In 'Modian Consensus', Swadesh Singh talks about how the Nehruvian Consensus demolished the ideas of the Civilisational Consensus that had spiritualism at its core.
In 'Audacious Hope', Indrajit Roy talks about how hope is expressed through ordinary people’s resistance in the face of brutal, unrelenting repression.
In '2024', former Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha argues that India is in a state of free fall, raising urgent issues before the country goes to polls this year.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman launched 'Waiting for Shiva: Unearthing the Truth of Kashi’s Gyan Vapi', whose author Vikram Sampath said 'shrines fell, shrines rose but Hindus of Kashi never gave up'.
In ‘The Gulf Migrant Archives in Kerala’, Mohamed Shafeeq Karinkurayil explores the rumours and stereotypes associated with Malayalis who work in the Gulf.
Individual folios of Chandayana manuscripts are also part of public and private collections and institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum, New York, and the Cleveland Museum of Art.
India’s defence sector is trying to penetrate the African market. But with China already extending significant influence, India must now play catch-up.
Discussion about outcome of Lok Sabha polls continues to boil in cauldron of expectations only from BJP. Now reverse this equation, what if we asked about the performance of the 'loser'?
This villainisation of reputed historians like Satish Chandra or Bipan Chandra etc doesn’t make sense. What makes tye RW historians think they aren’t influenced by colonial discourse? The RSS ideology itself is affected by colonial era(for e.g. they deny Aryan migration into India despite even genetic evidence today). And they overglorify Gupta age despite its short comings. “Golden age” concept itself is in a framework of European historiography. And Nehru did the right thing by making Indian question those dubious “civilisational values” or traditions. Any society which doesn’t learn to question itself will fall into Stagnation. This lack of questioning/skepticism of ancients, and villainisation of Musslim heritage, is what plagues RSS led history.
This villainisation of reputed historians like Satish Chandra or Bipan Chandra etc doesn’t make sense. What makes tye RW historians think they aren’t influenced by colonial discourse? The RSS ideology itself is affected by colonial era(for e.g. they deny Aryan migration into India despite even genetic evidence today). And they overglorify Gupta age despite its short comings. “Golden age” concept itself is in a framework of European historiography. And Nehru did the right thing by making Indian question those dubious “civilisational values” or traditions. Any society which doesn’t learn to question itself will fall into Stagnation. This lack of questioning/skepticism of ancients, and villainisation of Musslim heritage, is what plagues RSS led history.