Facebook Debate 6 - 28/07/14
To Students, With Love
Sankaranarayanan A R:
And, also there were cars in vedic times and there were licences too (of course written in Sanskrit! Mind you no any other language!) Idiots! They are doing this to create a great idea about Indian culture it seems!
The Greatest Heist in Indian History. How Indian History was Changed and We Didn't Even Notice. Part 1: The Lost Eon 6th Century B.C to 1174 A.D
Thanks for sharing. Really awesome, the name of that website.
The history of a land mass which is now divided into a few nations is really fucked up to such an extent that there are umpteen versions of truth. So when this article claims, of course as a perspective as it says, that the 6th century BC was the Golden age, according to me it can be the dark age of India. It depends on whose side one is. I am not a supporter of economic and social Darwinism, and these two were at the peak through out the known history of this land mass as far as I've read. Babur Invaded India, but the later Mughals stayed in India. In this view, Babur is an invader and the later Mughals are the mother-landers whose ancestor was an invader,
Speaking of twisting history, why going back a thousand years? Dr.B.R.Ambedkar is not properly introduced to the children still. Jyotirao Pule is off the history books and we never know what Chatrapathy Shivaji had to do for becoming the king and what Mr.Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote to the British about to whom the power must be transferred from the British.
The pro or con of being a citizen of modern India is, depending on the ideology we believe, the version of history will differ, and the beauty is, all the versions contain a fragment of truth.
Sankaranarayanan A R:
Dr.Ambedkar is reduced to being a Dalit icon.he was a great Dalit leader, no dispute. But then he was greater than that he presided over the writers who wrote the constitution. And how many people know that he was a part of The Young's commission which gave rise to the Reserve Bank and the modern monetary system in India? See History is history. If invaders killed the populace, forced a particular religion on people, say it. Don't mollycoddle it. At the same time say that it was and IS bad and historical revenge is stupid and futile. In the guise of equality and secularism don't lie. At the same time equip students to interpret history positively.
I don't view history as a fixed telescope. I don't view the history of world war as a war inevitable due to the saturation of the markets caused by the Industrial revolution as the spokespersons of the countries claimed. I'm more inclined towards emotional history, the history which speaks about the miseries of millions of people through the letters of army persons to their loved ones. Compared to the former, the latter has a chance of having the facts twisted. But I don't generally view history as a tool to know what exactly happened in the past. I view it as a mean to evaluate the progress and decline of human beings' acceptance and humanity, and to recognise that co-existence must be chosen over dominance. I will stand by the oppressed at an instant of history, whether or not the oppressed are the oppressors at present.
Sankaranarayanan A R:
History is an objective tool, which is a set of facts.but the final structure of the facts can be interpreted in many ways, but the absolute facts or the same. Consider this, Babur destroyed Hindu temples, Harsha Vardhan killed Buddhist monks, is fact. but then the statement "Babur did not destroy the temples because he was anti-Hindu but he was simply a conqueror" is a subjective one which cannot be exactly true or false. But then history writers must give facts! It should be left for readers to interpret. The system in India has been pushing extremism. Hind or Muslim extremism is not the only extremism. There is also Secular extremism, where so called intellectuals find it blasphemous to point out faults in the minority community that have an historical basics. Take the history of polygamy, it was practiced by both Hindus and Muslims, it was a social evil that reduced the status of women to property. The Hindu Marriage Act outlawed most forms of polygamy against prevailing social attitudes at that time. The same could not be done in the case of Muslims because of Secular fundamentalism! I am an example. If I question socially reprehensible aspects of Hinduism, my posts get liked. If I do the same in the case of Muslims, like lack of family planning, polygamy and outmoded family laws, I get branded communalist. With history books we as a nation have been taught to "respect" minorities, not treat them as compatriots and criticism them. The same way we are thought to love socialism, without being allowed to study the demerits of socialism nor the benefits of Free Market capitalism. In trying to construct a Socialist Secular left-centre national outlook we have compromised on the very responsibility of teaching history, to know the FACTS of the past and interpret various opinions and lead a progressive and better life than previous generations.
The concept of common civil code is touched here. In this case, I accept the secular extremism as you call due to which only the Hindu marriage act was made and the marital practices of Islam was not touched. I support it because of the time period when it was enacted. Polygamy in Islam should have been abolished by law later, but it was not done. Pseudo-secularism followed by the vote bank politics played a major role there. Common civil code is an important criteria for a nation to be called secular, but it was not practical to be implemented at a time when 50 million people stayed in India because of the assurance given by a single man. We should have tended to move towards it, like how we must tend towards economy accounted reservation system gradually. But we didn't, or I should say we couldn't. Until the religious minorities are assured physical and mental safety in a nation that wants to be secular, common civil code is like building a half bridge that's equivalent to building no bridge at all. Common civil code has become a distant dream since 1992. The religious majority plays a major role and the religious minority plays a minor role here to make it practical again.
Sankaranarayanan A R:
When India became independent 9% were Muslims that is like 33 million people and NO they did not listen to one man and stay here, that is over-simplification. And common civil code is not distant. The end objective here is a common civil code. Yes, it is a tough decision. And leaders have to make tough decisions. The only perceptive logical reason preventing it is extremist secularism, vote bank politics is only a symptom. We just need to give less importance to the so called Secular left "intellectuals". Sorry, but they are just plain dumb.
Another example of distortion of history is, the Dravidian movement brought in the Aryan invasion history. Modern DNA proof shows there is no large mitochondrial halo group differences (which means population was constantly intermixing). Also the hypothesis of Pure Tamil and Dead Sanskrit is wrong. Evidence shows that for centuries works were translated to and fro from both languages. Like today there was no one common north Indian language. Sanskrit happened to be a standard that educated people used and was not largely spoken. Classical Tamil was never spoken. Even now 32 districts have their own dialect. The Pallava Grantha script was used to write Sanskrit verses. There are references to Sanskrit works in Sangam literature and the southern kingdoms did not exist in isolation. They interacted with the whole of the sub-continent and now idiots on T.V say they don't want Sanskrit week and Hindi imposition! They have equated a whole language and 3000 years of civilization to one community and the irony is that the leaders who oppose Sanskrit have Sanskrit names! This is an example of distorting historical facts.
Distortions in Indian History
To be frank, I just wanted to sound rhetoric when I said 50 million people listened to one man tongue emoticon Modern India had taken tough decisions as far as administration is concerned, but when it comes to the basic ideology which it want to believe, Modern India is not a conventional country to take tough decisions. We are a part of a socio-political experiment which want to take the humanitarian governance to the next level. It's trying to claim that the necessary evil called government can be made even lesser evil. The tool to achieve that is the secular extremism as you call, but with practical approach, along with an education system that promotes tolerance and co-existence, if not acceptance, and the hindrance to that dream is pseudo-secularism, vote bank politics, and religious and political extremism.
I want Modern India to develop, but I don't want it to believe in the concept of World Power. That's exactly the dream of many of the right wing intellectuals who want 'Bharat' to reclaim it's super power status, and I'm happy to disagree with them.
Secular slightly-left intellectual he is.
10 Reasons Why India Will Not and Must Not Become a Superpower - Ramachandra Guha
My bad, Dravidian movement which is my area of interest is brought up at a time when the hostel wifi is about to go off. Will come back to you later. Happy to have a discussion with you.