After reading the recent article in the New York Times on corruption in the IPL, I went over to Amit Varma’s blog, India Uncut, to see if he had any comments on Lalit Modi et al. I didn’t find anything right off, but instead a reference to yet another Twitter controversy that I’d missed, in this post.
A journalist with IBN Live, Sagarika Ghose, had posted a few Tweets (for example) lamenting that a group of what she called “Internet Hindus” had attacked her for comments she had made: “Internet Hindus are like swarms of bees. they come swarming after you at any mention of Modi Muslims or Pakistan!”
Other journalists have also picked up on the phrase. Here is an interesting column by Ashok Malik in the Hindustan Times that picks up on the critique. Amit also linked to a column by Kanchan Gupta defending the “Internet Hindus” here, along the lines of “screw the pseudo-secular MSM,” though I personally wasn’t all that impressed by the overblown rhetoric. (Call me an Internet Skeptic.)
Actually, Amit Varma’s own comments on the phenomenon of extremism on the internet seemed wisest to me:
If Ghose was, indeed, bothered by trolls, she would have done well to keep in mind the old jungle saying, ‘Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.’ The internet empowers loonies of all kinds by giving them a megaphone–but no one is forced to listen to them. The noise-to-signal ratio is way out of whack on the net (Sturgeon’s Law), and any smart internet veteran will tell you that to keep your sanity, you need to ignore the noise. Ghose, poor thing, had tried to engage with it.
We all know that people are more extreme on the net than they are in real life. The radical Hindutva dude who wants to nuke Pakistan on the net will, in the real world, sit meekly at Cafe Coffee Day arguing the relative merits of Atif Aslam and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan. (link)
Yes, exactly. Varma goes on to discuss Cass Sunstein’s recent study on “group polarization,” and has some thoughts on what that might mean for India-Pakistan relations. It’s worth reading the whole thing.
Meanwhile, here is my own humble contribution. There is indeed such a thing as an “Internet Hindu” — by which I mean, someone who expresses extreme views online while living a very moderate or even secular lifestyle in the real world. But there are also Internet Muslims, Internet Sikhs, Internet Christians, and Internet Marxsts — all of them potentially irksome if you say something they don’t like. Hindus do not have a monopoly on saying extremist things online.
I’m really not interested in having a discussion along the lines of “who are the worst offenders?” if it’s at all possible not to go down that route. (Pretty please?)
Rather, I would be curious as to whether we could use this as an opportunity to reflect on the issue of “group polarization” Varma mentions, and how and whether the habit of talking to people on the internet is a factor in magnifying differences. How have your own views and habits changed as a result of being on the internet, talking about issues related to the Indian subcontinent? What are some positive effects, and what are some negatives?
Classic XKCD:
Internet Argument
As the hover-text states, it’s easier to be an *sshole to words than to people…..
@Amardeep
I am sure I would have enjoyed your class, it just that this waqs my first ever encounter with the whole Leftie control of academia and it quite shocked me. Growing up reading about, I had always thought of it as a bit of a joke and not that important.The problem with geting academic sources to back one a so-called rightwing (I call it realist) interpretation is that there is little academic material written examining alternative versions of history. Of course, perhaps a lot of this has to do with the very Marxist control over academia back in India.Indian college departments,of course are much worse than in the US, where there is no facade of actually listening to both sides and opinion is taught as facts. Even the students dont really care as
a) Most serious students take up professional courses, sciences, etc where there are no liberal arts courses at all b) Most people who do take these courses are folks who couldnt get into other job-oreinted courses and simply do this to pass the time
I think its the first category of people who then tend to get online and read up on their history and stuff, material that they havent really read since junior high, and then realise that Indian history and heritage can actually be engrossing and not extremely boring and dry the way Romila Thapar and other secular-endorsed historians try to teach it to impressionable young minds. Alternatively, they get exposed to oral histories and memories through their families and realise the differences in the versions of history taught in the classroom. For instance, history textbooks carefully excluded mention of Jehangir and other Mughals “troubled relations” with Sikh gurus, and even their executions. When they did get mention, the Sikh uprising was usually presented as trying to destroy and peace and stability of the Mughal empire rather than a natural reaction to Mughal atrocities. And of course there is no mention of the brutal oppression(genocide anyone??) of Goan Hindus during the Inquisition. However, there will be several references to how the regular Indian culture had degraded with several so-called evil practises.
The Sangh parivar also draws its support from a lot of these type of people, which is why you have the supposed irony of so many atheist type, non-religious people being associated with it. And of course, as a South Asian professor yourself, you would know that most of the leadership of the RSS and BJP for ages has been Science professors- check out Raju Bhaiyya,Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Murli Manohar Joshi, etc.
You were asking about alternative histories to be taught. Well first of all, whenever someone tries to write an alternative history book it is usually decried by the pseudo-secular lot as communal and with hidden agendas- case in point the new textbooks that were introduced during the NDA government. Second, why dont you try Basham, Niall Ferguson or RC Majumdar??
Amardeep,
In your blog post, you mentioned the role of the Internet as a contributor to “group polarization”.
I know I’m going to get laughed at for referencing Rajiv Malhotra, but he has an interesting take on the role of the Internet (and globalization in general) on South Asian group identities:
The Internet allowed me to look past the non-NPOV material in the Indian education system. The country may yet relapse into a bout of fascism, but as the dear lady Ghose found out, it will be far noisier this time around than it was for Indira.
If we’re talking within the context of Internet Hindus, I would say I’ve certainly learned a lot more about it than what is normally exposed. My dad is Maharashtrian, which is why I know about someone like Shivaji, but read any history on India and you’d think someone that interesting never existed at all. Besides, Indian-English writers tend to be awful at telling good stories, not to mention having any concept of brevity.
Internet exposure can definitely be a good thing, though. Here, people rebel against the history that whitewashes the crimes of the majority with books like “Everything your history teacher told you is wrong”. In India, I feel like its the opposite but with no real push. At least more and more people can understand what has happened and hopefully introduce a more comprehensive, intelligent survey of India.
I disagree that Indian culture has ever had any sense of moderation, though. At least on the subcontinent, people tend to be very emotional – the polarization was always there.
As a closing statement about Hindus, I think people just need to chill out. Hindus don’t really have the congregational worship needed to organize effectively, which is why you unfortunately don’t see very many progressive/moderate Hindu organizations, only the crazy ones. And only the crazy ones seem to be doing anything, frankly. It’s alright, as an article in the Washington Post pointed out recently, Hinduism is culturally irrelevant and by the way the missionaries are working, won’t be around in a couple of decades.
@Prerna: I find it interesting that when specialists in one field- science or philosophy – turn to another – history – they look for absolute simplicity. I have never fathomed why people who are steeped in complex theorizing would turn to something infantile and badly written when they study history. For example, educated engineers and IT people going around touting the fallacy of the Indus Valley “horse” propagated by Rajaram and David Frawley, something that as scientists, they should know is not true. Which is what really annoys professional historians. I can only put it down to the fact that even very intelligent people can tolerate complexity only in their own chosen fields and not others, else it might get too overwhelming. (My less charitable view is that it is precisely because they shunned the liberal arts in school and college that they never really learned to handle historical sources in anything but simplistic ways). That modus operandi holds for non-scientists too. For example, I really don’t care how my computer works, I just want it to do the job. It probably stems from the fact that I loved history and, under the Indian system, had to forego science in order to study history, and therefore I don’t have much interest in technology except as function. On the other hand, I really don’t want Amar Chitra Katha type representations for my history reading, much as I thoroughly enjoyed ACK comics in my childhood.
Correction: Should read “touting the theory” in the preceding comment.
@Sarmishtha
I get what you are saying. Even I had a problem with ACK representations- too simplistic. However, the problem right now is that most introductory(and others as well) history books in India are already “infantile and badly written”, and boring enough to wean most youngsters away from history. And these are books written by so-called eminent professional historians!! And I suspect that just like me, your love for history was nurtured more by a really good history teacher and/or home environment rather than by the sheer merit of your school books alone?? And these are quite rare to get for the vast majority of Indian schoolchildren.
Amardeep,
I am surprised that of the three articles about Internet Hindus you chose to say almost nothing – the least – about Kanchan Gupta’s. Kanchan is the only one who has tried to deal with the idea of who these people are and what they represent. Although his data is culled from an online survey and is not terribly reliable, it is something to work with. Reading Amit Varma it is clear he would rather deal with a caricature of the IH than take the trouble to engage with one. Ashok Malik definitely has a point and is extremely critical of blogges who are little more than pests. Now for some famous Internet Hindus. In the days before the intertubes and interpipes, way long ago, there was one very interesting journalist Dhiren Bhagat who was sadly killed in a road accident. Dhiren was what one could call a traditionalist Indian although not conservative and his fellow pre-internet Hindu was none other than Javed Gaya – Kutchi Memon (or Ismaili I am not sure). They were prolific columnists and on the matter of economics and society squarely traditionalists. Mercantilist with their economics, and more trusting of pre-modern modernity-cusp institutions. Bhagat wrote glowingly about Pt.Madan Mohan Malaviya and Gaya seconded him in agreeing that the Muslim modernity project in India should follow the gradual Hindu approach – plenty of cherry picking, but staying clear of dubious concepts like secularism (will tell you why in a few paragraphs from this one) and avoiding like the plague any pan-Islamism. Gaya, I am not sure where he is these days – it’s almost 30 years since then and violent upsurges that have happened since then have dealt a severe blow to any goodwill that existed. The other famous IH of the time is Ashok Row Kavi pioneering gay rights activist – and what would be called – a staunch Hindutvavadi at one time. The violence over an innocuous film like Fire broke his heart and the riots in Gujarat rent it asunder – for Kavi has done more than anybody else to help Muslim Indian gays come out and join the mainstream. What were these IHs trying to do at that time? To some extent they were suspicious of the Scottish Enlightenment inspired Indian modernity project, found it lacking in intellectual heft, its procrustean method of chopping up Indian thought and history to make it fit into a European mould. There was a time when I knew all three very well (and was a colleague of one of them) and thought all three to be dangerous revivalists if not deluded souls. None of them made sense to me. How could a gay man have any regard for Hindu tradition (I had no idea of Kavi’s experiences with the Ramakrishna Mission). How could Dhiren Bhagat a Mayo College upper crust read up on Ishwar Chandra, KS Lal and RC Majumdar? And how could Javed Gaya an Eton/Oxford haw haw, and Muslim to boot work with Dhiren? Those days, new to Bombay, I was quite puzzled at the names of roads and streets. Veer Savarkar Marg? Dr. S.P. Mookerjee Chowk? Who were these men that I had never read about in the history books? After all I had read those grim pamphlets issued by the DAVP (Directorate of Advtg and Visual Publicity) during the Emergency about the three dark forces – Naxalites, RSS, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind – many leaders of which (along with scores of opposition activists including ABVP types like Arun Jaitley) were imprisoned during the Emergency.
@Prerna: It really depends on what syllabus you studied. The CBSE history textbooks were/are excellent as were the CBSE English textbooks. But I didn’t appreciate it at the time because then I was just trying to get through exams. It was only later that I appreciated having textbooks written by professional historians instead of hacks. It’s the same thing the world over. Most students don’t really want to understand the finer nuances of literature or history, they just want to know if something is going to be on the test or not. To give you an example: mine was the generation that grew up with the curriculum reforms of the 1970s. I dimly remember a pre-reform English primer all very archaic and colonial, preaching the virtues of pluckiness and loyalty. Then, the curriculum suddenly became interesting: we were reading Meera’s and Kabir’s verses, Harivanshrai Bacchan and Mahadevi Verma (extracts of course) in Hindi. In English, we read pieces of English literature from around the world: I still remember reading an extract from Alan Paton’s “Cry the Beloved Country” in Class X, my first introduction to South African literature. I would probably never have been interested in Nadine Gordimer without that initiation by CBSE. Of course, the fact that I remember all this shows that I was inclined towards the liberal arts from an early age. But anyway, besides good teachers and a stimulating home environment, a good curriculum helped a lot to foster an interest in History.
I think the internet allows people to feel anonymous– so they say outrageous things they would never say to someone’s face. There are many Internet ____ types, from all walks. The internet also does another anonymizing– it wipes away age, for one, and other factors which a person may use to judge a position. So a graduate student can be debating with a high school student, which probably wouldn’t happen face to face… this can be good (equalizing, make people more likely to speak and debate) or it can be bad (someone with absolutely no credentials can be making wild accusations and remarks to destroy a conversation).
The internet also gives angry people a place to vent on people they don’t have to know/see/think about ever again. It is the perfect play place for the angry, lonely,extremists, etc.
As a high school student, I did my own share of “mucking about” on the internet (i.e. pretending to be famous or some such nonsense), but I don’t think I have ever felt inclined to say something outrageous that I do not agree with just to rile people up (I wonder how many outrageous comments on the internet are just that– angry people trying to piss people off?)
There is a reason why I link to my blog and use my name– I made a choice to un-anonymize myself– I am a real person and as many other people want to create false or extreme versions of themselves on the internet– I will not.
Sometimes I join debates to learn (I have an opinion but I want to be challenged) sometimes I join debates because I think people are missing a viewpoint, sometimes I join because someone tries to rile me up (though I try not to, it is hard to resist defending yourself).
Internet (fill-in-the-blanks) on this blog have made me change the way I talk and act on this blog– I usually re-read everything.. try to add “soft” terms such as “In my experience” or “some people”. Other times I want to say something but know that if I say it, some internet somebodies will jump up with cries of “Whitie!” so instead I play dumb and ask something as a question– if a nice Desi answers my question (with the answer I already knew but could not say) then the conversation will continue more easily than if I made the actual comment. (And my point will be made, if not by me)
Sadly I think that the internet somebodies who comment here are very good at alienating a lot of people, so many less extreme sounding people avoid commenting instead of leaving an important comment or experience.
For example, educated engineers and IT people going around touting the fallacy of the Indus Valley “horse” propagated by Rajaram and David Frawley, something that as
Sharmistha, that same charge can sadly be leveled against professional historians. Take the Aryan Invasion Theory. Irrespective of whether one supports the out of india or into india theories, for decades, an invasion was theorized without a single shred of evidence in the archaeological record. There were nothing in Mohenjo daro or Harappa to indicate conquest, and yet professional historians toed the line for the better part of a century. Where was this eye for complexity? Although Romila Thapar has been criticized for her revisionism regarding Somnath, she has erred in other areas as well. Take for example her History Ancient India Volume I: she postulated that the bhakti movement was a direct product of christianity in India. She offered no evidence, no supporting statement, but given her position in the establishment, that talking point was writ in many quarters. That is too often the case in history. Because indian history is especially bare in textual records, it is all too easy for historians to projects their views on to the past. An untestable “scientific hypothesis” can become dangerous in the realm of history. All it takes is one eminence grise to utter a profound fallacy for the rest of the world to parrot it as “fact.”
Finally, too often these professional historians utterly lose sight of the purpose of history: to learn from the past. Ramachandra Guha’s particularly asinine remark that strategic thinking is irrelevant to him as a professional historian brought a guffaw from even Charlie Rose.
As for readable histories, I second A.L. Basham above. His “The Wonder that was India” was truly wonderful. RC Majumdar also provides excellent insight. The most readable however remains John Keay. Though arguably more of a nonfiction writer than a true historian, Keay offers a long but surprisingly quick read. India: A History is deliciously written, contains minimal errors, and has no overtly detectable ideological axe to grind.
@ Sarmishtha,
I was talking about the CBSE NCERT history books as well. I would respectfully disagree that they were actually well written or covered history extremely accurately. Some points-
a) Clearly advocating Aryan invasion theory and displacement of Dravidians as fact rather than theory b) A North India/ Ganga-Jamuna Doab centric approach. And I am a north Indian myself, but could still see this kind of bias. As an example- no real examination of the Chola empire (much larger than the Mughal one) and their impact on global maritime trade of their times, no mention of Kashmir empires despite being documented in Rajtarangini c) Opinions on Mughals and Delhi sultanate rulers presented as facts, often sidelining their documented brutal actions while never failing to mention Hindu social problems of caster, sati, etc. As examples- the genocide at Nalanda University by Bakhtiyar Khalji and the practise of mass killing of the intelligentsia and academia by virtually every Muslim invader. d) Glorification of Gandhian and Nehruvian policies and ideologies rather than objective examination. Though this has been revised somewhat in the new curriculum(post 2007 I think). e) Lack of serious material on post-1947 India- no mention of regionalism and increased federalism, foreign policy, and of course the trivial matter of the Emergency. This again has been thankfully rectified somewhat recently.
Please understand I am not advocating that books be written by hacks instead! I would rather want to highlight the Marxist monopoly over history departments and how that suppresses professional historians with actual objective views. Of course, this situation changed somewhat with BJP gaining more visibility during the 1990’s and the corresponding public debates about history. Perhaps this Hindutva promoted creation of space for alternative views over the past couple of decades is the reason for the current irony of the PM’s daughter actually publishing an Indian history version significantly at odds with the official goverment line!
@Linzi,
Why the cryptic comment? Just name the pseudonymous commenters on this blog who offend you with their opinion.
As an Engg. grad, I had trouble understanding why everyone isn’t a liberal-secular-rational person. 🙂 Internet changed that. It helped me to learn the connection between personal/oral history and formal history. I also learned to articulate my position in a better way.
OTOH, I find it sad that most people commenting on SM would make academic claims about Indian-ness or Hindu-ness while discounting the personal experience of others. I learned to disregard such claims, and may be missing some opportunities to learn (but, sanity is more important).
Also, I agree with LinZi @ 61, I am disinclined to comment/write about my backward-class Hindu experience or family history. Nobody wants to hear a moderate view. Too boring? right? 🙂
Nobody wants to hear a moderate view. Too boring? right? 🙂
You are shamelessly asking us to ask you to tell us–so–go ahead, please. Just try not to make it so cliched that I could have written it already.
Since I was a journalist and worked out of (rather drank at) the Press Club, the only alternatives before me were the venally vacuous corrupt Congress which was messing up Punjab and the Northeast and the assorted Reds. Both of them spoke English as did I and only English so that’s all the ideology I engaged with. I ignored the more robust Hindi/Marathi/Gujarati press and frankly some of them were simply trying to ape their English counterparts in affecting foreign airs. I didn’t like the Congress – feudal, elitist, moneyed – and gravitated towards the redder types all of whom of course were Cognac Commies, Scotch-Soda Socialists and Limo Libs. Staunchly pro-market publishers seemed to take perverse delight in employing these reds. The Shiv Sena (as always) was then a local party and inspired by the direct activism of socialists like Mrinal Gore, still did some good by the people it represented. Ideology then did not mean anything as all parties seemed interested in various degrees of stagnation. The Rajiv years led to a further dilution of ideology and it was one big party for the children of the 1st generation of the Congress. By this time I had moved out of Bomabay on to other things. Shah Bano, Satanic Verses were the big things of the day. But since I read Iqbal Malik faithfully every week in the Indian Express the facile rationalization by an otherwise free-thinking man barely jarred my idea. Today of course I know that the man was simply retreating into the shell every incomplete liberal does – Change anything as long as I can continue with my pet biases.
I finished Romila Thapar’s history of India around the time the 1st Ayodhya crisis peaked wen Rajiv was still PM. I also saw the “Bharat Ek Khoj” TV series based on Nehru’s Discovery of India, and found myself deeply dissatisfied with the slipshod treatment of several periods of India’s history. By this time I was back in Chennai after several years outside, and presently discovered the local libraries. I have always had better than a nodding acquaintance with the logic of Advaita and was amazed at some of the howlers in Thapar’s book. I soon learned that Thapar is unschooled in any language other than English and yet came to be hailed as an historian of ancient India! Many histories later – by British chrniclers, Niradbabu, Sarkar, Majumdar, Lal, Kosambi, and several others I began to divest myself of the simple certainties I had held on to until then. I found myself unable to support either the Congress or Commies simply because they have a poor intellectual understanding of India. So now you have guessed it, if you haven’t fallen asleep, I gravitated towards the BJP. That too lasted some time until the crude lack of intellectual rigor (not to talk of the ineffectual response to the crises of the day) put me off. It is around then I moved to the US, and soon plunged into the histories of this land. David McCullough’s romances kept me engaged for some time till I chanced upon Howard Zinn’s Peoples’ History… assigned as an alternative companion text in my daughter’s AP History class, alongside the American Pageant. And that led me to other works, particularly Nash’s Red, White and Black. It was hard not to compare our sarkari historians with US historians. And having access to the superlative public libraries in my state I was soon drawing upon Indian authors as well in philosophy, history, Sanskrit (a commentary on Panini) and aesthetics. None of which I have become an expert in, but have used to at least gauge the vast panorama that is Indian history. I was struck by the lack of any engagement with ideas in the works of Indian historians. There is no tussle with the evidence, there is no struggle with the many hypotheses, and vast scales of time are summarily waved away. An historian of ancient India like Thapar breezily saunters into the early 2nd millennium and an historian of modern Indian like Panikkar is angrily ranting about some imagined controversy from ancient times! Even Upinder Singh’s book – though a timely update to the corpus of easy to read history is still a book about 5-8,000 years of history! But for the first time I find an Indian historian literally wrestling with the many conflicting hypotheses that must be drawn from archaelogy, textual resources and folk traditions and not hesitating to conclude that we simply cannot go with earlier certainties.
@66 SusanjP
Thank you for asking. But no. I didn’t realise it came across as self-promotion. I mentioned it since I wrote a comment for a different post about a month ago while commentaters were battling on backward caste issue. But decided not to post it. I am not emotionally-resilient yet to be adept at internet debate on personal history. 🙂
@68 VIT, No problem. I was wondering why you said “backward class” in your earlier comment. Its all good though. If you want to share your family history and how it influenced your political views later, no problem.
Also around this time in the US there broke out the many controversies – Jeff Kripal hatchet job on Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Courtright’s psychoanalysis of an imaginary personality, Doniger’s ill-read and poorly written ignorant account of Hinduism for Encarta, and the lively pages of Sulekha.com. Many Hindus like me were appalled to find that university depts of religion in the US hosted dyed in the wool Abrahamics and much feted Buddhists but hosted either no Hindus among professors of the religion or hosted some self-flagellating esteem denuded ignoramus. Of course there is an Arvind Sharma, Ashok Aklujkar, a Vasudha Narayanan, T.S. Rukmani, Jeffrey Long, a Ramdas Lamb, and Nathan Katz and of course Anantanand Rambachan. But otherwise any and every Hinduphilic organization was being damned a fundamentalist bunch. It is around then that I came across the work of S. N. Balagangadhara and his collaborators at Ghent University. While Rajiv Malhotra went as far as to endow a Chair at Harvard, Baalu has founded an entire school at Ghent and another one in Karnataka. Baalu’s description of his experience of moving to Europe and finding not one bit of difference between colonial accounts of his culture and the accounts of the modern humanities, his locating this practice in the history of the reformation etc., have by now become the stuff of legend. I found the intellectual clarity I was looking for and have since moved on to more interesting reading. Baalu’s “The Heathen in His Blindness” is a sort of founding document for at least a third of IHs today. There are of course several IHs who decry his work (he deconstructs very well but doesn’t tell you how to recontruct). Others insist he doesn’t know anything about Indian traditions (Baalu – I will help you engage with the Western tradition by teaching you about what it is. If you want to learn the Indian tradition go to India). Yet others believe that he is flat out wrong even if his methods are excellent. And then are other IHs who still have no idea who Baalu is although he has organized two conferences in India and has chaired American Academy of Religion meetings. Gurcharan Das turned to the Upanisads and Mahabharata and Ramayana after several years of Rawls and others. We have Jaithirth Rao former banker now BPO magnate who writes about Gautam one day and the Tirukkural the next, while also bowing to our common teacher Prof. Immanuel Raja of Loyola College. Nitin Pai’s Indic centered strategic analysis Arthashastra inspired, as well JK’s Varnam blog on history are all rich sources of IH opinion. Of course Hindus don’t have an Amartya Sen to rationalize the accusations cast at them (as Sen did with his craven apologia for the anti-cartoon rage boys – Identity and Violence – a book that is fit to be placed on the same shelf as Dinesh D’Souza’s “Jerry Falwell: A Critical Biography”)
You too Amardeep wisely about six years ago delivered a much needed warning to keep dialogue simple and courteous. IHs of course know that there will always be some who will dub any form of dissent fundamentalist and militant if not violent. We learn to take some things in our stride. Every US campus has about 6 Christian student groups, and a very well organized MSA and the nation wide Hillel, but we know that Vijay Prashad and Pass The Roti will find only the HSC subversive. When the California text books tamasha raged we knew that while the Board of Edn was taking its notes from an Islamic school curriculum advisory committee and scrupulously keeping the Jewish groups informed of revisions, it was going to be the Hindu parent groups operating on a shoe string budget that would have to carry the burden of rationalism and academic rigor. We also are more than a little amused that the likes of Indian humanities profs in the US reserve their integrationist admonitions for the Hindu American Foundation (with some others going to the extreme of pooh-poohing their annual human rights reports) while never uttering as much as peep about FIACONA or CAIR. Daniel Pipes’s works on Islamic history would never be discussed here, but an author like Meera Nanda who leaves out all pretension and attacks Hinduism (no namby pamby Hindutva bashing for her) can expect a fair airing here and the occasional “I found her work excellent!”
Sarmishta, as for NS Rajaram’s horse seal you should know that Frontline carried a detailed rejoinder and interview with Rajaram. Witzel and his flunky Farmer have at last been ousted from their overlordship of Sarasvati-Sindhu studies. Last year Dr. Rajesh Rao (U.Wash.), I.Mahadevan (epigraphist historian Chennai) & Dr. Ronojoy Adhikari – TIFR announced a well founded argument in favor of the proposition that the Indus seals are a script that represent language. Witzel and Farmer in league with an Illinois prof Sproat first dissented then piled on the abuse (in typical Witzel Farmer style). But this time they were outgunned. They first made the rash statement that the authors involved were Hindutva chauvinists attempting to uphold nativist N. Indian antiquity and then found that almost every one of the authors is of Southern heritage. Ouch! And then a few scentists from Matscience too joined the argument (with one of them taking apart Sproat’s tiresome content free rant) and with nature, the Beeb and others popularising this work, the winds have shifted. Inscriptions are being found all the time. Only the other day Arch.Soc. of India reported finding a huge stone slab with inscritptions in Dholavira (JK tells us they found this in 2007). So a lot of ancient Indian history is now headed for revision. Few of us have any idea of the scale of excavations going on around the ancient Sarasvati, which BTW is no longer the river of myth.
Amit Varma’s reference to Cass Sunstein’s work is irrelevant. Why was Lars Vilks attacked by a screaming mob at Uppsala University today? Did that mob go thorough a Sunstein experiment? Mobs are mobs and in a place like India where the police is stretched thin, the first few hours are crucial, after which crowds grow exponentially. We aren’t talking about mobs here, we are talking about well spoken people who argue with great skill and are well read. Amit Varma isn’t saying anything about Kanchan Gupta or Swapan Dasgupta, an S. Gurumurthy or even a Rajeev Srinivasan. And for heaven’s sake I wish Amit Varma wouldn’t boast about the Bastiat Prize. He is the 3rd person to win the prize after corporate shill and pseudoscience quack John Stossel, and National Review columnist Jonah “Liberalism=Fascism” Goldberg.
Our family views have been pretty static for the past couple of generation; liberal humanists.
Everyone is entitled to their identities and their prejudices, relic of our survival instinct, but before that the unity of mankind must take precedence.
If anything these past few years have made me much more sanguine about the state of the world.
I was skimming through and saw some Bengal comments. The demographic shift in the Greater Bengal region since Independence is astonishing; we don’t seem to track communal ratios on a South Asian basis over the past 300 years. Perhaps it would be too controversial?
Technically Muslims as a population, rather than merely a warlord caste, seems to have arisen in the 16th century? Its pretty interesting that historically the “north-western” invaders would be rapidly Hinduised and Sanskritised as Kshatriyas etc..
Perhaps that’s why there’s such a resentment against the Abrahamic faiths; creates a population, which is not oriented toward the Indian motherland. The Parsis aren’t either but they’re demographically too small to matter, an “exotic tribe to boot”..
Zachary, the Parsis arrived as refugees twice, the second time in the late 19th century. Their attitude is very Hindu, no proselytizing, although markedly different in so many other ways. Just like about 110% of Muslim and Christian Indians. Muslim and Christian Indians aren’t from Mars or Jupiter they are the self-same as Hindus (in bewilderingly many many ways) just follow different traditions.
I believe the second time for the Irani/Parsi migration wasn’t as refugees; more as economic migrants.
“Their attitude is very Hindu, no proselytizing, “
Also is that a good thing that their attitude is “very Hindu”? Is acceptance predicated on “how Hindu” a population is; in Pakistan I vehemently condemn this sort of arbitrary barometers when a population is measured by “how Muslim” they are.
“they are the self-same as Hindus (in bewilderingly many many ways) just follow different traditions.”
I must say though that history is glossed over to become ahistorical. Yes in some cases there is a common population source but then there are manifest differences, by somehow claiming they are all the “same” or “indistinguishable”, it obscures key differences and verges on propaganda.
Mind you I’m a Pakistani who actually advocates that we celebrate Lahori Bhasant precisely because it has Hindu origins (also that we respect the colour Saffron as a part of our heritage) but I find it very tiresome when Indians insist to me what my true “origins” are..
I relish my links with the Subcontinent and would call myself an Indian (at my choosing); but then the delightful contradiction of being a Pakistani (of partial U.P Muslim heritage) is the ability to hybridize, synthesize and continuously create new cultural flavors. That’s what I love about the country, we really are at a cross-roads of cultures and peoples and I would like to celebrate that.
I find it rather annoying, and slightly offensive, when Indians insist Pakistanis & Indo-Muslims are nothing more than confused converted Hindus (which is a very common refrain); it smacks of irredentism and patronage (also begs the question of identity; what were Hindus before they were Hindus?). Also the fact is that much of the source population of Pakistan were religions other than Hindus; there were Zoroastrians and Buddhists pre-existing in the Indus.
Don’t get me wrong I always advocate Muslims embrace a balanced historical identity of pre-Islamic & Islamic heritage but it must be a balance (not a rejection of either one) and never imposed. It gets my goat equally when Iranians harp only about a Zoroastrian heritage and completely obscure a 1400yr old Islamic history; you have to respect all of your heritage, not selectively focus on a part of it.
Also the fact is that the Dharmic faiths have also tremendously proselytized in the past; mind you I belong to a faith that is explicitly forbidden to “convert”. Also again the fact is that, with respect, the rigid caste lines leave a susceptibility to conversion, my own faith has grown tremendously in India because the message is so appealing to Dalit caste both in Pakistan & Indian.
I really think South Asia would be the better if we ALL stopped the posturing and started owning up what exactly is going wrong; we have this impression we are world actors when in fact our common enemy is terrorism, abject poverty, communalism and colour prejudice (it is a serious issue when fair & lovely are the best selling products in the Indo-Pak regiol it shows our people have self-esteem issues)..
I really think we have to mount a campaign about relishing and respecting dark-skin; how can we be expected to be taken seriously when brown looks down on brown (the perennial question is how Brown?)..
@44 Philomena: “I have interacted closely with both (good/non-violent) parivar people and (good/non-violent) Marxists, and there is a lot more common to their humanity than you would infer from the yelling on the Internet.”
It is my understanding that many card carrying Communists in India are also devout Hindus. Also I have read that many Ambedkarites still have images of Devis and Devas in their homes, even though they have taken the dreaded “22 Vows”, explicitly condemning and forbidding any such devotional acts.
Sometimes such charming open-mindedness among the rank-and-file is mere naivete. But to some extent it does provide a positive contrast to clear bright lines demanded by the ideological leadership.
Some lines are real and should not be crossed. If an organization or movement (or religion) has as its explicitly stated goal the destruction of Hinduism, then that should not be overlooked or explained away.
@Zach – If you don’t mind me asking, what faith do you belong to? Are you Baha’i?
Also, one can very easily see what the diversity in Hinduism has done for Indian culture. It’s very rare in history that we see a “what-if” situation played out but Pakistan is a great example of why various cultures have flourished in India. That undercurrent of Hinduistic thought (though pluralism is not owned by anyone, mind you) is what allows various faiths to survive and propagate.
Can you imagine Christian missionaries doing in any Muslim country what they do in India? That kind of religious tolerance is very specific to Hinduism so one could say that is one aspect of “Hinduness” (even if we can never really nail it down to one idea).
Zach,
No. I say that as one of the very rare non-Parsis/Zoroastrians who has participated in an annual khana at Sanjan and one who knows the difference between Parsis and Zoroastrians and knows a ton of them (which given the number of Parsis in today’s world would be a majority of them)
I refer to proselytization and non-interference and the ability to accept differences instead of looking for common ground. When you condemn arbitrary measures of Muslimness in Pakistan it is your Hindu experience talking. By Hindu experience I do not mean some biological entity or meme within you – I have no idea absolutely about that – but an expression that I would expect from one who is giving voice to his Dharmic experiences which as a Dharmic I believe is simply human.
They follow different traditions in similar ways, tat is historical – they also are a similar people – and in the case of Christians and certain groups of Muslims follow similar customs and in-group marriage tradition. And yes I am propagating some unconventional views.
There are Pakistanis who go way beyond celebrating Basant (which heckuva lot of them do with gay abandon). The CM of Punjab (Pakistan) a few years ago invited a Pandit from the Krishna Mandir to conduct a Puja at his official residence and proudly sported the tilak the Pandit anointed him with. And then there are also some who are alarmed at the influence of the Indian media on Pakistanis as in this video
Indians (surely you mean Hindu Indians) insist that that Pakistanis and Muslim Indians (the term I prefer) are confused converted Hindus? Why is it surprising that some respond to all the criticism that Hindus and Hinduism alone have to shoulder in India? If Hindus are considered fallen, lost, and lacking in faith, and if Hindu organizations that work to dissolve jati barriers are dubbed communal (damned if you do, damned if you don’t) is it any surprise? Buddhists most certainly did not live around the Indus before what we call Hindus, that would be absurd. OK Zoroastrians became Hindus. What next?
Dharmics proselytized in the past, so that justifies something done to them in the present? Payback? I am entirely with you on Fair&Lovely. And my good friend’s brand Fairever (he is the grandson-in-law of Dravidian Champion Ideologue M. Karunanidhi). I could tell you my best friends are…but I have already used that gambit. Sure, why can’t we just get along? It’s not fair.
I am a Baha’i but my views are my own and not of my faith.
Yes but then there is tremendous religious diversity in the Muslim world, which has existed historically but I agree that there is a qualitative difference in the approach of Abrahamic & Dharmic religions towards minorities; for instance Hindu cultures has a policy of “benign neglect” (live & let live in separate clusters) whereas Muslim cultures have traditionally “barely tolerated” minorities (exploiting them when necessary); however I would still want to know more about the specifics of Muslim conversion. Apart from Saudi Arabia I don’t see the dramatic and drastic Muslim conversions that history books teach us; Iran took 3 centuries to convert and the wings of India were not converted by the sword but by Sufis. This is may sound like an apologetic line but it is corroborated by other facts (namely geographic West Punjab & East Bengal were the periphery of the Indian Motherland). Also we can a level of hetrodoxy in the Hinduism of the northwest with Sindhi Hindus have specific Sikh influences.
Nevertheless the comparison between secular India and Islamic Pakistan does not correlate to respective attitudes on conversion and propagation. A more valid model would be secular Turkey and the attitude of conversions away from Islam there. Remember Jinnah’s intention had been a secular Muslim-Majority Pakistan; not an Islamic one. Furthermore I think in West Pakistan if anything the Christians have grown both at the “expense” of Hindus and Muslim (primarily low-caste) but then I believe in the market-place of faiths.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060106/christian-population-growth-rate-higher-than-world-less-than-muslims-hindus/index.html Apparently Hinduism is the second-fastest growing religion in the world?
Also I find that there is good and bad in every culture; as I always say (and act on) Muslim & specifically Pakistani culture should incorporate Gandhian non-violence as a means of attaining their objectives. As soon as they resort to violence the moral legitimacy of one’s argument is lost.
Zach,
You are a Baha’i? Really? That’s how surprised I am! This surprised! The Bahai’s I know in India include one TamBrahm family who nearly fooled me! I would like to think that Bahai’s are what Muslims (at least Farsi Muslims) would become if they revisited their doctrine, just as Brahmos (Samaj) became wrt mainstream Hindus at one time. But then what do I do about my Muslim friends some of whom pray five times a day and would give their lives for me, and yet others who pray rarely if ever and who drink and eat anything and give their life for me? What kind of a Hindu am I if I cannot live with my discomfort and accept my friend who is so different from me? What is my affection worth if I cannot cherish a friendship with someone whom I agree with on matters of belief on just about nothing? How can I look my nazim/muezzin friend from leatherland Tamil Nadu who has lived in Mecca and Medina and says that now that has fulfilled his duty to visit the holyland once will never leave India and his Hindu friends?
“No. I say that as one of the very rare non-Parsis/Zoroastrians who has participated in an annual khana at Sanjan and one who knows the difference between Parsis and Zoroastrians and knows a ton of them (which given the number of Parsis in today’s world would be a majority of them)”
On Zoroastrianism I can speak with some experience on the “Irani community”; a huge proportion became Baha’i and I can tell from personal family experience why there was migration from Iran. It was a chain economic migration as a personal example my great-grandfather went to India and started the cafe in Bombay (Kohlapur); went back to Iran for a wife etc.. Yes the conditions in Iran were not pleasant, apparently in Yazd there were underground dwellings but from my understanding (anecdotes about the old country) the migration was economic not political persecution.
Also the history of Iranian Zoroastrianism in the 19th is heavily coloured by Baha’i interaction; the number of Baha’is with recently Zoroastrian ancestry must be in the tens of thousands.. Persian Jews and Zoroastrians became very enthusiastic Baha’is (the relatively Indianised Parsis did not)..
“There are Pakistanis who go way beyond celebrating Basant (which heckuva lot of them do with gay abandon). The CM of Punjab (Pakistan) a few years ago invited a Pandit from the Krishna Mandir to conduct a Puja at his official residence and proudly sported the tilak the Pandit anointed him with. And then there are also some who are alarmed at the influence of the Indian media on Pakistanis as in this video”
Bhasant was under threat for a series of issues, one of them was that it originated as a Hindu spring festival.. I am really happy that the CM embraces our Hindu side
On what you’ve written otherwise (Muslim Indians vs. Indian Muslims how about Islamic Indians as a neutral term?); I think Hinduism has alot of beauty to it but then as I say every culture and civilization has good and bad attached to it. We should mix the tolerance, which you’ve mentioned inherent to Hinduism, and mix it with the stern egalitarianism of Islam.
This creates a whole other topic (how egalitarian is Islam in practise etc etc) but despite that we should assess the relative good in each culture, faith and civilization and work to build a global and cohesive unity on that basis.
“Dharmics proselytized in the past, so that justifies something done to them in the present? Payback?”
Not at all- as I wrote Hinduism is the second fastest growing faith in the World; but do believe in the marketplace of faiths. Its what makes America so great that its continually reinventing itself, people should opt to choose what works for them..
“Indians (surely you mean Hindu Indians) insist that that Pakistanis and Muslim Indians (the term I prefer) are confused converted Hindus? Why is it surprising that some respond to all the criticism that Hindus and Hinduism alone have to shoulder in India? If Hindus are considered fallen, lost, and lacking in faith, and if Hindu organizations that work to dissolve jati barriers are dubbed communal (damned if you do, damned if you don’t) is it any surprise? Buddhists most certainly did not live around the Indus before what we call Hindus, that would be absurd. OK Zoroastrians became Hindus. What next?”
Your equating Hindus with Indians; agreed there is confusion on what is a Hindu (we need to probably consult some English law – isn’t it basically that as long as you are not Muslim, Christian or Zoroastrian Hindu law applies to you).. You are synonmising Hindu and “Indic”; I personally have no problem with that, sounds uber-exotic but I like clarity and specifity..
I would like to think that Bahai’s are what Muslims (at least Farsi Muslims) would become if they revisited their doctrine, just as Brahmos (Samaj) became wrt mainstream Hindus at one time.
That is a great observation but then equally Baha’u’llah has become “Baha Bhagwan” in India.. Baha’is believe that their faith completes all previous revelations but this is a doctrine we (try) not to spread to others.
I am admittedly more on the eclectic side of the faith; I embrace diverse spiritual paths and have no issue reconciling them to my own personal doctrine. In fact my brother’s father-inlaw is a Gujarati Jain and my other brother is getting married in a Sikh ceremony at a Gurudwara next month.
Zach,
Almost always it is a Hindu Indian who would say that Pakistanis or Muslim Indians are confused/converted Hindus. A Christian/Muslim Indian, v.v.rarely, almost never unless you count someone like Dr. Immanuel Raja and Dr.Hilda Raja, that is the closest it gets. I am not saying Hindu Indian <=> Indian. Without in any way dissolving identities into a meaningless mush, consider these traditions. In Tamil Nadu the Annai Velankanni Kovil (a Marian Shrine) and the dargah of Nagore attract more Hindus than Christians or Muslims resply. There are a special class of intermediaries to help the Hindus perform certain rituals. Hindu mandirs in Tamil Nadu have the practice of according a oversight role to local potentates, even those who aren’t Hindu. This is a practice that Muslim nobles have bought into much to the discomfiture (even attracting vile criticism) of some bound-by-book doctrinaire Muslims. The Mandir invites the local potentate on certain days and has the man inaugurate the ceremonial duties of the day. The chief guest here is invited regardless of his beliefs. The practice has carried over to the US where Governors from diverse faiths – Mormons and Baptists – have presented themselves at temple inaugurations. Is this is a religious practice or is it a secular practice? What kind of a tradition is this?
Years ago I was witness to three very striking examples of fusion. The first was at the grihapravesh (literally home entry) puja of an advertising agency. One of the veeps – a brahman had been asked to arrange for the puja, pandit and all. When the pandit reached the venue and found that the veep wasn’t #1, he insisted that on meeting the #1 and #2 much to the veep’s chagrin – #1 is Muslim and #2 is Parsi. “Even if they won’t wear a tika and sit by the fire, as we complete the puja,” I would beg that they be present. #1 and #2 when informed were delighted and joined the puja with gusto. In the second case there was this ad agency founded by three Muslims who were inaugurating a new office following a tie-up with a French agency. And how did they celebrate the occasion, puja, pandit, coconuts, garlands, tikka and all! The third was something that stunned me. I was at the office of a very large Muslim run building materials company in Chennai (I used to sell PCs then) on a Friday evening. These Muslims dress in the traditional S. Indian style, – fez cap, buttoned down sleeves and white – joined dhotis. Around 5 pm after I was done with sales talk, one of the staff asked me if I would like to join him for the weekly puja, and took me around to largish room adjacent to the reception lobby. I stepped in and was stunned to see the number of framed pictures of devas and devis – on the scale of my grandma’s puja room at home! There was a karpoor aarti, flowers, banana, puffed rice, peanuts and all – a full scale puja going on. Of course none of the Muslim employees participated. But not one of them left their desks until the puja was over, 30 minutes later.
So what is it about Internet Hindus? We do nuance in a very big way. If only someone cared to ask us!
Some lines are real and should not be crossed. If an organization or movement (or religion) has as its explicitly stated goal the destruction of Hinduism, then that should not be overlooked or explained away.
Organizations are made up of people, and people change. So there are no “real” lines — there are lines that stay “real” for a certain period of time, then there will be other lines. We are unmistakeably in a line-changing time right now, Obama is the clearest sign of that.
In my view, ideas, and the organisations they generate, are worthwhile if they are useful. The actions of (real) Marxists in India are useful in containing disturbing trends like BT-Brinjal, and other similar selling out to multinationals. They are conservative, in the sense that they act like “inhibition neurons”, resisting runaway capitalism and scientism. In this role, they are close to the “Hindu” conservatives, who also play a similar inhibition role, but motivated by other ideas. It is true that the different inhibitory tendencies conflict at different points, but that should not prevent developing a common ground where it is useful to have one.
Finally, you are right that most Communists worship their devas and devis, and there are now whispers in Kerala that it the CPM is positioning itself as the “Hindu” party, because the Congress is run by the Christian and Muslim parties and their lobbies. In the very long run, I wouldn’t be surprised if the left movement in India becomes a modern version of the Brahmo Samaj.
Technically true, but it doesn’t say much. For one, most of the population growth is simply popping out babies.
I have heard it’s pretty fast growing in Iran and around Latin America (due to ISKON and the like), but even that is just because percentage growth can be funny. If I have a group of 50 people and recruit 50 more that’s 100% growth, but it’s still only 100 people among millions.
My take on proselytization is mostly in line with the Dalai Lama. If you’re arguing with someone of a different religion the objective isn’t to convert them into yours, it’s to make them better at theirs. If your interlocutor is of a similar mind you can both grow that way.
An Honest Facebook Political Argument
Philomena,
The Congress in Kerala substantially a real image of the Christian polity of Kerala. Kerala has the largest number of Christian denominations anywhere – possibly save the US. Just as no denom would accept the leadership of any other denom in the spirtual sphere, Christians within the Congress have carried it over to the temporal as well. The Congress also attracts Hindus the better connected and propertied kind. The Muslim League has held on to its base in N. Kerala but has always found it difficult in other parts of the state. The CPI(M) thus drew upon most of the Hindus especially Ezhavas and many other marginalised groups. Like reformist movements elsewhere in India the CPI(M) also grew out of a Brahman-marginalised Hindu alliance – [Mayavati isn’t the first. EMS, before him Ambedkar, and before him Hedgewar (founder of the RSS)] Thanks to the dynamic duo running the CPI(M) today who have never heard of “If it ain’t broken, don’t…” Carrot and Sita went after the marginal Christian and Muslim votes in Kerala. This provoked a furious reaction from the Muslim League – already reeling from jihadophiles stealing their cadres – and the Christian Congmen fighting Charismatics, Pentecostals, AGs and others. So these two groups began to turn inwards, in the process Hindus (Karunakaran) within the Congress as well as laissez faire Christians like Anthony, got elbowed out. Anthony is too clean, but Karunakaran “If I go down I will take you with me,” pulled out Latin Catholics and Pentecostals with him, precipitating a crisis in the Congress. The five year dalliance you saw between the Congress and the CPI(M) was simply an attempt to tide over the Kerala weakness. Now that has been resolved, the Cong kicked out the CPI(M).
Jyotsana the anecdotes you give are very profound and is a testament to India’s greatness. Pakistan and Bangladesh would definitely benefit from such interactions, love of one’s own must never be at the exclusion of others.
Also mixture without dilution is what we should aim for; one can participate in a Hindu/Sikh/Muslim festival but at the same time maintain their identity, whatever it may. Examples of the type that you give of Muslims coopting and participating in Hindu rituals (and hopefully vice versa) hopefully gives us hope that communalism will ultimately die down..
Rather, I would be curious as to whether we could use this as an opportunity to reflect on the issue of “group polarization†Varma mentions, and how and whether the habit of talking to people on the internet is a factor in magnifying differences.
Polarisation magnifies some differences but also hides others – a natural outcome of any process that maps the continuously varying to the discrete.
I like the fact that the internet now makes it possible to hold, argue and learn from nuanced non-stereotypical viewpoints.
Zach,
Let us say India got lucky but also benefited the counsel of several wise men and women – its modern founding parents. There is surely no formula here. But I also notice a lot more questioning about the other traditions of Pakistan among the youth on the pages of Dawn, youtube vids showcasing Lahore – not just its mosques but also its few mandirs, Divali and Holi. There are Sangh members like Tarun Vijay who have visited Hinlaj in Balochistan, and I have several standing invites from Pakistan when I told some friends I want to visit Hinlaj. But again I have no illusions about the past, I feel today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better than today. And as an Internet Hindu the best I can do is to engage with differences, particularly the ones I simply cannot accept. I would be happy if the Ramakrishna Mission were reinvited to Karachi (it is very active as always in Bangladesh). Jinnah it is said may have attended one of those weekly lectures by Swami Ranganathananda when Swamiji presided over the Karachi center for a few months after Independence. I know Yoga is popular in Pakistan, but did you know that you can learn Karnatak Sangeet in Dhaka?
There would be no one happier than me to see a SAARC at peace with itself.
Good point Jyotsana; it would be good to encourage mutual pilgrimages.
I like Vir Sanghvi’s point that person-person contact should happen irrespective Indo-Pak relations.
like many DBDs of my generation, I had little or no formal instruction in religion/culture/nationality other than the vague stuff peddled by Doordarshan and our rather weak school curriculun (pre-NCERT). So here the internet has been really helpful in understanding modern “indian culture” – which I would define as originating from tagore-gandhi-ambedkar (plus many other lesser luminaries).
the internet connected me to other immigrant (1st/2nd-gen) indians, and I realized we shared many commonalities and cultural connections.
Reading paki newspapers online gave me insight into a troubled neighboring country. I wish I could say that I got a lot of positive information – thats a lie – but I did begin to understand much better the composition of the country (mullah/army/tiny middle class/peasants). I came to a better understanding of why the country was formed, the role played by Nehru/Jinnah/Gandhi/Brits and the psychological mindset behind it.
Negatives, yeah, conspiracy theories abound, the amount of cut-n-paste is alarming. Some really horrible cultural theories are freely available explaining how great and supreme the hindus/muslims/sikhs/cristians are. There is amazing incredible gullibility and belief that stuff on the internet must be true – especially if its about “them”. No research or analysis is required to reach a conclusion – only reference to some ranting ideologue.
This is incredible if true:
“For decades it was commonly stated that 50 or so families in Punjab ruled Pakistan. What was not stated was that about 40 per cent of these ruling families of the rural Punjab province of Pakistan were Jat Sikhs who voluntarily converted to Islam in order to retain their land holdings.”
@Prerna, @Jyotsana, I really can’t comment on your experiences with NCERT syllabus. I feel that I benefitted a lot from the curriculum with all its flaws, but then I was inclined towards the liberal arts to begin with. @Jyotsana – your trajectory from journalism to history is very interesting. But when you make a statement like
it is so risible that one cannot even engage with it. That’s like accusing a leading astrophysicist of not knowing statistics. Language is such a basic skill for real historians that one can’t get an advanced degree without passing a language exam. Perhaps, it’s because amateur historians without language skills are trying to carve out a place for themselves that they make these kinds of attacks. And perhaps because the nature of the accusations are so laughable that most professional historians simply ignore the baying mobs of former bankers, engineers and financiers, and carry on with their own work. Which is why you rarely find historians like Thapar, etc., responding to the academic challenges of Rajaram, although they have challenged the politics of their positions.
On the other hand, I’m glad you realized through your extensive reading that history is an ever-changing field of interpretations. As new evidence comes up, as new documents are unearthed, as old languages are deciphered, analyses change. Hence, the always tentative nature of historical analysis, especially for ancient history where certainty is just not possible (“it could be this or it could be that” was the infuriating response by my Ancient India professor to most speculation).
Anyway, this is my last post on the matter, as the subject is so vast that it probably deserves a post of its own (and I bet there are several in the Sepia archives). Back to Internet Hindus.
@ Sharmishta I am curious. What Language does Thapar know? I am unable to get info on that online.
@nyx: You would not find that info online. To go back to the astrophysicist analogy, he or she would not put “statistics” on his bio-data. It would be assumed that he or she would have that under his or her belt already. Looking at Romila Thapar’s list of publications, I think one could safely take it for granted that she would have knowledge of Sanskrit and Pali (or Prakrit). OK, back to Internet Hindus.
Sharmishtha, analogies are tiresome, since logically every analogy is wrong – they illustrate, that is all. Thapar does not know Sanskrit, Pali, Hindi or Farsi. She has on more than one occasion been tripped up by engineers (not bankers OK) asking her questions in Sanskrit. Another time when a flunky in the audience threw her a softball, “Do these Hindutva types know anything about the Dravidian culture? What do they have to say about it?” another engineer (not a financier – OK) who is well read in both Sanskrit and Tamizh asked her a question in Tamizh before he was shooed down. I could give you a few reasons why anyone ignorant of Indian languages cannot be a decent historian of India. The canonical texts are guides for discussion, others in detail are not canonical, and so on.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/006159.html#comment271901
Actually Sharmishta, not answering intelligent questions, even from “lay people”, is more a sign of arrogance than justified scholarly dismissal. There was a well-publicized incident where Romila Thapar dismissed a fairly intelligent question on account of the person’s lack of language skills. The key point of course being that there are well-documented translations available that can merit questions. Additionally, a number of the non-professional historians on the other side do have sanskrit language skills, such as Subhash Kak.
The essential problem is that professional historians attempt to decry politics when they are in fact, neck deep in it. There were vitual hatchet jobs done on the ASI archaeologists who reported there were indications of prior layers beneath the babri structure. Irrespective of one’s political stand on it, debates must be on scholarly grounds not political or personal. Finally, even on the “non-hindutva” professional side of the debate, we find strong disagreements. Take for example Michael Witzel, hardly a proponent of the Autochthonous theory, he has repeatedly criticized Wendy Doniger’s translations–calling them “unreliable.” Neither of these figures naturally require introduction. As such, I don’t think it’s wise to paint either side with a broad brush. There are serious issues with the Indian History establishment, and it will take some time to remove the colonial vestiges in this field.
@ Sharmishta The only way not to notice the whoppers in the textbooks, is not read them much or not to try to analyse it.
The “baying mobs” of former banker, engineers, and financiers were taught early on to apply occam’s razor and they did, which is why they tend to lean more towards Hindutva.
As far as the professionalism of Indian historians is concerned… Arun Shourie pretty much exposed that lie in “Eminent Historians”.
On the other hand, the “baying mobs” in India have only themselves to blame.. by shunning the arts branch to focus on the science and commerce branches in XI and XII grade itself, they allowed the history departments in India to become the preserve of second rate students. Natually that shaped the Indology overall. No use complaining now, Karma is a bitch.
ptr_vivek,
Google has listed “Pass the Roti” as a malicious website.
I suspect the reason bankers, engineers, and financiers levy the charges is because those who are good at their jobs ought to be able to sniff out BS. Handy tool that Occam’s razor is. I majored in political science and minored in history before getting a masters in economics. I have to say, the more real world and applicable your discipline is, the more strict you will be about proper analytical methodology and logical consistency. If you’re serious about it and not intent on lying to yourself (or anyone else), that makes it easy to spot shoddy research and conclusions that don’t follow from their premises.