09-Jul-2013, 02:17 AM
Captain Mandrake,
I think these problems persist for two reasons:
(1) The lack of focus on modern (1200 C.E. - present) Indian history in discourse and pedagogy.
(2) Religious thinking which gives people alternatives to scientific history.
Combined, both of these allow obfuscations like the Hindutva and Dravida movements to flourish.
The first thing is, why are we obsessed with ancient India? Commenting on why the Indo-Aryan topic is such a touchy subject in India, the Sanskritist Michael Witzel noted that this kind of attitude was unique to the subcontinent. Italians aren't fighting over who is more Roman and who is more Germanic barbarian, the British aren't fighting over who is more Anglo-Saxon/Celt vs. Norman or what not. And the Normans invaded England in 1066 C.E., nearly 2500 years more recently than our own Aryan invasion. Why is it such a touchy topic for us?
As an aside, I'm not sure why history courses in school focus so much on ancient India either. I am an American who was educated in the US, and I remember that anytime we studied India, we would cover the Aryan Invasion and the Buddha for a week. In a few days, we would maybe go to Ashoka, an aside on Akbar, and then suddenly Gandhi. I would like to think that the situation in India is somewhat different, but all the debates I see in newspapers or on TV are invariably about ancient Indian history!
In our class, our essays asked us to analyze modern India using what we had learned about Aryans, etc. Although there may be some relation, is it really the best strategy to analyze a society with information from 3500 years earlier? Would I be in the best situation to comment on modern North Africa when all I know is a history of the Punic Wars? The situation in India is worse. Imagine David Cameron and his party having debates in Parliament and in the press about the historicity of King Arthur, who built Stonehenge, and whether or not to revive the Saxon witan. Meanwhile, noone talks about the Elizabethan era, the Industrial Revolution, and the Empire, which are more relevant to modern Britain than the Norman Invasion.
There are also no histories of independent India taught in India itself. This is problematic when an entire nation doesn't know its own history. Ramachandra Guha notes this in his introduction to India After Gandhi. There is a problem here too-- modern history is once again heavily politicized.
When you add to this the fact that many Hindus in India believe that Indian civilization is a million years old, and you have obfuscations from the Dravida and Hindutva movements, you truly have a mess.
There needs to be a stronger emphasis on history in India, particularly modern history. Especially since in India, history is less an intellectual pursuit and more of a weapon which people bend to their own wills.
I think these problems persist for two reasons:
(1) The lack of focus on modern (1200 C.E. - present) Indian history in discourse and pedagogy.
(2) Religious thinking which gives people alternatives to scientific history.
Combined, both of these allow obfuscations like the Hindutva and Dravida movements to flourish.
The first thing is, why are we obsessed with ancient India? Commenting on why the Indo-Aryan topic is such a touchy subject in India, the Sanskritist Michael Witzel noted that this kind of attitude was unique to the subcontinent. Italians aren't fighting over who is more Roman and who is more Germanic barbarian, the British aren't fighting over who is more Anglo-Saxon/Celt vs. Norman or what not. And the Normans invaded England in 1066 C.E., nearly 2500 years more recently than our own Aryan invasion. Why is it such a touchy topic for us?
As an aside, I'm not sure why history courses in school focus so much on ancient India either. I am an American who was educated in the US, and I remember that anytime we studied India, we would cover the Aryan Invasion and the Buddha for a week. In a few days, we would maybe go to Ashoka, an aside on Akbar, and then suddenly Gandhi. I would like to think that the situation in India is somewhat different, but all the debates I see in newspapers or on TV are invariably about ancient Indian history!
In our class, our essays asked us to analyze modern India using what we had learned about Aryans, etc. Although there may be some relation, is it really the best strategy to analyze a society with information from 3500 years earlier? Would I be in the best situation to comment on modern North Africa when all I know is a history of the Punic Wars? The situation in India is worse. Imagine David Cameron and his party having debates in Parliament and in the press about the historicity of King Arthur, who built Stonehenge, and whether or not to revive the Saxon witan. Meanwhile, noone talks about the Elizabethan era, the Industrial Revolution, and the Empire, which are more relevant to modern Britain than the Norman Invasion.
There are also no histories of independent India taught in India itself. This is problematic when an entire nation doesn't know its own history. Ramachandra Guha notes this in his introduction to India After Gandhi. There is a problem here too-- modern history is once again heavily politicized.
When you add to this the fact that many Hindus in India believe that Indian civilization is a million years old, and you have obfuscations from the Dravida and Hindutva movements, you truly have a mess.
There needs to be a stronger emphasis on history in India, particularly modern history. Especially since in India, history is less an intellectual pursuit and more of a weapon which people bend to their own wills.