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

[Bang Galore]

Thank you Manas for that reply.



You dont seem to get the point. The point is unlike them who have a book to refer to and interpret it literally - thus causing the friction of pure, less pure and more pure, Hinduism does not have that.

The point actually should be who brought the Israel example into the picture, It wasn't me. No point in bringing something in & then claiming that it was a bad choice...

Moreover I dont understand why people think without Muslims, there would be no secularism. There would still be the other minorities. Also Turkey is a 98% Muslim country. Still they have secularism. So secularism would not have been a casualty, whether or not PE would have happened.

You don't want to go there either.

@Bang Galore,

Shavite-Vaishnavite conflicts ceased to exist long before even the British left India. They were few and far in between to even record them as a significant threat.

Not my point. Just disapproving an assertion made blindly, one that you were eager to thank.

 

[Vinod2070]

Regarding the "norms of the time", it might have been the norms in central asia or in the deserts of Arabia, but was not so in India where even in war, strict dharma was followed.

This was probably one of the biggest reasons for the reverses Indians suffered.

It was a norm for a civilized people in civilized times.

It didn't work against barbarians who followed no rules and for whom civilians were fair game, in fact who were motivated by booty, loot, rapine and genocide. These were the spoils of war that were richly deserved in their eyes.

So decisions like forgiving Ghauri turned out to be chivalrous but very costly in the ultimate analysis.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think there is no question that India went largely with the British version of Indian history.

And that version of history had its own motivations.

You know, this is getting monotonous.

The British certainly held the monopoly after they started writing Indian history, sometime in the seventeenth century. It was not long before an Indian school appeared, in the nineteenth century. Since that time, there have been robust alternatives to British views, from authors who were, to put it mildly, not Marxist. It would not be wrong to call them seriously right of centre, and the only quibble that the Sangh Parivar could have with their work is that it did not dwell lovingly on the Hindu blood and gore which marked the late mediaeval age in Indian history, according to their political and social views. I have given you from the top of my head some examples of classic and modern examples of Indian history which is emphatically neither British nor Marxist. Yet your views do not change, and again and again, you revert to the same point.

Is there a problem?

[/QUOTE]Nehru and the Marxist historians have created a version of Indian history and Indian identity based on their political outlook. Nowhere else in the world does any nation allow its identity to be defined by outsiders or their self loathing cronies the way it has happened in India.[/QUOTE]

You are aware that this represents a part of modern Indian history writing. What about the rest?

What do you define as our identity being defined by outsiders, or their self-loathing cronies? Surely not the Marxists? They were anything but friendly to colonial depictions of history.

At the end of the day, it appears that the evidence to the contrary does not matter. You need to hold on to your proven faulty view of history as it is depicted, for unknown reasons.

 

[Vinod2070]

You know, this is getting monotonous.

The British certainly held the monopoly after they started writing Indian history, sometime in the seventeenth century. It was not long before an Indian school appeared, in the nineteenth century. Since that time, there have been robust alternatives to British views, from authors who were, to put it mildly, not Marxist. It would not be wrong to call them seriously right of centre, and the only quibble that the Sangh Parivar could have with their work is that it did not dwell lovingly on the Hindu blood and gore which marked the late mediaeval age in Indian history, according to their political and social views. I have given you from the top of my head some examples of classic and modern examples of Indian history which is emphatically neither British nor Marxist. Yet your views do not change, and again and again, you revert to the same point.

At this point I am talking of history taught to students in their curriculum. The one I studied and most Indian students study.

Yes, I can get an alternate viewpoint from other sources some of which you so kindly shared.The vast majority of Indians will get their knowledge of history from what they learned at school (till secondary school to be more precise).

Is there a problem?

In my opinion, yes, with the way our history (at least the official part of it) has been designed.

If you think the problem is with me (or people who think like me), it is fine. We can have different viewpoints in a democracy and I will grant you if you feel mine is based on ignorance or bigotry.

You are aware that this represents a part of modern Indian history writing. What about the rest?

As I said, I am just talking of school history, the part that has the biggest impact on the people.

What do you define as our identity being defined by outsiders, or their self-loathing cronies? Surely not the Marxists? They were anything but friendly to colonial depictions of history.

As an example, the AIT which is now discredited. The likes of Romila have paraded it all through.

Our identity is intimately linked to this land and it is made to appear through the history as if everyone here has been an invader at one point or the other and that has been used to justify the Islamic and British periods.

It is almost as if the locals were "civilized" by outsiders. You can see many who believe so.

At the end of the day, it appears that the evidence to the contrary does not matter. You need to hold on to your proven faulty view of history as it is depicted, for unknown reasons.

I can see why you would think so. I am sorry if I am disappointing you but I can't fake it. I have to say it as I see it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That is a far more reasonable answer than I had expected. However, some points do need discussion.

Perhaps after I return, in the evening?

At this point I am talking of history taught to students in their curriculum. The one I studied and most Indian students study.

Yes, I can get an alternate viewpoint from other sources some of which you so kindly shared.The vast majority of Indians will get their knowledge of history from what they learned at school (till secondary school to be more precise).



In my opinion, yes, with the way our history (at least the official part of it) has been designed.

If you think the problem is with me (or people who think like me), it is fine. We can have different viewpoints in a democracy and I will grant you if you feel mine is based on ignorance or bigotry.



As I said, I am just talking of school history, the part that has the biggest impact on the people.



As an example, the AIT which is now discredited. The likes of Romila have paraded it all through.

Our identity is intimately linked to this land and it is made to appear through the history as if everyone here has been an invader at one point or the other and that has been used to justify the Islamic and British periods.

It is almost as if the locals were "civilized" by outsiders. You can see many who believe so.



I can see why you would think so. I am sorry if I am disappointing you but I can't fake it. I have to say it as I see it.

 

[Vinod2070]

That is a far more reasonable answer than I had expected. However, some points do need discussion.

Perhaps after I return, in the evening?

Sure sir. Looking forward to it.

 

[Windjammer]

Breaking news on Times Now, blasts in Assam's Goalpara district, Army convoy attacked. !!

 

[harpoon]

Where is the bias? Even a standard college text concentrates on the political importance of a king, not his religious importance.

As I didn't read history at college level..I am not qualified to answer this post. My primary concern is the history taught at school which is the primary source of knowledge for history for may be 99% of Indians.

If you are recommending that textbooks for schools contain long inventories of the damage inflicted by successive kings and convert those inventories into communally divided issues, do you expect anything other than children who grow up thinking that what a Muslim king did a thousand years ago represents Muslim thinking today? Or would you wait for them to mature and grow before telling them more detail?

Americans don't gloss over the slavery part in their history in schools..but that didn't lead to race riots every single day in US. Actually race relations improved a lot and now they have a black president. Why can't our history books face the fact as it is and rather than teaching a glossed over version of the same OR do our historians and those in charge of framing text books consider Indian students too immature to face the grey & black part in their history.

I think a proper exposure to history devoid of any prejudices will prevent the different camps from formulating their own versions of history.

The Pakistanis had the same choice, made the wrong decision, and are going through the toxic aftermath. Is that what you want for us?

Clearly they went overboard and as one poster saying that we as a secular nation should have higher ideals than a religious country like Pakistan. We should stick to higher standards.

 

[bronxbull]

The secular pussies are overdoing their wine and caviar laziness.I wish we slaughter them on the streets before we fix the problem.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This, too, like the post by Vinod2070, is a mixed bag, parts of which I object to, parts of which I can agree with readily.

As with him, perhaps on return?

As I didn't read history at college level..I am not qualified to answer this post. My primary concern is the history taught at school which is the primary source of knowledge for history for may be 99% of Indians.



Americans don't gloss over the slavery part in their history in schools..but that didn't lead to race riots every single day in US. Actually race relations improved a lot and now they have a black president. Why can't our history books face the fact as it is and rather than teaching a glossed over version of the same OR do our historians and those in charge of framing text books consider Indian students too immature to face the grey & black part in their history.

I think a proper exposure to history devoid of any prejudices will prevent the different camps from formulating their own versions of history.





Clearly they went overboard and as one poster saying that we as a secular nation should have higher ideals than a religious country like Pakistan. We should stick to higher standards.

 

[bronxbull]

I repeat,if congress loses Assam, they ll get slaughtered on the streets.Have no 2 doubts.

 

[Windjammer]

Blast targets Army convoy in Assam
IANS | Jul 31, 2012, 01.15PM IST


GUWAHATI: A blast targeted an army convoy in Assam's Goalpara district on Tuesday.

Officials said six army personnel were injured and reports had come in of one person being killed.

The attack comes as union home minister P Chidambaram was visiting the nearby Dhubri district.

 

[Bang Galore]

The secular pussies are overdoing their wine and caviar laziness.I wish we slaughter them on the streets before we fix the problem.

Interesting response. Vinod 2070 & harpoon were making it very difficult to label the "revisionists" as a basically intolerant bunch since they were being anything but unreasonable & intolerant. You on the other can be described as a God send to prove that argument.

I repeat,if congress loses Assam, they ll get slaughtered on the streets.Have no 2 doubts.

Err...what's with you & slaughter? Butcher by profession?

 

[bronxbull]

You keep doing these silly debates and one fine day when they come for you or your progeny,there ll be nowhere to run.

 

[Vinod2070]

Interesting response. Vinod 2070 & harpoon were making it very difficult to label the "revisionists" as a basically intolerant bunch since they were being anything but unreasonable & intolerant. You on the other can be described as a God send to prove that argument.

Mate, this is where we disagree.

To me, the revisionism is in the current history we are taught. We need to revert to trusting our own sources which were debunked as myth at the convenience of the colonialists and then used selectively as and when it suited them.