When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.

[UnitedPak]

Indians are the people of Indus and deccan and ganges. So according to you pakistanis are Hindu Indians converted to muslims. Good with me

Most of pakistanis here denies their Indian heritage

This is what happens when you use a misnomer to identify your country. I am yet to find a place that's somehow not "Indian". Grow up.

 

[MultaniGuy]

This is what happens when you use a misnomer to identify your country. I am yet to find a place that's somehow not "Indian". Grow up.

Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.

We have a completely different culture from India's.

 

[UnitedPak]

Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.

We have a completely different culture from India's.

True, but "India" seems to mean something entirely different to our Indian members. Closer to the British Raj plus areas of Afghanistan too.

 

[MultaniGuy]

True, but "India" seems to mean something entirely different to our Indian members. Closer to the British Raj plus areas of Afghanistan too.

India means "Republic of India"

India does not mean South Asia, or the subcontinent, or British Raj.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Please read this thread. The Saraswati myth has been "busted".

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-fraud-of-saraswati-river-hindu-myth-busted.419558/


I would love to ask the Karnatka Minister Mr Kageri how would it be possible for Albanians to swell with pride over the achievements of far away Swedes - who are some 1,000 miles away? Possibly by playing the "European" denominator but that would be gasping for air. That is exactly what it looks if you place the sub-continent on top of Europe. Porus' kingdom falls around Sweden. Karnatka falls in Albania.

And here is the South Asian context.

I love use these maps/infographics as they convey the facts better than 5,000 words could do. Just think Albanians bragging about how some Swedish warrior king fought some invader. And if anybody uses the "continent" as a common denominator do note so is Europe a continent with a shared history/culture etc.

Chief, please consider the following:

• We don't teach regional histories in the Indian curriculum at undergrad level; there is a school of thought that we ought to get away from the North India heavy histories of the current style and concentrate on histories of our own region. But these are not well-developed, except for the history of Bengal, due to the specification in Calcutta University that three papers in Indian history at the undergraduate level should be with particular emphasis on the history of Bengal;
  • Just to add to the bewilderment, the standard history of Bengal was the History of Bengal in 3 volumes published by Dacca University (now, presumably, Dhaka University); in our college days, old, pre-partition copies sold at a huge premium, and with the coming of Bangladesh, this bubble was burst;
• back to the point: not only is Indian history taught without emphasis on regions, it is taught without regard to region, and a standard history jumps from one incident in one part of India to another in another part with only the time sequence to govern the general pattern.
• The most confusing bits are south Indian histories; they began only with a monumental effort by Nilakanta Sastri, before which there was nothing called a history of south India. When one goes deep into the history of south India, the same problem arises that arises with the study of the history of north India. Being taught as the history of a composite region (co-terminous south India, if you like, or co-terminous Andhra Pradesh, co-terminous Tamil Nadu and any one of the present-day Indian states could be substituted) makes things very confusing. To explain things through a parallel, we effectively jump from bin Qasim's annexation of Sindh to the expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, with nothing to connect the two.
• The reference to which we are inviting your attention has nothing to do with all this; instead, we are asking people to see that some very weird reasons are emerging for the motivational teaching of history. According to this 'motivational' historiography, history should not be neutral. Clio should now be a skimpily clad cheerleader for the team. History should get involved; it should cheer up and enthuse the people, and give them pride in their nation-state, in their state within the Indian Union, in their linguistic group, and so on. It is considered permissible to twist the facts a little in order to create a joyful feeling and a positive feeling towards the state on the part of young students.

It is this last point that we were making, this time about bozos who have a skimpy amount of superficial knowledge, and re-colour history to suit a nationalist purpose.

India means "Republic of India"

India does not mean South Asia, or the subcontinent, or British Raj.

The world of academe thinks otherwise. Who are we to fight that rooted belief?

 

[MultaniGuy]

Chief, please consider the following:

• We don't teach regional histories in the Indian curriculum at undergrad level; there is a school of thought that we ought to get away from the North India heavy histories of the current style and concentrate on histories of our own region. But these are not well-developed, except for the history of Bengal, due to the specification in Calcutta University that three papers in Indian history at the undergraduate level should be with particular emphasis on the history of Bengal;
  • Just to add to the bewilderment, the standard history of Bengal was the History of Bengal in 3 volumes published by Dacca University (now, presumably, Dhaka University); in our college days, old, pre-partition copies sold at a huge premium, and with the coming of Bangladesh, this bubble was burst;
• back to the point: not only is Indian history taught without emphasis on regions, it is taught without regard to region, and a standard history jumps from one incident in one part of India to another in another part with only the time sequence to govern the general pattern.
• The most confusing bits are south Indian histories; they began only with a monumental effort by Nilakanta Sastri, before which there was nothing called a history of south India. When one goes deep into the history of south India, the same problem arises that arises with the study of the history of north India. Being taught as the history of a composite region (co-terminous south India, if you like, or co-terminous Andhra Pradesh, co-terminous Tamil Nadu and any one of the present-day Indian states could be substituted) makes things very confusing. To explain things through a parallel, we effectively jump from bin Qasim's annexation of Sindh to the expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, with nothing to connect the two.
• The reference to which we are inviting your attention has nothing to do with all this; instead, we are asking people to see that some very weird reasons are emerging for the motivational teaching of history. According to this 'motivational' historiography, history should not be neutral. Clio should now be a skimpily clad cheerleader for the team. History should get involved; it should cheer up and enthuse the people, and give them pride in their nation-state, in their state within the Indian Union, in their linguistic group, and so on. It is considered permissible to twist the facts a little in order to create a joyful feeling and a positive feeling towards the state on the part of young students.

It is this last point that we were making, this time about bozos who have a skimpy amount of superficial knowledge, and re-colour history to suit a nationalist purpose.



The world of academe thinks otherwise. Who are we to fight that rooted belief?

BULLSHIT.

Nobody calls Pakistan "India" or Nepal "India."

People only call Republic of India "India."

Stop saying garbage.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer would you consider RC Mazumder the best among nationalist historians? the most level headed ?

and who is better Mazumder or DD Kosambi?

I will not interrupt this thread anymore as long as you and @Kaptaan are conversing

best wishes to both of you

R. C. Majumdar (not Mazumder) was my chachi's chacha, and related to us in various other ways. He was a nice man, and liked my father because of his own thorough knowledge of history, as well as the academic connections. Having said that, he was too right-wing for my personal taste, which is closer to my academic guru's guru, Sushobhan Sarkar, father of Sumit Sarkar. But even Sumit is not my personal choice of 'nationalist' historians (he was emphatically not a 'nationalist'); it is Jadunath Sarkar (no relation to the other two), who, with his thorough knowledge of Urdu and Persian, brought a great deal of original research to his studies of the Mughals, the Marathas, the Rajputs and of Indian history in general. It is surprising that more emphasis is not given to a study of these, as well as to Sanskrit for the study of ancient and early mediaeval India.

Among non-aligned, that is, non-'nationalist' historians, it is Kosambi head and shoulders over anybody else, with only Irfan Habib, and, to a lesser extent, Romila Thapar to challenge him.

BULLSHIT.

Nobody calls Pakistan "India" or Nepal "India."

People only call Republic of India "India."

Stop saying garbage.

Please.

You are a nice person, I'm sure. Worthy and all that. Please stay out of subjects that you don't understand and never will. And don't be abusive; this is a bad habit that has been noticed and commented upon before, and you really need to do something about it. Bad temper and bad language is unfortunately not a substitute for genuine learning.

 

[wiseone2]

Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.

We have a completely different culture from India's.

That would be fine in a fantasy world of yours

 

[Mugwop]

Great Thread!

 

[MultaniGuy]

R. C. Majumdar (not Mazumder) was my chachi's chacha, and related to us in various other ways. He was a nice man, and liked my father because of his own thorough knowledge of history, as well as the academic connections. Having said that, he was too right-wing for my personal taste, which is closer to my academic guru's guru, Sushobhan Sarkar, father of Sumit Sarkar. But even Sumit is not my personal choice of 'nationalist' historians (he was emphatically not a 'nationalist'); it is Jadunath Sarkar (no relation to the other two), who, with his thorough knowledge of Urdu and Persian, brought a great deal of original research to his studies of the Mughals, the Marathas, the Rajputs and of Indian history in general. It is surprising that more emphasis is not given to a study of these, as well as to Sanskrit for the study of ancient and early mediaeval India.

Among non-aligned, that is, non-'nationalist' historians, it is Kosambi head and shoulders over anybody else, with only Irfan Habib, and, to a lesser extent, Romila Thapar to challenge him.



Please.

You are a nice person, I'm sure. Worthy and all that. Please stay out of subjects that you don't understand and never will. And don't be abusive; this is a bad habit that has been noticed and commented upon before, and you really need to do something about it. Bad temper and bad language is unfortunately not a substitute for genuine learning.

Yeah okay, you are nice too.

But listen nobody calls all of Subcontinent "India." It is just Republic of India which is called "India."

India is no longer a geographical expression. It is a name of a country.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

R. C. Majumdar (not Mazumder) was my chachi's chacha, and related to us in various other ways. He was a nice man, and liked my father because of his own thorough knowledge of history, as well as the academic connections. Having said that, he was too right-wing for my personal taste, which is closer to my academic guru's guru, Sushobhan Sarkar, father of Sumit Sarkar. But even Sumit is not my personal choice of 'nationalist' historians (he was emphatically not a 'nationalist'); it is Jadunath Sarkar (no relation to the other two), who, with his thorough knowledge of Urdu and Persian, brought a great deal of original research to his studies of the Mughals, the Marathas, the Rajputs and of Indian history in general. It is surprising that more emphasis is not given to a study of these, as well as to Sanskrit for the study of ancient and early mediaeval India.

Among non-aligned, that is, non-'nationalist' historians, it is Kosambi head and shoulders over anybody else, with only Irfan Habib, and, to a lesser extent, Romila Thapar to challenge him.

Wow I am interacting with the royalty of Indian Historiography! Did Majumder come from old money or humble beginnings? He certainly was kind of aristrocratic /"Bonedi" by the end of his life...Jadunath Sarkar----I have to read more about his works

half-a-decade ago when I first came across Kosambi, my eyes were opened...His way of analyzing history was something out of the ordinary...the way he charted out the development and evolution of various spiritual ideas, shattered all pre-conceived notions in me...That along with interest in New Atheism/Indian Rationalists, confirmed to my mind that ancient Yogis and Indian warriors were not wielding any sort of supernormal powers

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yeah okay, you are nice too.

But listen nobody calls all of Subcontinent "India." It is just Republic of India which is called "India."

India is no longer a geographical expression. It is a name of a country.

I have to keep doing this every six months to a year: India is a geographical expression, a sociological aggregate and a political unit/entity, and the three of them do not have identical boundaries.

Yes, the Republic of India is India.

Yes, India was a geographical expression and continues to be a geographical expression. That is distinct from the political entity of India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Wow I am interacting with the royalty of Indian Historiography! Did Majumder come from old money or humble beginnings? He certainly was kind of aristrocratic /"Bonedi" by the end of his life...Jadunath Sarkar----I have to read more about his works

half-a-decade ago when I first came across Kosambi, my eyes were opened...His way of analyzing history was something out of the ordinary...the way he charted out the development and evolution of various spiritual ideas, shattered all pre-conceived notions in me...That along with interest in New Atheism/Indian Rationalists, confirmed to my mind that ancient Yogis and Indian warriors were not wielding any sort of supernormal powers

Pretty ordinary middle class folks; most of our clan were like that, not rich, not poor. Kanungo was also related. My guru-parampara is Kuruvilla Zachariah -> Sushobhan Sarkar -> Ashin DasGupta. My father was Sushobhan's favourite; he is the only one to have contributed to the old man's Festschrift who wasn't a famous historian.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I have to keep doing this every six months to a year: India is a geographical expression, a sociological aggregate and a political unit/entity, and the three of them do not have identical boundaries.

Yes, the Republic of India is India.

Yes, India was a geographical expression and continues to be a geographical expression. That is distinct from the political entity of India.

India is no longer a geographical expression.

This is where I disagree with you.

It is now South Asia or subcontinent, but the region of South Asia is not "India."

I have proven to you with logic and proof.

The rest is up to you.

"India" is not a geographical expression anymore. India is "Republic of India" which was created in 1947.

 

[Joe Shearer]

India is no longer a geographical expression.

This is where I disagree with you.

It is now South Asia or subcontinent, but the region of South Asia is not "India."

I have proven to you with logic and proof.

The rest is up to you.

"India" is not a geographical expression anymore. India is "Republic of India" which was created in 1947.

Chill.

Go and find a Sanghi and fight with him. You'll have fun; he'll have fun; you will neither of you feel hurt and troubled.