you want to find should not be applied by any block here, be it leftist or rightist.
 
I am in no way a supporter of an such theories which are plainly based upon mythologies,ancient scripts or preoccupied ideological dogmas. In fact I am glad that genetics have proved Marxist historians wrong in terms of AIT. But this is what we all are demanding right? A methodological study based on scientific methods. Any distortion of history or resorting to wrong historiography to find what you want to find should not be applied by any block here, be it leftist or rightist.

There had been new discoveries both in genetics and archaeology rejecting old theories but not included in the latest curriculum yet, and our history also need to tell the kids the real meaning of the Arya and Dravida mentioned in Hindu scriptures, you may be knowing their meaning in Hindu scriptures is totally contradictory to the terms European coined the Aryan and Dravidian races.
 
The dating system that we are using today does not necessarily assert the fact that Jesus did exist, or does it? Theologians, academic scholars, historians debate extensively whether Jesus really existed or not. I am not sure how dating system can be treated as a evidence of existence when it had nothing to do with it.
Yes there is a debate about the existence but when the timeline divides areas into "before Christ" and "Christian era" , it obviously wants to imply something.
What is worrisome is the deliberate mixing of faith with history when the later demands academic research not mythologies or folklore as proof of a nation's glorious past.
If you see above, it has already happened.

But leaving that aside, lets see what they actually do instead of becoming paranoid, which is what the whole article is based off. Looking at the past demands by the last bjp govt, it was mainly removal of AIT, describing the muslim invasion in more raw terms instead of whitewashing them, inclusions of non congress freedom fighters and so on.
 
The Deva and Asura divide was between Indo-Aryans and Iranians relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices but the colonial historians faked it into the Aryan and Dravidian thing to create North-South divide. Moreover, if Ravana of Lanka was an asura, so was Jarasandha of Magadha and Kansa of Mathura. So, we can surely see what was done to our history by screwing it.


You must bring yourself to limit what you say and write in the interests of sanity, not least of it your own.

You draw a distinction above between the concept of a Deva and Asura divide between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians, relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices, and that of the colonial historians.

First, you meant religious beliefs and bowdlerised that by an equivocation, 'different cultural practices'. That is all right; if you do not want to face up to the fact that there was a religious schism, and that the Zoroastrians were the dominant branch who retained their position and status, and sent away to exile elements of their kindred who believed in an opposite theology, that is up to you.

Second, it is irritating to see a shifting position taken, where at times, someone says that the AIT was nonsense, at other times, that same person cites the Indo-Iranian people and their division into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. What is that, pray, other than the classical AIT division and the classic AIT position of an invading mass re-stated without acknowledgement that it is being re-stated?

Third, who is it that you claim first explained this Indo-Iranian=>Iranian + Indo-Aryan structure, essentially today a linguistic structure, in opposition to those whom you call 'colonial historians'? Can you name an historian not from the Europeans' ranks who said this earlier than the Europeans, including Max Mueller? Why do you spread disinformation of this particularly disingenuous kind?

Fourth, which colonial historian mapped Devas onto Aryans and Asuras onto Dravidians? Was it not that the Dravidian language was thought, and is still thought to have been spoken throughout south Asia, superseding the Austric languages? Is not the Deva-Asura identification with Aryan and Dravidian an afterthought of uncertain origin, perhaps from one of those Internet sites that people keep expressing satisfaction about, as they are bringing in diverse views which we can absorb through our pores without being 'fed' our knowledge?

Fifth, why are you introducing the Ramayana as an historic source through the backdoor, by raising a straw man controversy about Ravana being an Asura being counterpoised by Jarasandha and Kansa also being Asuras? No sane historian claims the events of the Ramayana, or the characters of the Ramayana to be historical figures; raising the question of Ravana's Asura status is entirely your own concoction, and nothing to do with history, other than the history of the hedge scholars that have now become popular with the idiots of the Sangh Parivar. Raising his status is itself an injection of myth into history; raising two others as a triumphant vindication of the opposite camp, and a contradiction of theories based on his status is pure concoction, as nobody built any theories based on his status in the first place, and there was no opposite camp among historians as a direct consequence.

All that this intervention of yours shows is the dismal depth which historical analysis will reach once these Hindutvavadi clowns start manipulating the texts.

Please, on a personal note, get a grip on yourself. For every sane and sensible note or post, at least a half-dozen before and after ensue, which are completely ridiculous and seemingly the fantasies of a feverish mind. This is really not acceptable.

I am in no way a supporter of an such theories which are plainly based upon mythologies,ancient scripts or preoccupied ideological dogmas. In fact I am glad that genetics have proved Marxist historians wrong in terms of AIT. But this is what we all are demanding right? A methodological study based on scientific methods. Any distortion of history or resorting to wrong historiography to find what you want to find should not be applied by any block here, be it leftist or rightist.

If I may be critical of an otherwise balanced set of views, where is the connection between discarded mythologies, ancient scripts or preoccupied (did you mean pre-determined?) ideological dogmas and the Marxist school? The Marxist school wrote on mediaeval India; Irfan Habib wrote on that period. Which Marxist historian are you claiming to have addressed the ancient Indian historical period? And how do you call the theories of the AIT Marxist theories, when they had nothing to do with those theories, or with their opposites?

Whether the Marxists are right or wrong about their interpretation of mediaeval India, and their analysis of the structure of the nobility at court during the Sultanate or the Mughal empire is one thing; calling both historians who happen to be ethnic Europeans, and others who are Indian but have published their works in peer reviewed journals and got their work approved by peer groups through papers, conferences and seminars Marxist is a bizarre piece of labelling.

Particularly bizarre because the bone-heads who use these obtuse labels themselves draw all their inspiration and their adversarial energy from western historians, while continuing to accuse everybody not in agreement of being Marxists and of being missionary and of being of suspect western origin, all at once, all in one breath.

What effrontery. And how naive to fall for it.
 
Last edited:
There had been new discoveries both in genetics and archaeology rejecting old theories but not included in the latest curriculum yet, and our history also need to tell the kids the real meaning of the Arya and Dravida mentioned in Hindu scriptures, you may be knowing their meaning in Hindu scriptures is totally contradictory to the terms European coined the Aryan and Dravidian races.

You might like to include the plain fact that it is the Hindutva revisionists who are clinging on to the racial connotations of Aryan and Dravidian, while the rest of the world has agreed that these terms can be used only as linguistic categories.

Why are you selective in your explanations? Is there something you are afraid to bring up?

What did you mean by the statement that there are new discoveries in archaeology rejecting old theories? Can you cite an example? Or examples? I ask in order to know.
 
Yes there is a debate about the existence but when the timeline divides areas into "before Christ" and "Christian era" , it obviously wants to imply something.

If you see above, it has already happened.

But leaving that aside, lets see what they actually do instead of becoming paranoid, which is what the whole article is based off. Looking at the past demands by the last bjp govt, it was mainly removal of AIT, describing the muslim invasion in more raw terms instead of whitewashing them, inclusions of non congress freedom fighters and so on.

Amazing contributions.

The dating based on the birth of Christ is at the moment nothing but a convention, and remains in place because there is no agreement on a replacement. You will, of course, be vastly astonished to find that the issue had arisen and has been debated,and is being debated even today, with no conclusion apparent.

As for the past demands by the last BJP government, removal of AIT if it is considered a mass invasion is one thing, removing it as a short-hand for the introduction of Aryan languages by migrants, and the spread of this language, or these languages, is quite another thing. They may do what they want by administrative fiat, no historian worth his or her salt will agree, and nor will future generations, unless the Sangh Parivar decides to give them sinecures.

Describing the Muslim invasion no doubt means gory accounts of every urban legend in the repertory; if the government is stupid enough to put such divisive and socially explosive things into the textbooks, that is up to them.

Finally, what freedom fighters are we talking about? There were none from the Sangh Parivar, not even from the Hindu Mahasabha, which existed then?
 
Back
Top Bottom