Assam violence death toll rises to 21, shoot-at-sight order issued

[Joe Shearer]

I didn't say there is no representation.

I think it is inadequate and still the predominant narrative of India is by non Indians. A sad state of affairs.

One more example: I recently read the book "The Mughal World: India's Tainted Paradise " by Abraham Eraly.

Amazon.com: The Mughal World: India's Tainted Paradise (9780753823620): Abraham Eraly: Books

Now, this book has some amazing facts about the Mughal empire I had never seen before, like how 25% of GDP was blown to maintain the decadent lifestyle of a few hundred "Emirs" and royal family and what was life like for the poor folks, the various famines etc.

It also had a neo-colonial treatment of India. A treatment one would think was a thing of the past, relying exclusively on the bigoted writing of some contemporary Britishers who were privately jealous and contemptuous while publicly paying obeisance to the court.

He ends it by claiming something to the effect that the Britishers were on a civilizing mission to India.

This person lives in Chennai and making a living parading this kind of stuff. It may be palatable to certain audience, there is no reason this should be the default narrative for us Indians.

If you take the trouble of going back to my earlier comment, you will find Eraly mentioned there, and his position evaluated. You might find my brief observation a surprising read.

I didn't say there is no representation.

I think it is inadequate and still the predominant narrative of India is by non Indians. A sad state of affairs.

One more example: I recently read the book "The Mughal World: India's Tainted Paradise " by Abraham Eraly.

Amazon.com: The Mughal World: India's Tainted Paradise (9780753823620): Abraham Eraly: Books

Now, this book has some amazing facts about the Mughal empire I had never seen before, like how 25% of GDP was blown to maintain the decadent lifestyle of a few hundred "Emirs" and royal family and what was life like for the poor folks, the various famines etc.

It also had a neo-colonial treatment of India. A treatment one would think was a thing of the past, relying exclusively on the bigoted writing of some contemporary Britishers who were privately jealous and contemptuous while publicly paying obeisance to the court.

He ends it by claiming something to the effect that the Britishers were on a civilizing mission to India.

This person lives in Chennai and making a living parading this kind of stuff. It may be palatable to certain audience, there is no reason this should be the default narrative for us Indians.

The other point worth bearing in mind is that a popularizer like Eraly is hardly a default narrative. For an example of a dafault narrative, read Jadunath Sarkar. Any of his books will do.

So....... uhhh...... Any updates on the riots?? Videos?? Interviews with locals??

Sorry. >

Point taken.

 

[Vinod2070]

Coming to the Malhotra video, I had hoped that you would detect his egregious blunder right at the outset.

Each and every topic he touched upon related to technology, not to science. Those who are not aware of the difference between pure science and its applied variations need not read further; it is a waste of your time. But to any self-respecting scientist, this assumption by technicians that their work constitutes science, or has anything to do with the scientific method, is hilarious.

This alone shows what a shallow approach the man has, and why any amount of money thrown at a situation without the benefit of a sound theoretical framework merely produces vanity books.

I think he clarified that this was his objective right upfront.

Indians have been thought of as thinkers and not tinkerers. He focused on this neglected part as far as I could see.

Islamophobia. If he had been hostile to all religion, I would have understood, supported him and Rallied to his support where necessary. He wants an exchange of population.

I don't think it is right to use a label like that for his views. India decided to take a certain path in the face of the "grave provocation" of the partition.

There will surely be people who would have a spectrum of views about the course chosen. The predominant Indian view is that we want to go with secularism.

If you take the trouble of going back to my earlier comment, you will find Eraly mentioned there, and his position evaluated. You might find my brief observation a surprising read.

Yes, I revisited your post and noticed that you think of him as a "popularizer".

The other point worth bearing in mind is that a popularizer like Eraly is hardly a default narrative. For an example of a dafault narrative, read Jadunath Sarkar. Any of his books will do.

Sure. Somehow the books I see at the local book store and the library that deal with Indian history are mostly not by Indians.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think he clarified that this was his objective right upfront.

I wish it were so, that he was clear about concentrating on technology.

He wasn't. He was talking about science. That is where the rub is. It is an agenda objective for revisionist scholars to prove that the scientific method was not a European methodology, evolved over centuries, but that it had been discovered earlier in India. Which is simply not true. There have been scientific discoveries of great import, but the scientific method never was present, as it was not present anywhere else in the world either.

Indians have been thought of a thinkers and not tinkerers. He focused on this neglected part as far as I could see.

That is a different field altogether. That is technology. That is legitimate, but calling it the history of science is not legitimate.

I don't think it is right to use a label like that for his views. India decided to take a certain path in the face of the "grave provocation" of the partition.

Grave provocation? Who provoked whom? Are you aware that the two parties, Congress and Muslim League, had come to agree in discussions where the Cabinet Mission was involved, but that within a few days of that, Nehru, at a public conference, blew it all up?

I am really surprised to read your statement.

There will surely be people who would have a spectrum of views about the course chosen. The predominant Indian view is that we want to go with secularism.

So we do.

But why may I not call a member of the lunatic fringe a lunatic?

It's a free country for both of us.

 

[Bang Galore]

He is trying to prove Dravid is Aryan

Quite possible. Dravid(Rahul) does speak Marathi, so probably correct.

and Sanskrit invented by Dravid.

Doubt that would pass muster. Don't think Dravid invented even the on-drive or the cover-drive let alone sanskrit.

This moron has a severe inferiority complexity being a Dravid. LOL

If you are lucky to be a Dravid, the only ones having an inferiority complex would be everyone else.

My My.. he acknowledged that Ram is Aryan and Ravana (Rakshak) are Dravid. hahahahah

Possible, Dravid did occasionally bat like he had ten heads & a hundred eyes watching the cricket ball. Btw, he was also a good "Rakshak" of both his wicket & the Indian team.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, I revisited your post and noticed that you think of him as a "popularizer"


Sure. Somehow the books I see at the local book store and the library that deal with Indian history are mostly not by Indians.

I would be happy to send you reading lists on any Indian history topic.

Somebody has offered me the money for all the books I want to buy, if he can have them after I finish reading them. Oh, bliss!

 

[Bhairava]

He wants an exchange of population.

I think he "wanted". Not "wants".

If he "wants" - then that is wrong, moreover impractical.

If he "wanted" - nothing wrong with that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think he "wanted". Not "wants".

If he "wants" - then that is wrong, moreover impractical.

If he "wanted" - nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately, I cannot use that peaceful exit. This view of his is around six months old.

 

[Vinod2070]

I wish it were so, that he was clear about concentrating on technology.

People sometimes use these terms interchangeably. I see your point but I think it is just detail and not the core of what he is trying to say.

He wasn't. He was talking about science. That is where the rub is. It is an agenda objective for revisionist scholars to prove that the scientific method was not a European methodology, evolved over centuries, but that it had been discovered earlier in India. Which is simply not true. There have been scientific discoveries of great import, but the scientific method never was present, as it was not present anywhere else in the world either.

The spirit of inquiry, the use of logic, the "scientific method" has been there for thousands of years. The Greeks used it thousands of years back as well.

Now of course, it has been taken to another level but to say it was never there, I am not so sure. I would rather let him present his views and make my own judgments.

Even many Westerners who were totally contemptuous of all Eastern knowledge a century before are realizing that they are not the "know-it-alls" they assumed to be and the Eastern knowledge and philosophies have their merit.

That is a different field altogether. That is technology. That is legitimate, but calling it the history of science is not legitimate.

Yes but to me it is missing the woods for the trees by focusing on semantics.

Grave provocation? Who provoked whom? Are you aware that the two parties, Congress and Muslim League, had come to agree in discussions where the Cabinet Mission was involved, but that within a few days of that, Nehru, at a public conference, blew it all up?

I am really surprised to read your statement.

I am not trying to apportion blame on any one party. The end result is that there was a partition and the other country chose to become an Islamic state while we chose to remain secular.

So we do.

But why may I not call a member of the lunatic fringe a lunatic?

It's a free country for both of us.

Absolutely. Though labeling people with an ideology different from one's own, as a way of dismissing their ideas is not the best way imho.

 

[Bhairava]

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.

Well I am not literate in French and it would be good if you can list the points. Again I should reiterate that I am not for falsifying history to soothe anyone - just the unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truths as it is.


Moreover I think we disagree on the basic function of history. For you it might be an out and out academic interest, with a slight tinge of contrarian views..but for me history should serve a bigger purpose - one of nation building.

 

[Bhairava]

I am searching for an old OP-ED in TOI by her and an American gentleman. It was in response to another piece by some Indian historians about the treatment of Hinduism in American universities.

I think you are referring to the Brannon Parker episode in which he deplored her appointment as the first holder in the Kluge Chair. Unfortunately even I am not able to find that piece.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well I am not literate in French and it would be good if you can list the points. Again I should reiterate that I am not for falsifying history to soothe anyone - just the unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truths as it is.


Moreover I think we disagree on the basic function of history. For you it might be an out and out academic interest, with a slight tinge of contrarian views..but for me history should serve a bigger purpose - one of nation building.

There are English versions, and I remember the shock of first reading it (borrowed from a professor who had been an Oxford don).

In fact, it is curious that you chose to end your comment the way you did, because contradicting that view is precisely the core of his case.

A little background: he wad writing at a time when Franco-German rivalry was far more intense than ANYTHING we have gone through in these threads. His point was that the role of the intellectual, the 'clerk', as he called him, was global and civilisational, and it would amount to treason to use that training and intellect for the immediate purposes of a nation-state. So Frenchmen and Germans shoudo remember their common heritage, and not allow themselves to be used as nationalist propagandists.

If you think back on my personal approach, while retaining my loyalty to my nation-state, I have tried very hard not to forget my duty to represent that interest of the human race that lies beyond this nation-state.

Needless to say, this effort has not always been successful.

 

[Bang Galore]

. Again I should reiterate that I am not for falsifying history to soothe anyone - just the unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truths as it is.


Moreover I think we disagree on the basic function of history. For you it might be an out and out academic interest, with a slight tinge of contrarian views..but for me history should serve a bigger purpose - one of nation building.

Firstly, there is no creature like the "unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truths" in history. It's always subjective. You actually prove that when you ask for it to serve "a bigger purpose - of nation building". Then, by the very demands of such a task, it will have to be varnished. What you are arguing for seems like a different coat of the varnish rather than the ones now on offer. No real difference then. "Nation building" is why the varnishing that you see now exists. The only difference is that you don't agree on the same type of "nation" that was the aim of those applying the type of varnish so disliked by you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well I am not literate in French and it would be good if you can list the points. Again I should reiterate that I am not for falsifying history to soothe anyone - just the unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truths as it is.


Moreover I think we disagree on the basic function of history. For you it might be an out and out academic interest, with a slight tinge of contrarian views..but for me history should serve a bigger purpose - one of nation building.

To return to your point, nobody can object to the unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truth as it is. I am filled with chagrin that you should find it necessary to make that point, since, Karl Popper notwithstanding, such a holy grail must be the secret desire of every social scientist. My objection is to the intrusion of amateurs and hacks. On the other hand, there is a wealth of excellent post-colonial writing available, divided between the Marxists and the liberals, produced to fairly good academic standards (not the best, the English is sluggish).

Why do you say that there is nothing? How can you even talk like that? Just because we happen to be exposed to the fifty year old stuff in school? It is radically different in college, and that should be our yardstick!

Firstly, there is no creature like the "unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-politically correct truths" in history. It's always subjective. You actually prove that when you ask for it to serve "a bigger purpose - of nation building". Then, by the very demands of such a task, it will have to be varnished. What you are arguing for seems like a different coat of the varnish rather than the ones now on offer. No real difference then. "Nation building" is why the varnishing that you see now exists. The only difference is that you don't agree on the same type of "nation" that was the aim of those applying the type of varnish so disliked by you.

Simply brilliant.

 

[pilli]

And they say India is democratic and peaceful country . They are also suppressing freedom movements .

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am informed by a rather nervous Watchman that there is a Panzer division on Ballygunge Circular Road, asking for me by name. Apparently Desert Fox has not taken this discussion kindly; something about stupid professors arguing and giving him a headache. You will forgive me for leaving the discussion at this point, in the interests of everything at once.

And they say India is democratic and peaceful country . They are also suppressing freedom movements .

Who said this?

Please point him out so that he can be executed tomorrow morning.