LOL.
Your adventures with the CBSE curriculum are unfortunate. However, a study of Indian history sometimes starts (in my opinion, incorrectly) with the Indus Valley Civilisation.
Generally, in traditional divisions of history, three separate sections considered include ancient history, from the oldest records to generally some time around the beginning of the thirteenth century, 1206 being a frequently used date.
There are those who argue that the next period 1206 to 1707 being considered as mediaeval history is inaccurate, and that this represents only the late, the developed, matured period of mediaeval history, there being an earlier, equally important period of transition. These historians take points of time such as the seventh century as a start, the thirteenth century as the mid-point, the division between 'early' mediaeval and 'late' mediaeval, and the seventeenth century as the end.
There is no dearth of history for the earlier years; why the peculiarities foisted on a generation by some bizarre choice of subjects should be taken as the standard, canonical version of Indian history is beyond comprehension.
The Internet is the least reliable of sources. It consists of a series of prejudices repeated by a series of biased and untrained commentators. There is ultimately no substitute for peer review.
Now for some specifics:
Your syntax is as idiosyncratic as your views on education. Is it your case that
@Joe Shearer was told that the emphasis was on mediaeval India, etc., etc., or is it your case that
@Joe Shearer was doing the telling? Neither is correct. I was neither told such a silly thing, nor have I told anyone so.
That is a question for the people who decided the curriculum for the CBSE, not for us. As far as I was concerned, I have had a full introduction to Maratha history, right back at undergraduate level, beginning with Sircar, and ending with the annals of the wars against the British. So, too, about the Sikhs.
This is a criticism that can be made even of a full-scale undergraduate or a post-graduate programme. The emphasis tends to be on north India, and on Delhi, in all major histories; many of the provincial histories are dealt with in a skimpy manner, either due to lack of materials, or due to an emphasis on what is deemed to be the mainstream. There are few general histories which deal in a satisfactory manner with the Ahoms, their origins, their entry into India, their conquests, their organisation, and their cultural legacy. There are even fewer that deal with Orissa or with south India in a satisfactory manner.
The reference to 1500 is misleading. 1526 marked Babur's incursion; the earlier period of the Sultanate saw as great a penetration of the peninsula or of the north-east, or as little, considering that it was only with Aurangzeb that the Mughals pressed on into the Deccan, and considering that both the Khiljis and the Tughlaqs had penetrated deep into the Deccan. Incidentally, those historians who believe that the period before 1206 saw 'early' mediaeval India would be baffled at your efforts to drag in Hindu kings and dynasties into the 'mediaeval' period: it is a given.
Ever heard of the straw horse argument? Where one sets up a phony argument for the pleasure of demolishing it?
Who argued that our history starts from the Islamic conquests of our land? I should like to know. I would be surprised if it is someone responsible on PDF. If it is an external argument, fought elsewhere and brought in kicking and screaming here, it can only be described as playing to the gallery.
It is a pity that your education in history did not continue after school.
Well, yes, precisely. Your point being?
You seem to have lost track of the fact that the question of famines was brought in to illustrate that dips in demographic growth occurred as much in British times as they did earlier.
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that.
My audience on Internet, on PDF, for instance, will remain long after an Internet Hindu here and there has vanished. I had the regulars' attention before, I have it now, and I will continue to have it as long as I am able to bring a logical, rational point of view to discussions.
On the other hand, will some of you exist in three months?
As for the audience in my classes, my ratings continue to be the highest in the department, although there are higher ratings in the university. I'm all right, Jack.
Apart from a little amusement, what one gets from these self-important little struts about a public platform is that most Indians are brought up bereft of more than elementary education in the social sciences, especially in history. I have no idea what school text-books say about Indian history; my school subjects were science. As an historian who teaches history (some of the time), l am keenly aware, on the other hand, of the huge number of historians who are not Marxian in their historiography, ranging right down from Sircar to recent times. One's own guru-parampara vividly illustrates the point:
Kuruvilla Zachariah (not Marxian)
Susobhan Sarkar (Marxist)
Ashin DasGupta (not Marxian)
Look at the plethora of Indian history writing, led by Sugato Bose, filled out by Mridu Rai and Chitralekha Zutshi, who are not Marxian. What is the Parivar groaning about?
I suspect it is a lack of its own historians.
..... MY Ancestors held strong, it was YOUR ancestors who were NOT STRONG ENOUGH to defend themselves and their beliefs. LOL.
