Comments on: Defining the Historian

By: Tap

Tap — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:58:34 +0000

I just wanted to correct myself, and refrain from using racially sensitive terms like “white” in the last post, when talking about the maharajas; instead, this the corrected post:

“only the several Indian Maharajas had 20 British mistresses each”

Thank you.

By: Tap

Tap — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:46:01 +0000

I want to comment on one thing: in the 1857 mutiny in India, all the british historians like that Dalrymple are biased people and they all state that “there was no evidence of any harm of british women by indians” ( by harm I mean the honour lost of those women by force), and that it was only the other way around UNTRUE Of course they’re going to say this because they dont want to admit the truth because it makes them look bad! How can anyone believe that there was no evidence?? Of course whoever took records from the british side during that time would NEVER admit that there was evidence! How can you trust any of the British records??? They’re all biased, they all try to make themselves look good!!! People should ask the Indian historians and ask about their view! Of course the princes and chiefs had their own inquiries and records that these things did happen to the brit women. Also Dalrymple talks about white mughals BS!!! THERE WERE NO WHITE MUGHALS!! Esp. at that time, indian society was so strict do you think the women would ever go out with the white guys???? Never

Dalrymple is lying, and he is lying because the truth bothers him…

only the several Indian Maharajas had 20 white mistresses each

Bias on our part though is you don;t hear too much about this history from indian historians, why? B/c its shameful to admit and talk about what happened to the brit women, and also about the indian rajas and brit mistresses, these subjects are taboo in India and so these historical records are kept somewhat hidden and secret, but they exist (for eg. Jayaprakash Narayan kept records during the foreign occupation of india). On the other hand, the europeans and brits have a habit of being outspoken about everything and dont have the same sense of taboo and strict censor concerning these subjects, and so discuss these more freely.

By: Romila Thapar’s BS :: Seriously Sandeep

Romila Thapar’s BS :: Seriously Sandeep — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:23:29 +0000

[...] to say it in so many words. So, let’s see what a commonsense definition of a historian is. JK nails it in one of his best posts till [...]

By: kangeyaa

kangeyaa — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:09:06 +0000

This is because the term nÄ�stika is used for one who does not believe in the authority of the Vedas and has nothing to do with God. JK I would qualify that even further. The astika way of thought uses Vedic methods to discuss philosophical and logical problems, rather than repose authority in the Vedas. The Vedas are supposed to apaurusheya, not because they are dictated by some devas, but because they are independent of any personal likes or dislikes. Given some time and space for vada, tarka, jalpa, etc., anyone can conclude as the Vedas do. The question of belief does not arise.

By: JK

JK — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 04:44:04 +0000

Chandra, Thanks for the link; I had not seen it. These folks have changed the discussion of history to always include Marxism. Marxism itself is dying around the world, but still it is kept alive by such folks.

I have few of those Kosambi books mentioned in the article, but never got around to reading them completely. On the whole I get the feeling that he did not hate India/Hinduism as much as his disciples.

By: Chandra

Chandra — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:15:55 +0000

JK,

I remember a promotion of Smt. Singh’s book in TOI some months ago and the portrayal of her as being critical of Marxists historians. (Only in India can one get away with calling themselves Marxist anything, never mind a historian!!).

Anyway, have you seen the rather long op-ed in The Hindu on the D. D. Kosambi recently by one Dr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, former prof of JNU. I liked this from the op-ed: In a letter to his old friend Daniel Ingalls, an Indologist at Harvard, he wrote in 1953: â��The world is divided into three groups: (1) swearing by Marxism, (2) swearing at Marxism, (3) indifferent, i.e. just swearingâ�¦I belong to (1), you and your colleagues to (2).â�� [sic]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/31/stories/2008073155850900.htm

By: anon

anon — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:32:22 +0000

“Thus by Ms. Singh’s definition the American invasion of Iraq or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan cannot be called a calamity or tragedy; we are now in predictable territory of template script.”

brilliant.

this was probably the first post i read in your blog, followed a link in sandeepweb. you rock.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:59:06 +0000

History definitely is influenced by the bias of the historian, but usually it is compensated by having various schools of thoughts. In India, history always was written with a Marxist perspective, and dissenting voices which would have provided balance were never heard. Now such dissenting voices are shut off by labeling them.

Even before we get to the objective part, the methodology itself needs to be criticized. Marxist historians often try to downplay the impact of religion on social life, but in India, that turned out to be just bashing Hinduism. Often we hear statements like the greatest emperors of India were Akbar and Asoka, both of whom were not Hindus, ignoring the contribution of the Vijayanagar empire and the Cholas.

It is time such historians are called what they really are – biased historians.

By: kaafir

kaafir — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:18:10 +0000

Good post. Not sure if history can be looked at in an “objective” manner, as everyone will have some biases. What’s important is to be aware of, and state those biases or assumptions upfront, instead of pretending that one’s analysis is the only valid/objective one.

By: pankaj

pankaj — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:49:54 +0000

Interesting post
However I have a few random observations
* The problem is history is often tied up with political and ideological agendas whether that be marxist or hinduvtawadi etc
* A lot of history is interpretation and interpretion is bound to be subjective.