Why are you passing judgement even before they have published anything? It obviously has to be peer reviewed. Let us read and debate. Reading is good I hope.
Don't you read anything? There is no intention to publish, there is no question of debate or discussion. They know they don't have a case, and they don't have any academic support. So bring in the mob; let's have a 'Run for Own History'.
Peer review? Don't be ridiculous. That is precisely what they seek to avoid.
A clutch of organisations are getting together to organise a mega 'Run for Own History' campaign in Delhi to push for revision of ancient Indian history and "correct distortions introduced by leftist historians". 'Run for Own History' is likely to be organised in the Capital towards the year end or on the birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda on January 12, convenor Lalit Mishra told ET.
Source:
A campaign to 'correct distortions introduced by leftist historians' in ancient Indian history | Page 2
Well ! They can be labelled as the ones that have advocated distorted Indian History .
Aryan Invasion Theory .
Divide between Aryan and Dravidian
Black vs White and this list never ends .
Recent addition to it will be Neta JI SC Bose and real truth of Nehru .
Interesting list.
Every single item belongs to the colonial school, and has been discarded in part or in whole by subsequent generations, after debate, discussion and research, not in that order.
Please learn a little more about the recent historiography of Indian history before passing glib judgements.
They will call fairy tales as history. Worse they might write research(STEM) papers based on these fairy tales. Already tried to do that in Indian Science Congress no less. The shock and awe it generated made them cool down a bit. For now they will focus their energies on history books.
People in India have a wrong notion that anyway history is what is written by winners. Let us write our own. There is no fact checking. And every Tom Dick and Harry can write junk without having to study and understand complicated Math. So History is a very vulnerable subject.
Jinnah was not a kid. He played with fire for a quid-pro-quo and died before the fire started burning the country he created.
Missing you...try to post more often.
I don't think he expected that though. I think he genuinely felt bad when so many people died. He was naive about that part. Where he expected Congress to fold and leave entire Bengal and Punjab to him. And that India and Pakistan will separate without any violence(He wanted to live in Mumbai; a sad lol). He was never a mass politician, never got people's nerve. Otherwise he would have understood the consequences.
So true. So, so true. I prefer this (in a nutshell; a lot has to be added) to Ayesha Jalal's interpretation, which is too complicated for me.
People who hate their own country/people are the worst kind. In China we call them JY, those who always worship foreigners and put down anything Chinese.
In India I guess you call these people pseudo secularists (that's the phrase used in this forum anyway).
I sincerely wish you had done your homework and intervened. This was really pointless and inflammatory.
I just cant understand one thing , why to blame ours own historians instead of making effort to show the correct history ??
Now if Indian historians will clash among themselves in the name of leftist and right winged , what will happen after 50 years ?
There is a huge amount of Indian history which is not left wing, and which is not Sanghi. How would you describe that? The bhakts describe it uniformly - anything that differs from their attempted revisionism - as left sickular.
Dude, scientific hypothesis are not left or right wing - they are just true or false.
As for the historians, the case being made is that there was some lying and cheating involved? As history is more interpretative in nature, and If we have, it seems dishonest people running the governments historical research department, we need to break the monopoly and give grants generously to all shades of historians and private institutes and their papers peer reviewed by the opposite camp, so that we get at the real truth whatever it may be.
It is not a question of lying and cheating. It never has been. Historians have elsewhere drawn the opposite conclusions from the same facts. This is sought to be understood and explained by historiography, which accounts for the biases that creep in due to a view taken of history by an individual.
In those terms, there was first the narrative history of mediaeval annalists, followed by the history written in the British period, which sought to make a point, consciously and with intent. This merged with the larger academic view for decades, and only in the 50s and 60s were these views challenged. This was also the period when German, Japanese and American scholars came into the field and made invaluable contributions, in some cases completely overwriting the colonial view. Simultaneously from the colonial period onwards, Indian historians - Jadu Nath Sarkar and Ramesh Mazumdar come to mind, also Raychaudhuri and Kanungo - contributed a huge amount of information based on their own original research and irreversibly changed some aspects of colonial history, merging their work into the international canon.
In the 70s and 80s, significant work has been done, some by Marxists of the Aligarh School, some by historians of a liberal persuasion, sometimes in collaboration with the growing body of workers in this area from outside India, sometimes by themselves, in collaboration.
The Sangh Parivar doesn't even know what history they want to replace, largely because the vast bulk of them, more than 90%, have no clue about what is going on, and the remainder are the academic losers who want the Sangh to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.
The club is now open to all. No entry bar anymore. 
Let the Science begin. Adios.
