Here is one example of what I am trying to say again.
» “Defalsify India’s History” by Subramanian Swamy – Excerpts . || Satyameva Jayate ||
What is true for British colonial history is also true for Islamic history that tries to justify its own bigotry.
Unfortunately this particular example is a particularly unwise choice, for two reasons: the character and openly expressed views of the author, an acknowledged Islamophobe; the fact that the central neglect of the Vijayanagar Kingdom was due to two historical reasons which need to be remembered.
One of the two reasons is the incredible bias against the peninsula, and south India in general, along with east India, I might add. South Indian history in most accounts of Indian history is never presented with any continuity; instead, it is used almost as a gap-filler. Separate histories of south India exist, of course; Nilakantha Sastri is a famous example, and a brilliant one. But the bulk of history books treat the Gangetic Plain, or Delhi, as the centre of attention, and take note of other regions with an air of absent-minded recollection.
As a result, much of south India's history, east India's history, and even Gujarat's history is depicted in a disjointed manner. This is not due to a European bias, this is due to a universal bias which affects Indian patriotic schools as well. If you go through the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series, you will readily understand what I mean.
The second reason is the dearth of information. There is literally a flood of information about the Delhi Sultanate, and after it, the Mughal reign. There are hardly any sources for the history of Vijaynagar. Historians can't write without sources, though if you read Sewell, "A Forgotten Empire", you will get an idea of how an illiterate (relatively speaking) British civil servant coped with this problem, and how, in contrast, in his brilliant book,"Vijaynagar the never to be forgotten Empire", Suryanarayana Rao used a vast amount of manuscripts, monastery records (from Sringeri) and epigraphs to build a very much more well-rounded picture.
So the history is there, but it is obscured by the bias against the perceived peripheries. Do read them if you can.
I am searching for something that made me form my opinions about her. Marxist label may be wrong, the issue is about her treatment of history from the apologetic perspective and not Indian national perspective.
Obviously I dislike her also for the fact that she made me dread the subject of history for a decade or more by the NCERT history books that were tailor made for this purpose.[/QUOTE]
I am searching for something that made me form my opinions about her. Marxist label may be wrong, the issue is about her treatment of history from the apologetic perspective and not Indian national perspective.
Obviously I dislike her also for the fact that she made me dread the subject of history for a decade or more by the NCERT history books that were tailor made for this purpose.
I can only sympathize remotely, until you dig out some concrete examples.
JNU students are perfectly dumb enough to ignore realities, i repeat extremely dumb enough to ignore everything and be dumb.
I got the point the first time. They are dumb.
Like all university students, you reckon? Or is there something about their brand of dumb that you would like to point out?
Wow whoever speaks against bigotry becomes terror supporters...
The default case.
But the loan words are the reality and a clear and existent reality. You cannot separate the loan words and the original ones just like that and it is impossible.You can do so if you live on a hill or an island,not so if you live linked with a broad subcontinent.
trying to stress on these things is useless as always.
LOL
The point, o hero, is that a language is not classified and analyzed in terms of words, but in terms if structure and grammar. Loan words occur in lots of languages; English is an example. That does not classify a language. Look up a discipline called Linguistics to get a preliminary idea.
Sorry for interdicting a reply to Vinod, but actually this part captures the jist of grouse many have with the Marxists.
Their single minded devotion NOT to write anything from a national perspective (here the national perspective becomes synonymous with the Indic perspective) is taken to an extreme level and it actually forces them to be intellectually dishonest and give it a non-populist, politically correct treatment even if the original event was nothing like it.
That has nothing to do with Marxists. You may not have noticed the book that I referred to Vinod2070. That book explains why there should NOT be a national bias.
