page3

astal	Post subject: Re: British Atrocities in India Posted: 29 May 2008 11:39 pm
BRFite -Trainee Joined: 06 Jul 2005 09:36 pm Posts: 12 Location: always in school.	Quote: If I am not wrong didn't Indian PM Manmohan Singh publically propagated and shared the same sentiments during London visit!!!!!!! And if I am not mistakened he publically thanked the British for their projects and efforts in India!!!! I think this was sensationalized by the media. I leave it to you to read excerpts from the speech and perhaps reformulate your conclusions. "There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income." ... "Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilization met the dominant Empire of the day. These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well." This is nothing like what the consensual "scholarly" views are. They believe that in the balance, based on considering both negatives and positives, India is better off having been ruled by Britain. This is a silly notion as there is no real counter factual account. As I have mentioned before, India could have had our own Meiji restoration, unified like Germany and colonized the West. On the other hand, India could have fractionalized like the Arabs, and become small insignificant client states. Who is to say what would have happened in the absence of British rule in India. I take that what Manmohan Singh was saying is "You guys really screwed us. But some things that British and Indians did together, accidentally or to facilitate empire, are now proving to be helpful and we are too generous to be bitter and blame todays British citizens as individuals." He takes pains to say "our experience together" and "crucible where an age old civilization meets ... ." He is giving no credit to the Empire per say but the the synthesis of British and Indian ideas. I for one agree with the view that the British Indian colonial colonial experience did provide India a template for some good institutions. Though Dr. Singh did not mention it, I think the Indian armed forces are a positive part of the otherwise devastating British legacy to India. It is said that even Japan copied western institutions during the Meiji restoration. India will do well to understand what part of these institutions work and co-opt them for Indian interests, instead of wasting our time on being bitter about the colonial experience. jmt, imho.
Top

Rahul M	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 12:06 am
Forum Moderator Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm Posts: 3510 Location: aadim kaler chandim him, todaye bandha ghorar dim !!	Interesting. Can the history gurus comment on the validity ?? http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/
Top

shyam	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 12:15 am
BRFite Joined: 29 Jul 2003 06:01 am Posts: 202	Doesn't it sound like a project to convert buddhists?
Top

Rahul M	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 12:39 am
Forum Moderator Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm Posts: 3510 Location: aadim kaler chandim him, todaye bandha ghorar dim !!	it's actually about the buddhist source of christ.
Top

csharma	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 12:50 pm
BRFite Joined: 12 Jul 1999 06:01 am Posts: 181	Interesting video from an American about the Aryna Invasion Myth. It kind of puts in question the entire history of ancient India. Similiar to what Kaushal was saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8-JCK45tc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0aTOTW8hU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLbejnR ... re=related
Top

Shwetank	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 02:22 pm
BRFite -Trainee Joined: 11 Aug 2004 07:58 pm Posts: 39	Quote: But some things that British and Indians did together, accidentally or to facilitate empire, are now proving to be helpful and we are too generous to be bitter and blame todays British citizens as individuals."..... I for one agree with the view that the British Indian colonial colonial experience did provide India a template for some good institutions. Though Dr. Singh did not mention it, I think the Indian armed forces are a positive part of the otherwise devastating British legacy to India. It is said that even Japan copied western institutions during the Meiji restoration. India will do well to understand what part of these institutions work and co-opt them for Indian interests, instead of wasting our time on being bitter about the colonial experience. Even in this there is another part, it is essential that the nation do this on it own, it must go through the learning curve, figure out how organizational co-operative groups are formed etc. Note we did know such things before, we would just have needed to modify it, just like Japanese had functioning govt. before and just took the new ideas but did it themselves and retained the skilles necessary to rule. Foisting on the system artificially which the people themselves did not bring out about themselves through constant debate/introspection/criticism/struggle is going to just leave a broken system. We didn't learn the how the things worked just ended up with finished good without working hard for it ourselves, there was a reason Brits said we can't rule ourselves because we had lost the habit of it. It's like another of the jingo's constant irritants, we get shiny new finished military gear from abroad but never mastered how to do it ourselves, no initiative, no discovering ourselves and going beyond on our own path, just blindly following and that too incompletely. There is a reason we complain about this, developing the weapons yourselves requires yout to master certain administrative, atitude, policy issues. Those subtle internal qualities that are molded are far more important than just getting the officially named institutions. Same thing happens in many parts of world, you can go to some isolated tribe and explain the system, give them the books and system and introduce to them the modern world and leave them alone after administring them for a while. Do you think the tribe will now become successful suddenly? Probably not, petty guys suddenly getting power will start looking out for themselves now external power is gone. Most such communities in the world are doing terribly. Plus the Brits modified us socially and froze in ideas and distintions which are extremely destructive, more so than the economic destruction (even in that the loss of revenue or job isn't as bad as the loss of ability/skill/organizational power to do that). It was fare beyond a simple economic rape and physical massacre of people, both things which can be recovered from and have been recovered from by other countries in the world.
Top

surinder	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 03:02 pm
BRFite Joined: 08 Apr 2005 01:27 am Posts: 457 Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein	Shwetank wrote: Even in this there is another part, it is essential that the nation do this on it own, it must go through the learning curve, figure out how organizational co-operative groups are formed etc. Note we did know such things before, we would just have needed to modify it, just like Japanese had functioning govt. before and just took the new ideas but did it themselves and retained the skilles necessary to rule. Foisting on the system artificially which the people themselves did not bring out about themselves through constant debate/introspection/criticism/struggle is going to just leave a broken system. We didn't learn the how the things worked just ended up with finished good without working hard for it ourselves, there was a reason Brits said we can't rule ourselves because we had lost the habit of it. ... Those subtle internal qualities that are molded are far more important than just getting the officially named institutions. Same thing happens in many parts of world, you can go to some isolated tribe and explain the system, give them the books and system and introduce to them the modern world and leave them alone after administring them for a while. Do you think the tribe will now become successful suddenly? Probably not, petty guys suddenly getting power will start looking out for themselves now external power is gone. Most such communities in the world are doing terribly. Plus the Brits modified us socially and froze in ideas and distintions which are extremely destructive, more so than the economic destruction (even in that the loss of revenue or job isn't as bad as the loss of ability/skill/organizational power to do that). It was fare beyond a simple economic rape and physical massacre of people, both things which can be recovered from and have been recovered from by other countries in the world. Shwetank, What an excellent posting. I highlight what I liked more, but frankly the whole post should be bolded. I think you should convert this into a full-fledged article. The British-were-good crowd forget that it is less important how great the idea is, but it is more important how it was obtained. Just like it is less important that weight loss happens, it is more important how it happens---for weight loss can be done by going to the gymn, or by getting surgery; each leading to a very different eventual health. There is ample evidence to see that Indians themselves had all the institutions necessary to have a healthy state. The wrongs were easily correctable by the rights of what we had. I seen reports that before the British defeated Khalsa rule in Punjab, the education system (developed organically) was a well-functioning system that produced literate well-educated people. The British actually broke the system and were to later claim that they built it. Ultimately, the so-called great institutions that the British gave us were not given because we needed them, they were given so that the British could do maximum rape and plunder. The aim of the giver (if they gave, that is) is important. The rapist also feeds the women he kidnaps, he has to do maximize the pleasure he gets out of his rapes; but that is not the same food that the mother gives her child. That is a simple thing we forget.
Top

surinder	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 03:21 pm
BRFite Joined: 08 Apr 2005 01:27 am Posts: 457 Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein	astal wrote: As I have mentioned before, India could have had our own Meiji restoration, unified like Germany and colonized the West. On the other hand, India could have fractionalized like the Arabs, and become small insignificant client states. Who is to say what would have happened in the absence of British rule in India. It is foolish to claim ignorance to project greatness and vision. "Who is to say what would have happened in the absence of British rule in India". While it is true that one cannot claim with absolute certainty, but it is also true that one can look at the prevailing situation and make accurate and reasonable guesses as to what might have happened. We have intelligence for that purpose. When the British showed up, there were two dominant empires in India---the Marathas & the Sikhs. Marathas had a huge empire extending all over India. Khalsa Raj (though a little later than the Marathas) had an empire occupying parts of Afghanistan, and included Kashmir as well as parts of Tibet. Mughals had already been reduced to ruling Palam village (where Palam airport is located) and hence were insignificant. The British then went on to fight both the Marathas and the Sikhs one by one. They were solely responsible for defeating and eventual dismantling of both of them. So what would India be without British? It would logically be whatever trajectory these two empires would take. For one, these two empires were not antithetical to each other in any fundamental way (neither in ideology nor in geography). There would surely be some competition---which is to be expected---but fundamentally they both grew out of the shared Hindu/Sikh reaction to Mughals and the Turks. The both had engendered intense pride in oneself. They had changed the Arab and Persian focus of India, replacing it with local pride. That indeed was the nascent Indian revolution that the British quelled.
Top

Sanku	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 03:56 pm
BRFite Joined: 23 Aug 2007 10:27 am Posts: 1523 Location: Naaahhhh	Shwetank and Surinder; Excellent posts guys. I was going to put in a reply when I read the post about Dr Singh but you guys have done it so well that there is very little to add.
Top

Keshav	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 06:31 pm
BRFite Joined: 20 Sep 2007 03:23 am Posts: 595 Location: USA	Taken from Indian Interest thread for the sake of not derailing: Just to finish this whole Ashoka discussion, we have to remember that Dharma is the basis of Dharmic religions and that Ashoka was probably as Buddhist as Constantine was Christian. Unlike Abrahamic religions, allegiance to one book and one God does not make one a Buddhist - actions do and culture do. If Hindus consider Buddha to be the 9th incarnation of Vishnu, how far can the two philosophies be from each other especially in India (obviously other Eastern cultures might be vastly different)? The decline of the Mauryan empire probably had less to do with his pacifism (does anybody really know if he gave it up or is this historical tampering?) then with his absolute squandering of imperial wealth on building Buddhist monasteries and sending missionaries to every place on the Earth.
Top

Arun_S	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 08:02 pm
Webmaster BR Joined: 14 Jun 2000 06:01 am Posts: 2470 Location: KhyberDurra	No less this paper is published in IISC/Current Science Do Damascus swords reveal (ancient) India’s mastery of nanotechnology?
Top

ramana	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 08:34 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 7269	While we are there, there is a need to study the marxist distortion of Indian history. A few links: Marxist Historigraphy Quote: ... In India, Marxist historiography was very influential. Its main representatives are Irfan Habib, and K. N. Panikkar[citation needed]. Even non academic and lay men contributions are there in this area from India. The book written in Malayalam, regional language of Kerala, Coffee Housinte Katha or The Story of Coffee House, by one of the leaders of the Indian Coffee House Movement, Nadakkal Parameswaran Pillai, is an example for this. A further issue in Indian history concerning Marxists in particular is the debate on feudalism in Indian History. Largely a debate began by historians with Marxian tendancys. Notably D.D Kosambi in his earlier works in the 1960's, Kosambi outlined the notion of 'feudalism from below and feudalism from above'. Interestingly this element of his feudalism thesis was rejected by another apparent marxist historian. The notable R.S Sharma, who ultimately authored Indian historiographys most significant monograph work on the subject Indian Feudalism. ..... Marx's essay British Rule In India in NY and Future Results of British rule in India and his continuous monitoring of the 1857 events 1857
Top

ramana	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 08:37 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 7269	One More The book by D.D. Kosambi in google books. Introduction to study of Indian History
Top

Acharya	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 08:46 pm
BRF Oldie Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am Posts: 4080	Shwetank wrote: Plus the Brits modified us socially and froze in ideas and distintions which are extremely destructive, more so than the economic destruction (even in that the loss of revenue or job isn't as bad as the loss of ability/skill/organizational power to do that). It was fare beyond a simple economic rape and physical massacre of people, both things which can be recovered from and have been recovered from by other countries in the world. I was waiting for somebody to open this topic of social engineering. This is the longest running social engineering in the world history.
Top

astal	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 09:19 pm
BRFite -Trainee Joined: 06 Jul 2005 09:36 pm Posts: 12 Location: always in school.	Surinder wrote Quote: "It is foolish to claim ignorance to project greatness and vision. " I am not claiming ignorance, merely refusing to speculate. Swetank, Surinder and Sanku, I completely agree with you that institutions have to come from within. Institutions are useless if there is no participation. Those that have evolved in the west did so over centuries. In India, we had less than 10-20% literacy at the time of Independence. A small proportion of the people conversed in Urdu and English, the languages of the Raj. How can the British claim they had good governance when 80% of the population was left out of the institutions and ignored by the British. Maybe for the western educated elite there was good governance (though I doubt it) but the population in general they had no access to that "good governance". Foisting these institutions on India for the purpose of colonial administration and profit had nothing to do with India's improvement. I believe that they actually created a backlash against market economy structures. When the British left, many Indians felt socialism was more attractive than markets, at least in part, due to the devastating British legacy. Some people still feel that way. It took us 50 years to get out of the mode of distrusting our own people and essentially taking away from people the ability to make money. Bottom line, I think we should publish British atrocities, discredit their "good institutions" claim (As most of the population could not participate in those institutions) and try to convince Indians who still buy these bogus concepts. Indulging in name calling and sensationalism will get us nowhere. Also, we should not disparage the institutions per say. By internalizing them I think we can move forward. When Indians cry - You British raped us, I always have this image of them laughing and saying to themselves"Yes, and what can you do about it. He He He. Your ancestors were such pushovers. Quit crying." For me the very point of this thread is to reclaim historical dialog about history, understand our own institutions and shortcoming after distilling western lies and figuring out a way to move forward not assigning blame.
Top

Kakkaji	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 09:25 pm
BRFite Joined: 23 Oct 2002 06:01 am Posts: 879	surinder wrote: When the British showed up, there were two dominant empires in India---the Marathas & the Sikhs. Marathas had a huge empire extending all over India. Khalsa Raj (though a little later than the Marathas) had an empire occupying parts of Afghanistan, and included Kashmir as well as parts of Tibet. Mughals had already been reduced to ruling Palam village (where Palam airport is located) and hence were insignificant. The British then went on to fight both the Marathas and the Sikhs one by one. They were solely responsible for defeating and eventual dismantling of both of them. So what would India be without British? It would logically be whatever trajectory these two empires would take. For one, these two empires were not antithetical to each other in any fundamental way (neither in ideology nor in geography). There would surely be some competition---which is to be expected---but fundamentally they both grew out of the shared Hindu/Sikh reaction to Mughals and the Turks. The both had engendered intense pride in oneself. They had changed the Arab and Persian focus of India, replacing it with local pride. That indeed was the nascent Indian revolution that the British quelled. surinder: Excellent post. But I beg to differ somewhat from you on the possible trajectory of Sikh and Maratha empires if the British had not come. I agree with you that both the Sikh and Maratha empires "grew out of the shared Hindu/Sikh reaction to Mughals and the Turks. They both had engendered intense pride in oneself. They had changed the Arab and Persian focus of India, replacing it with local pride." But the ideological foundations that had built both these empires had begun to weaken and their fate was becoming more dependent on the capability (or lack of it) of whoever happened to be the ruler(s) at the top. Witness the court intrigues in the Khalsa Raj after Maharaja Ranjit Singh's death, or those in the Peshwa's court that contributed to defeat in Panipat against Abdali. Mahadji Scindia kept the Maratha confederacy intact and powerful after Panipat, but after his death (some say he was poisoned under a conspiracy hatched by Nana Phadnavis), the confederacy was falling apart and the rulers in Gwalior, Berar, and Poona were not up to par. I would venture to say that even if the British had not defeated them, both these empires would have fallen apart among several warring states in another 50 years. IMHO one big strength that helped the British succeed in building an empire in India is that they had gone past the stage of political evolution where the performance of the state depended entirely on the capability/ incapability of whoever happens to be the monarch. They had institutions in place (Parliament, Army, Civil Service) that would decide, implement, and continue implementing a policy (in this case the conquest of colonies) irrespective of whatever happened in the royal family. They had also gone past the stage of internecine wars of succession in the royal family that so weaken a country. They were thus politically stronger than the Maratha or Sikh empires. And after conquering the Sikhs and the Marathas, the British political strengths enabled them to harness the military strengths of these defeated empires, in the form of Sikh and Maratha regiments of the British Indian Army, better than the contemporary Sikh and Maratha leaders did. JMT and IMHO please.
Top

Keshav	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 09:50 pm
BRFite Joined: 20 Sep 2007 03:23 am Posts: 595 Location: USA	How did the English phase out internecine conflict? Kakkaji wrote: IMHO one big strength that helped the British succeed in building an empire in India is that they had gone past the stage of political evolution where the performance of the state depended entirely on the capability/ incapability of whoever happens to be the monarch. They had institutions in place (Parliament, Army, Civil Service) that would decide, implement, and continue implementing a policy (in this case the conquest of colonies) irrespective of whatever happened in the royal family. They had also gone past the stage of internecine wars of succession in the royal family that so weaken a country. They were thus politically stronger than the Maratha or Sikh empires. And after conquering the Sikhs and the Marathas, the British political strengths enabled them to harness the military strengths of these defeated empires, in the form of Sikh and Maratha regiments of the British Indian Army, better than the contemporary Sikh and Maratha leaders did. I would be very willing to believe this, especially after reading Jadunath Sarkar's "Shivaji and His Times". One of the major deficits of the Maratha "Empire" was that even once they had won over large tracts of land and expanded, they still viewed themselves as little guys fighting the big bad Mughal empire. Instead of changing that mentality and consolidating what they had. 1) Forgot to create large public schooling 2) Did not invest in indigenous creation of technology rather than simply buying it from foreign powers. India still continues to do this, but it is a symptom of a larger problem - we lack manufacturing power. However, there are other things such as nuclear work which have come from the ground up. 3) (JS) "But commerce was subject to frequent harassment by local officers and the traders could never be certain of freedom of movement or security of their rights on mere payment of the legal right of duties. The internal resources of a small province no industry, little trade, sterile soil, and agriculture dependent on scant and precarious rainfall could not possibly support the large army Shivaji kept or the imperial position and world dominion towards which the Peshwas aspired." 4) (JS) Shivaji did not create any religious reforms to prevent caste problems. Instead, he tried to revive an old and rickety system without the proper changes. 5) (JS) "There was no attempt at well-thought organized communal improvement spread of education, or unification of the people either under Shivaji or under the Peshwas. The cohesion of the people of the Maratha state was therefore not organic but artificial, accidental and therefore precarious. It was solely dependent on the rulers outstanding personality and disappeared when the country could not produce supermen."
Top

surinder	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 10:07 pm
BRFite Joined: 08 Apr 2005 01:27 am Posts: 457 Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein	Kakkaji wrote: But I beg to differ somewhat from you on the possible trajectory of Sikh and Maratha empires if the British had not come. ... But the ideological foundations that had built both these empires had begun to weaken and their fate was becoming more dependent on the capability (or lack of it) of whoever happened to be the ruler(s) at the top. Witness the court intrigues in the Khalsa Raj after Maharaja Ranjit Singh's death... Kakkaji, You have valid points. I have myself tried to delve deep into the web of intricacies in the Khalsa Raj after Ranjit Singh death in 1939. It is true that Lahore became a snake pit of vicious and foolish shannigans. But if you study and delve deeper in this murky period, there was something subtle going on. The empire was going through a cleansing period---it was going through a cathartic cleansing of the dirt left by Ranjit Singh. But eventually the worthy ones were beginning to rise through dirt. The second-in line son of Ranjit Singh, for instance, had shown promise. All empires at some point or the other have this cleansing through chaos process. The Mughals had it. Eventually, if the British had not been breathing down the Khalsa neck just across the Satluj, the butter would have risen up. The Khalsa Raj, was by no means a spent force. It was full of vigor and energy. There were many able and brave generals. The army had not its aim and purpose. Also note something more subtle, while the dirt was getting a manthan in Lahore, the empire showed no sign of getting frayed at the outer egdes (NWFP, Multan, or Kashmir, nor Laddakh). Typically, when empires decay, it is most visible at the periphery; when they are toppled, they are toppled at the core. Khalsa Raj was toppled when it was trying to find its footing after Ranjit's death. In fact, the British had patiently waited at the banks of Satluj for no less than 40 years for Ranjit Singh to die. (I am afraid, I do not know as much about the Maratha rule to comment.) Eventually, all discussion of historical what-if's degenerate. I think it is wise to not go too deep into it. But there is something else that is important in this debate. What is important is that had this Indian awakening progressed without the mendacious & cruel interference from the pale-skinned residents of a cold & wet island in Northern Europe, we held a very, very, very good promise of a healthy, proud, wholesome country. T'would have been a country free of McAulife, Gen. Dyer, & Radcliffe. And that is ultimately important to keep in mind before thanking the British for whipping us. Last edited by surinder on 30 May 2008 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Rahul M	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 10:10 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 17 Aug 2005 03:39 pm Posts: 3510 Location: aadim kaler chandim him, todaye bandha ghorar dim !!	cross posting from Indian Interests thread (after deleting the posts in that thread) Quote: @indygill, this is one place where the commies have retreated !! Quote: A Buddhist tradition holds him as having taken steps to check the spread of Buddhism as "the number one enemy of the sons of the Sakya's[5] and a most cruel persecutor of the religion".[4] The Divyavadana ascribes to him the razing of stupas and viharas built by Ashoka, the placing of a bounty of 100 dinaras upon the heads of Buddhist monks (bhiksus) and describes him as one who wanted to undo the work of Ashoka.[6] This account has however been described as "exaggerated".[6] Historian Romila Thapar writes that the Asokavadana legend is, in all probability, a "Buddhist version of Pusyamitra's attack of the Mauryas", and reflects the fact that, with the declining influence of Buddhism in the Imperial court, Buddhist monuments and institutions would receive less attention. [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of ... m_in_India there are only 3 allusions to buddhist persecution by hindus which stand till date >mihirkula White Hun Quote: Saivite King, Mihirakula (who ruled from 515 CE), suppressed Buddhism as well. He did this by destroying monasteries as far away as modern-day Allahabad, before his son reversed the policy. Quote: Mihirakula is remembered in contemporary Indian and Chinese histories for his cruelty and his destruction of temples and monasteries, with particular hostility towards Buddhism. He claimed to be a worshipper of Shiva. One legend specifically portrays Mihirakula enjoying captured wild elephants being driven off the cliffs to their deaths into deep gorges. we are talking about a phsycopath here, it would have mattered little which religion he belonged to. killing elephants(sacred) for fun is certainly not the practice of a devout hindu, by any stretch of imagination ! > Quote: In the south of India while there was no overt persecution of Buddhists at least two Pallava rulers Simhavarma and Trilochana are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them. (wiki) (No sources provided, no incident mentioned.) I don't know about them. can anybody dig this up and confirm/disconfirm ?? FWIW, another lie bites the dust !! http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... shmir.html Harsha of Kashmir, a Hindu Iconoclast?
Top

astal	Post subject: Posted: 30 May 2008 10:33 pm
BRFite -Trainee Joined: 06 Jul 2005 09:36 pm Posts: 12 Location: always in school.	Moved from Indian Interests Thread. If one looks at the Hindu tradition, it's most widely known philosophical work, the Gita is about how one must take recourse to violence, of course, when all other paths fail. If everyone if playing by the rules (aka dharma) there is no need for violence. But against adharma, violence is not only useful but necessary, no matter how disgusting it is. Buddhism's biggest mistake seems to be forgetting this important lesson and it has suffered the consequences. I do not know much about Shaolin tradition but they reject absolute nonviolence with their weapon training. As for India, it seems our ancestors, especially Buddhists forgot the lessons of the Gita and it took another Guru, coincidentally named Govind Singh Jee to remind us. As Ramana often states, just like Hanuman, we constantly need to be reminded of our powers and in this case our responsibilities.
Top

nkumar	Post subject: Posted: 02 Jun 2008 11:44 pm
BRFite Joined: 05 Jul 2007 08:44 pm Posts: 201	Quote: Intellectual terrorism Second opinion: NS Rajaram Apropos Mr Saradindu Mukherji's article, "Humiliated and broken" (May 31), I would like to point out that Nehruvian feudalism leading to the setting up of national institutions like ICHR and ICSSR has given rise to a media-scholar nexus that has created a climate of intolerance in which any deviation form the politically correct norm is ruthlessly suppressed in the name of 'secularism'. I had a taste of this when I was nominated member of the Indian Council of Historical Research (which I declined for personal reasons). The JNU-AMU 'secular' priesthood launched a vicious media attack on me, with a leading New Delhi-based newspaper writing editorials about my 'anti-secular' sins. Being an independent scholar it had no effect on me, but one can easily imagine the terror it would strike in the hearts of young and vulnerable workers in academia. The results of this scorched earth policy are there for all to see. At the time of independence, India had historians of the stature of RC Majumdar and Jadunath Sarkar. What is the scene like today? All the important advances in Indian history have come from the work of non-establishment scholars like VS Wakankar, Natwar Jha, Shrikant Talageri, David Frawley and their colleagues. Our 'eminent historians', beginning with Romila Thapar, have done nothing comparable beyond tinkering with what they received from their colonial masters and recasting it in the secular-Marxist straitjacket. A particularly ugly aspect of this 'secularist' mindset is the continued attachment to racist abominations like the Aryan myth. In my nearly 25 years in the US and Europe, I never felt disadvantaged because of my race. But here in India, the intelligentsia is excessively deferential towards anyone with fair skin, covertly using it to proclaim the superiority of White scholarship to denounce new ideas put forward by Indians. This came to the fore when the disgraced Harvard linguist Michael Witzel and his charlatan colleague Steve Farmer were trotted out by 'secularist' scholars and the Leftist media to launch personal attacks on workers who demonstrated the Vedic-Harappan identity and overthrew the Aryan invasion theory.
Top

KV Rao	Post subject: Posted: 03 Jun 2008 09:41 pm
BRFite Joined: 17 Aug 2005 07:36 am Posts: 165	Shwetank wrote: Quote: But some things that British and Indians did together, accidentally or to facilitate empire, are now proving to be helpful and we are too generous to be bitter and blame todays British citizens as individuals."..... I for one agree with the view that the British Indian colonial colonial experience did provide India a template for some good institutions. Though Dr. Singh did not mention it, I think the Indian armed forces are a positive part of the otherwise devastating British legacy to India. It is said that even Japan copied western institutions during the Meiji restoration. India will do well to understand what part of these institutions work and co-opt them for Indian interests, instead of wasting our time on being bitter about the colonial experience. Even in this there is another part, it is essential that the nation do this on it own, it must go through the learning curve, figure out how organizational co-operative groups are formed etc. Note we did know such things before, we would just have needed to modify it, just like Japanese had functioning govt. before and just took the new ideas but did it themselves and retained the skilles necessary to rule. Foisting on the system artificially which the people themselves did not bring out about themselves through constant debate/introspection/criticism/struggle is going to just leave a broken system. We didn't learn the how the things worked just ended up with finished good without working hard for it ourselves, there was a reason Brits said we can't rule ourselves because we had lost the habit of it. It's like another of the jingo's constant irritants, we get shiny new finished military gear from abroad but never mastered how to do it ourselves, no initiative, no discovering ourselves and going beyond on our own path, just blindly following and that too incompletely. There is a reason we complain about this, developing the weapons yourselves requires yout to master certain administrative, atitude, policy issues. Those subtle internal qualities that are molded are far more important than just getting the officially named institutions. Same thing happens in many parts of world, you can go to some isolated tribe and explain the system, give them the books and system and introduce to them the modern world and leave them alone after administring them for a while. Do you think the tribe will now become successful suddenly? Probably not, petty guys suddenly getting power will start looking out for themselves now external power is gone. Most such communities in the world are doing terribly. Plus the Brits modified us socially and froze in ideas and distintions which are extremely destructive, more so than the economic destruction (even in that the loss of revenue or job isn't as bad as the loss of ability/skill/organizational power to do that). It was fare beyond a simple economic rape and physical massacre of people, both things which can be recovered from and have been recovered from by other countries in the world. I'd suggest that there is another way of looking at the implications of grafting external instititions on top of existing indigeneous systems and processes, given that the latter are in some state of dysfunction. My view is, IMO a little less pessimistic than Shwetank's. * When an institution is grafted on, the challenge shifts from developing the mindsets and institutions needed for the creation of such an institution to one of adopting and adapting such instutions. The Indian army, inherited from the British, remains a functional, more or less successful and lawful institution after independence, well-integrated into the overall system. Contrast with what happened with the armies of Pakistan and Bangladesh. It takes some nontrivial cultural skills to make grafted institutions work. * De novo creation of institutions is only one aspect of instaling successful institutions; in the modern world, the cultures who are best at making the right borrow/buy/build choice of institutions and making the choice work will prevail. In a sense, the socialist period was an exercise in trying to build institutions from scratch (and by implication gaining the corresponding skillsets). We can make a strong argument that this was not a competitively viable strategy. * 200 years (the length of the British raj) with an institution (such as army, civil service etc.) is sufficient time to understand, debug and reverse-engineer the foundations of that institutions.
Top

Acharya	Post subject: Posted: 03 Jun 2008 09:57 pm
BRF Oldie Joined: 09 Feb 1999 07:01 am Posts: 4080	http://www.scribd.com/doc/420268/Anecdotes...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420272/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 For the last 60 years,the Communist historians with the tacit approval of the Congress party have distorted Indian history.The Communist governments of West Bengal and Kerala are in the forfront of this disinformation campaign.Koenraad Elst calls this "negationism" or denial of historical facts.Here are some documents which shed some light on India's turbulent past.Untold millions have been massacred, in a manner that is evocative of what the Church has wrought in South America http://www.scribd.com/doc/420274/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420279/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420280/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420282/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420284/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/503367/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420286/The-Histo...a_related_doc=1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/420317/A-HISTORY...a_related_doc=1
Top

Sanku	Post subject: Posted: 04 Jun 2008 08:26 am
BRFite Joined: 23 Aug 2007 10:27 am Posts: 1523 Location: Naaahhhh	Keshav wrote: 4) (JS) Shivaji did not create any religious reforms to prevent caste problems. Instead, he tried to revive an old and rickety system without the proper changes. I think we have to take it forward from where JS left off; JS is good but know we know more. We now know that caste system as JS understands it is a artifact of British Raj. Given that Shivaji himself was not "high" born; and Peshwa (Brahmins) actually faught as warriors and all manners of Marathas are not "high" born suggests that the caste was a prism that we are looking at things now. For example we do not know of Maratha empire disintegrating around "caste" lines; but of personal fiefdom. However we do know of caste "stuggle" since the British era. This itself tells us in abundance that caste was a changing social grouping no different from British fuedal system. As to a Monarch -- The holy roman empire and the Kaiser held Austria-Hungary empire intact till WWI in some shape or form (though there were measures of eqaulity) So I dont think the "monarchical" system was at fault either. Anyway the super human task is to create a empire; running it needs only mild competence if there are no major disruptions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The problem with Maratha's was many fold -- continuing warfare on religious line withing the "empire"; shock of the British entry and alliances that Marathas themselves sought with Brits to play one up man ship with other Marthas. In the end what did them in finally was not understanding the enemy If I was to chose one reason -- I would attribute it to strategic shortsightedness. w.r.t. British East India company. The world had changed and the Marathas had no clue -- this was a direct off shoot of the continuous religious war fare since Mughal times and the Mughal Islamist dislike for innovation and change. Those are the root reasons.
Top

surinder	Post subject: Posted: 04 Jun 2008 02:15 pm
BRFite Joined: 08 Apr 2005 01:27 am Posts: 457 Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein	Sanku wrote: For example we do not know of Maratha empire disintegrating around "caste" lines; but of personal fiefdom. However we do know of caste "struggle" since the British era. This itself tells us in abundance that caste was a changing social grouping no different from British fuedal system. Good points. Important to note that if indeed caste was the main problem, then the empire would have split due to that. But it did not. It eventually was dismantled by the British, who had no business being in India at that time. This criticism of Shiva Ji itself is a form of British propaganda. An attempt to find faults with the enemy to hide its own intentions. Indians have unfortunately pick up these points. Keshav, when a man succeeds in achieving X, we pooh-pooh why he did not achive X+y. It was a great feat, what he achieved. Sanku wrote: The world had changed and the Marathas had no clue -- this was a direct off shoot of the continuous religious warfare since Mughal times and the Mughal Islamist dislike for innovation and change. Those are the root reasons. Sanku, what do you mean by the bolded parts? Can you explain?
Top

Keshav	Post subject: Posted: 04 Jun 2008 09:23 pm
BRFite Joined: 20 Sep 2007 03:23 am Posts: 595 Location: USA	Sanku wrote: We now know that caste system as JS understands it is a artifact of British Raj. Given that Shivaji himself was not "high" born; and Peshwa (Brahmins) actually faught as warriors and all manners of Marathas are not "high" born suggests that the caste was a prism that we are looking at things now. When I was talking about religious reform, I was talking about more broad reaching reforms than caste, which is debatable. Many Marathi saints and sages wrote in Marathi rather than Sanskrit - these are the most popular - Tukaram, Ramdas, Jnaneshwari. It's not just the removal of caste discrimination since this only came up at Shivaji's coronation, but education which I think stifled the Maratha uprising. The education that comes from being a Brahmin should have been extended to everyone. This would have drastically increased the number of educated statesman. However, I don't blame Shivaji for this as I do later Peshwas, primarily because he was constantly fighting to preserve Maharashtra and probably didn't have the time or the money to be funding schools. Perhaps society is to blame, rather than Shivaji. Sanku wrote: As to a Monarch -- The holy roman empire and the Kaiser held Austria-Hungary empire intact till WWI in some shape or form (though there were measures of eqaulity) Both the holy roman empire and the kaiser are long gone, but the British system of parliament is now in place all over the world. There is a large difference between the two. surinder wrote: Keshav, when a man succeeds in achieving X, we pooh-pooh why he did not achive X+y. It was a great feat, what he achieved. Shivaji is great. Everyone knows that already, but it doesn't mean that in order to be as successful that we should copy everything he did. J Sarkar considered Shivaji to be the highest nation builder among Hindus, so he did have quite a bit of respect. Finding fault with him is only for our benefit, but not at the cost of Shivaji's legacy. Making the same mistakes he did is worse than simply finding fault with him.
Top

Kaushal	Post subject: Posted: 06 Jun 2008 04:50 am
BRFite Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 402 Location: SanFrancisco Bay Area	Quote: The relevance to this thread this is that we are discussing distortion of History. The whole thread is full of whines about foreign distortion of Indian history. Every single poster casts India as a helpless victim. This thread does not discuss that maybe Indians themselves could have distorted history. I do not undertand the use of the word whine in this context. History is the recounting of things and events as they happened. It is not a recounting of only the good things or the bad things , but all of the events that happened.And then to understand why it happened Let us take an example .Shortly after the Battle of Plassey (Polashir Juddho in Bengali), there was a calamitous famine in Bengal in 1770 .. It was a horrendous famine where 1 out of 3 bengalis died of slow starvation (roughly 10 million died). This was the direct result of the Brits turning the screws on Mir Jafar and an assorted bunch of nincompoops who were ruling the Bengal lands at that time. Remember Bengal is mostly a delta, and is inundated in water and is less dependent on the monsoon. There is no earthly reason why Bengal should ever have a famine. And yet there were repeated famines under the British , even as late as 1943, where 3 million died. Altogether estimates are that 50 million died in famines in India. Now there is no famine in India with 5 to 6 times the population as in 1770. Is it a whine to point this out ? or should we never point this out. The fact of the matter is , that to say that something happened (if we are accurate) is our 'kartavya' and we should be regarded as cowards if we refrain from pointing this out. Now if you constantly complain that you are personally being screwed and ask for a quota or a special treatment then you have every right to call yourself a whiner, but i don't think we are indulging in such behavior here.
Top

Keshav	Post subject: Posted: 06 Jun 2008 08:09 pm
BRFite Joined: 20 Sep 2007 03:23 am Posts: 595 Location: USA	Kaushal wrote: Now if you constantly complain that you are personally being screwed and ask for a quota or a special treatment then you have every right to call yourself a whiner, but i don't think we are indulging in such behavior here. Wow. Surinder was commenting on Swami Dayananda, not the British. You just took his comment way out of context.
Top

satyarthi	Post subject: Posted: 07 Jun 2008 12:52 am
BRFite Joined: 21 Aug 2006 03:20 am Posts: 179	Some more confessions of British leeching of India. So, British rule was beneficial for whom? The British or the Indians? Britain's decline foretold Quote: In a speech to the Philosophical Institute of Edinburgh in October 1908, entitled The Place of India in the Empire, Curzon said, "It was the remark of De Tocqueville that the conquest and Government of India were really the achievements that had given Britain her place in the world... Consider what would happen were we to lose India, and were some other power to take our place, for it is inconceivable that India could stand or be left alone. We would lose its unfailing markets... we would lose... the principal, indeed almost the only formidable element in our fighting strength; our influence in Asia would quickly disappear... our colonies would cut themselves off from a dying trunk: And we should sink into a third-rate power, an object of shame to ourselves and of derision to the rest of mankind. Remember, too, that India is no longer a piece, even a king or queen on the Asiatic chessboard. It is a royal piece on the chessboard of international politics."
Top

Kaushal	Post subject: Posted: 08 Jun 2008 05:43 am
BRFite Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 402 Location: SanFrancisco Bay Area	Quote: Wow. Surinder was commenting on Swami Dayananda, not the British. You just took his comment way out of context Not really , I was referring to his statement that Quote: The whole thread is full of whines about foreign distortion of Indian history. a remark clearly intended to convey that he disapproved of such conduct. His choice of the much overused word especially in BR, was certainly inappropriate
Top

surinder	Post subject: Re: Posted: 10 Jun 2008 05:42 pm
BRFite Joined: 08 Apr 2005 01:27 am Posts: 457 Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein	Kaushal wrote: I do not undertand the use of the word whine in this context. History is the recounting of things and events as they happened. It is not a recounting of only the good things or the bad things , but all of the events that happened.And then to understand why it happened Let us take an example .Shortly after the Battle of Plassey (Polashir Juddho in Bengali), there was a calamitous famine in Bengal in 1770 .. It was a horrendous famine where 1 out of 3 bengalis died of slow starvation (roughly 10 million died). This was the direct result of the Brits turning the screws on Mir Jafar and an assorted bunch of nincompoops who were ruling the Bengal lands at that time. Remember Bengal is mostly a delta, and is inundated in water and is less dependent on the monsoon. There is no earthly reason why Bengal should ever have a famine. And yet there were repeated famines under the British , even as late as 1943, where 3 million died. Altogether estimates are that 50 million died in famines in India. Now there is no famine in India with 5 to 6 times the population as in 1770. Is it a whine to point this out ? or should we never point this out. The fact of the matter is , that to say that something happened (if we are accurate) is our 'kartavya' and we should be regarded as cowards if we refrain from pointing this out. Now if you constantly complain that you are personally being screwed and ask for a quota or a special treatment then you have every right to call yourself a whiner, but i don't think we are indulging in such behavior here. Kaushal, I did mean this as a slight to anyone, least of all yourself who is doing a remarkable job. While I have not had the pleasure of knowing you personally, it is absolutely clear to me that what you are doing is a great service to our country. Your sincerity and breadth of knowledge is obvious even to me. But let me clarify what I really mean, and you can decide if you still find it offensive. I will abolutely apologize to you, if you do. The plethora of posts have the general theme that the British/Westeners/Foreigners have distorted Indian history. They have overlooked,diminished, or plainly lied about Indian history. It is abolutely our "Kartavya" to set the record straight. This may involve writing books, papers to correct history. It may involve educating fellow Indians about the the real history. It may also include not giving worth to the worthless writings the foreigners have done. But it quickly degenerates into a whine if don't do anything but merely complain and paint ourselves as a victim. Many of the posts have this sense to them. I went back to read the posts to figure out if felt like that even now, and unfortunately I did. (not your posts). If we show purusharth and do our kartavya and creat a new awareness, then it is, obviously, not a whine. Goning back to you example of Bengal famines, it is most sad that most Indians are not fully aware of such genocide inflicted upon India. Somewhere in London I recall seeing a monument ot Robert Clive, but this famine is forgotten. We desparately need people like you to remind these facts. Untruth is fought with truth. Distorted history by true history. I would actually encourage if someone here is able to collate all the British atrocities in India and write a book. Let me go back to the point which got triggered by reference to Swami Dayannd: Western distortion of history is actually the easiest for us to clear up. But maybe we Indians have also distorted our history. Within India we have a desire to see our individual group (caste, religion, region, langauge) appear in a certain light. We Indians distort history too. How do we clean that up? I do not think that is an easy task.
Top

ramana	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 17 Jun 2008 06:44 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 7269	Interestng take on world history Shaping of the 17th -18th century It was the state centralization in Europe that allowed the power projection in the colonies. Quote: EMERGING GREAT POWERS. Some states in Europe made an important transition during the 18th century to new centralized systems that could draw strength from the growing commercialization of society and the beginnings of industrialization. As a result, by the end of the century, France, Great Britain, and Prussia, along with the Russian Empire, displaced Spain, Habsburg Austria, and Portugal as major powers in European and global affairs. The Dutch Republic became a preeminent commercial power with large overseas possessions but was not a significant military presence. 3 ROYAL ABSOLUTISM was the primary force in developing strong central governments in some of the emerging powers. FRANCE was earliest, with the effective absolutism of LOUIS XIV (r. 1643–1715), but his successors were less effective and French monarchical absolutism came to an end with the FRENCH REVOLUTION, beginning in 1789 (See Overview). During the reign of Frederick II, the Great (1740–86), Prussian royal absolutism and great-power status were confirmed. RUSSIA modernization, centralization, and expansion in both Europe and Asia were strengthened by CATHERINE THE GREAT (r. 1762–96) as Russia became a major intercontinental power, with some overseas expansion into North America and northern Pacific islands. The AUSTRIAN HABSBURGS gained territories at the expense of weaker neighbors like Poland and the Ottoman Empire, but were less successful than Prussia and Russia in improving the effectiveness of their royal absolutism. The reforms and policies of Maria Theresa (r. 1740–80) and Joseph II (r. 1780–90) were not sufficient to create administrative unity among the scattered Habsburg domains. In SPAIN and PORTUGAL reform efforts by leaders like the Marquis de Pombal in Portugal failed to revive effective state power. In POLAND the state simply ceased to exist as nobles limited the ability of monarchs to institute reforms and Russia, Prussia, and Austria took control of all of Poland in three partitions (1772, 1793, 1795) (See 1794, March 24). 4 PARLIAMENTARY STATES. The centralized parliamentary state in ENGLAND provided the effective support for expansion. English colonial settlements in North America and the expansion of the East India Company in India created a global empire during the 18th century. After its successful revolt against Habsburg control at the beginning of the 17th century, the DUTCH REPUBLIC emerged as a significant commercial power. The Dutch created an overseas empire with holdings in North and South America, South Africa, and the Indian Ocean basin, especially in southeast Asia; its wealth made it an important political force in Europe. By the middle of the 18th century, it had become a minor European power and its commercial preeminence was lost to Britain, although the Dutch still maintained a small but important overseas empire. 5 “WORLD WARS” OF THE 18TH CENTURY. Many of the conflicts among the European powers involved clashes beyond the European continent. They were primarily European wars fought on a global scale, with two chief lines of conflict: the struggle for continental domination in Europe and the battle for control of overseas colonies and naval access to them. In the continental struggle, France, Prussia, and Russia became the great powers, and in global maritime empires, Great Britain was the major force. The European names of the most important global wars in creating this power structure are the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14) (See 1701–14), which began the reduction of French power in North America; the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) (See 1740–48); and the Seven Years' War (1756–63), which resulted in France's loss of most of its overseas empire in India and North America; finally, there were the wars of the era of the French Revolution and Napoleon (See Overview), which were fought in North America, Asia, and Africa as well as in Europe.
Top

Sumeet	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 18 Jun 2008 11:57 pm
BRFite Joined: 22 May 2002 06:01 am Posts: 469	PM's daughter takes on Marxist view of history Quote: NEW DELHI: Just when PM Manmohan Singh has taken on his communist partners over the nuclear deal, his daughter, professor Upinder Singh, has come up with a book which challenges the Marxist version of ancient Indian history. While praising Marxist historians for uncovering the history of non-elite groups and other contributions, Singh disagrees with them for their reliance on unilinear historical models derived from western historical and anthropological works. She also delves extensively into ancient India's cultural past — art, literature, religion and philosophy — in sharp contrast to Marxist historians who focused on "social and economic interpretations". Singh, however, is not one to discard the Marxist approach altogether. "Being a student of history in the 1970s, I am a product of the shift from the nationalist to the Marxist view and so I have drawn from both," the DU historian told TOI, identifying herself as "belonging to the liberal space which is so important". Singh's 704-page A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century is targeted at graduate and post-graduate students and will be released on July 18. With her keen interest in archaeology, Singh seeks to challenge Marxist historians like Romila Thapar, and provides, for those "writing the new NCERT school books," more than one interpretation of ancient Indian history, and encouraging them to look for more. Elaborating on her divergences with the Marxist school which have dominated the campuses since the 70s, Singh stressed the need for students of ancient Indian history to pay attention also to cultural aspects — art, literature religion and philosophy. "Religious doctrines, I feel, are important for students to understand things in context," she said. In the introductory chapter, Singh discusses the contributions and flaws of the various schools. "Marxist historiography also contributed towards uncovering the history of non-elite groups, many of whom had suffered centuries of subordination and marginalization. While making these valuable contributions, Marxist writing often tended to work with unilinear historical models derived from western historical and anthropological writings," she writes. Sketching out her differences with the Marxist school, Singh notes that shift of population from rural to urban areas did not take place as suggested in the model as "most people of the subcontinent continued to live in villages". Asked about likely controversies after the book's release, she said, "Given that a controversy came up about a book that did not exist, I must say it can really vitiate the atmosphere. History always has a political element, it is always connected with power and power structures, with strong views on it even among ordinary people. But ultimately the book will be judged in the long run by students of history." Explaining the purpose in the preface, she said, "It is necessary to expose them to the complex details and textures of history... unresolved issues... have been presented as such, rather than conveying a false sense of certainty. Where there are debates, the different perspectives have been presented, along with my own assessment of which arguments are convincing and which ones are not."
Top

ramana	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 19 Jun 2008 02:02 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 7269	Wow she is one of our own! Will definitely buy her book. always need to get new looks at history.
Top

sanjaychoudhry	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 19 Jun 2008 03:18 pm
BRFite Joined: 12 Jul 2007 07:09 pm Posts: 556 Location: La La Land	ramana wrote: Wow she is one of our own! Will definitely buy her book. always need to get new looks at history. She was recently in the centre of the storm about the book on Ramayana edited by her which alleged that Sita was having an affair with Hanuman. ABVP cadres created a ruckus about this at Delhi University and vandalised the office of the head of history deptt. Now, the DU is clarifying that she had nothing to do with that book. Still, there is a strong Marxist historian in her too along with the nationalist, and she seems to be currently sitting on the fence. You never know in which publication on which side she will decide to jump.
Top

sanjaychoudhry	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 19 Jun 2008 09:24 pm
BRFite Joined: 12 Jul 2007 07:09 pm Posts: 556 Location: La La Land	'Opium financed British rule in India' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7460682.stm
Top

rocky	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 21 Jun 2008 08:45 pm
BRFite Joined: 08 Mar 2006 05:22 pm Posts: 142	Upinder Singh's writings are certainly interesting, and definitely heartening. It's interesting however, that she is known as Upinder Singh and not Upinder Kaur? Anyways - I have been wanting to get my hands on a good (size no bar) copy of the Bhagvad Gita in English. When I was at the Aga Khan Palace a few years ago, I did find a nice looking copy being sold at the Kasturba Gandhi Memorial. However, now I don't remember the ISBN anymore. Can anybody help please? I hope this thread is ok to post such a question, I actually fear getting banned for asking this question ...
Top

ramana	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 23 Jun 2008 10:07 pm
Forum Moderator Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am Posts: 7269	from Columbia Uty! Introduction to Indian Civilization Look at chapter headlines! Quote: CLASS TOPICS: ONE == Mapping "India" (What is "India," and can we really map it?) TWO == The Indus Valley Civilization (How well can we know a culture through physical evidence alone?) THREE == The Vedic people (How well can we know a culture through its religious texts alone?) FOUR == The Upanishads (Why were the Vedic sacrificial rituals not enough?) FIVE == Buddhism and Jainism emerge (Can humans escape from violence, desire, and rebirth?) SIX == Ashoka, the Beloved-of-the-Gods (Did his empire really rest on pillars?) SEVEN == The story of Rama (Should he be considered an ideal king?) EIGHT == The "Brahminical synthesis" (How did it all come together?) NINE == The Bhagavad Gita (How did Krishna persuade Arjuna to fight in a fratricidal war?) TEN == Bhakti (Can a person really have God for a lover?) ELEVEN == The great medieval temple complexes (How can we best understand the medieval temples?) TWELVE == The advent of Islam (How did Muslims become a presence in South Asia?) THIRTEEN == Mystical paths and prophetic voices (How close to God is too close?) FOURTEEN == Akbar, the great assimilator (What did he mean when he said "Allahu Akbar"?) FIFTEEN == The Mughal Empire (Was it really a Mughal-Rajput Empire?) SIXTEEN == Aurangzeb and the long slide downhill (Was it his fault that regional powers began to take over?) SEVENTEEN == The British presence expands (Did the westerners bring "modernity"?) EIGHTEEN == The growth of (Hindu) nationalism (How did Hindu/Indian threads intertwine?) NINETEEN == 1857 and beyond (What did the rebellion mean?) TWENTY == In the Muslim community (How were the issues of separatism argued?) TWENTY-ONE == Gandhi's "big tent" (Could even a Mahatma hold it all together?) TWENTY-TWO == Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (How does a Dalit with a Columbia Ph.D. fight the caste system?) TWENTY-THREE == The Independence movement (Was it bound to turn out the way it did?) TWENTY-FOUR == Aftermath (How did the reshaping of South Asia continue?) TWENTY-FIVE == "The Lawless Frontier" (Must there always be trouble in the mountains?) TWENTY-SIX == Nowadays... (How far have we come, and in what directions?) Wow!
Top

Keshav	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 24 Jun 2008 04:57 am
BRFite Joined: 20 Sep 2007 03:23 am Posts: 595 Location: USA	How close to God is too close? The whole idea of teaching history without cultural perspective is really a bad idea.
Top

Raju	Post subject: Re: Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies - 2 Posted: 24 Jun 2008 05:01 am
BRFite Joined: 30 Sep 2004 03:45 am Posts: 1383 Location: دار الحرب	US is just a slightly sophisticated version of the old Soviet Union. It's imparting historical-religious education with the ultimate aim of breeding atheists, disbelievers and cynics.