Indian academia is sometimes unfairly maligned because it was not designed for the decentralised, instantaneous information transmission of the 21st century.
In ‘Krishna Kumari’, Rahul Sagar introduces and contextualises the first English play written by an Indian. English Subba Rao wrote the play about the Rajput princess to critique the rule of the East India Company.
India's social reform spirit has faded post-1947, with representation politics overshadowing deeper issues of caste & gender discrimination, economic progress, and meaningful change.
During the 18th century, Awadh grew into a region of leading wealth. Ira Mukhoty brings back the lost life of the region, it recounts its important figures, artists, and poets.
The ornaments found in the Jagannath Temple remind us how little we know of India’s treasures. It was the gold sink of the world for two thousand years, until one day, we lost it all.
At one point, India contributed more than 25% to the world’s GDP and controlled about 28% of global trade and commerce. It played a leadership role in all fields.
According to Madhulika Liddle, real history is more diverse than WhatsApp versions. She gives the example of how Hemu, now portrayed as a propagator of Hindu Rashtra, had Afghan generals.
The exhibition, Madras to Chennai: Appo Ippo (Now and Then), is an ode to the city’s journey. Yellow, blue and terracotta are the predominant colours evoking its autos, beaches, and buildings.
Kashmir's long jihad pitted the region's Islamic identity against India’s modernity-suffused vice. The social media commentary unleashed by the dance shows these beliefs are far from spent.
The immediate benefit of Single Tax would be to reduce the sale prices of land to nominal ones. Landowners would no longer find it profitable to keep idle lands, wrote DM Kulkarni in 1960.
It is argued that India-Israel ties are moving from buyer–seller dynamic to one focused on joint development & manufacturing partnership, a shift 'more durable' than traditional arms sales.
If Pathaan gave both conservatives and liberals room to hide, Dhurandhar extends no such courtesy. Aditya Dhar ripped open that tent of hypocrisy and turned the knife.
I would argue that the biggest factor crippling the study of history in India is the mediocrity all through. And a large part of the blame goes to the “famous names”, who rather would publish another hackneyed volume rather than do some fundamental research. After the (often controversial) BB Lal grenades or the initial treatises on economy by Irfan Habib, there was very little by way of genuine scholarship, especially from the vaunted Delhi-Kolkata set, or from the BHU and likes at the other end of the spectrum. Most interesting work has actually happened in vernacular languages with regional history (Assam, TN, etc.)
Dalrymple is a fantastic writer, but why have Indian historians not been able to produce anything even close? Because of the ideological lens. That is why so many “summary” PHDs get awarded (not just in history, but in all arts subjects like sociology, political science etc.). It is easier to paint yourself in the color of your guide’s choice than to write something that challenges the orthodoxy because the indoctrinated guide (whether red or saffron or even any other color) does not have the mental openness or even capacity to objectively judge something new.
I am not hopeful of any change unless we create new institutions staffed perhaps by younger faculty with a significant proportion educated abroad.
For too long history was under the thumb of Marxist historians. One of the leading government Bank with over centuries of history behind it commissioned a historian from Bengal
It turned out to be Marxist – Bengal oriented history. Such examples are plenty. India has never a culture of writing history. It was the British who started this practice.
Even those who wrote Indian history wrote it from today’s perspective of rich- poor, oppressed castes-rulers. History writing must be about the times and notes existing at that time and an examination of the growth of the economy and people.
Sady this perspective has always been missed.
Who is responsible for the state of India’s history? Indias teachers, government and Indians.
Indian social sciences is rife with folk who refuse to admit they are wrong and will use authority to thrust their incorrect intrepretations on their students. Then use coercion to make the student believe in the victimhood.
I had teachers who consistently pushed their opinions on the students and used them to gang up and bully folk. As a Brahmin student in Tamil Nadu I have been personally bullied, hit and have had marks cut until I left the state.
Historians in India like Romila Thapar who will not admit to communist bias and will force her interpretation despite not knowing Sanskrit has been put on a pedestal. Any interpretations that deviate from that norm are thrown in the dustbin. How will historians thrive in a one sided environment, the same way abused make peace with abusers.
Ruchika Sharma , the historian quoted here was happily criticisi ng Hindus online. The Hindus of India trained in self flaggelation by historians of past let it continue with grumbles. She happened to criticise muslims and got death threats. Her next act exposes what is wrong with academia in India. She said she will now only talk about i.e. criticise Hindus.
Bully the week and give the strong a pass since they can be feared. Strength not in numbers but whether one of them can cut your hand off or head off.
Anirudh ends by saying we need time and money. I would not gtive this breed of historians any money to reverse the pendulum that has swung right after decades of gaslighting. This should be perhaps centuries since it started with the British trying to suppress Indian confidence to rule.
It starts with historians and academicians in social sciences in India have the honesty to use to the following phrases. ‘I dont know. ‘ ‘ I have one letter that says something and I am building on that to mean something else’. ‘ I am deliberately ignoring sources or fudging facts to help a certain interpretation’.
It starts with a public apology from left wing historians for gaslighting us not attempting to guilt people in to giving them more money.
I would argue that the biggest factor crippling the study of history in India is the mediocrity all through. And a large part of the blame goes to the “famous names”, who rather would publish another hackneyed volume rather than do some fundamental research. After the (often controversial) BB Lal grenades or the initial treatises on economy by Irfan Habib, there was very little by way of genuine scholarship, especially from the vaunted Delhi-Kolkata set, or from the BHU and likes at the other end of the spectrum. Most interesting work has actually happened in vernacular languages with regional history (Assam, TN, etc.)
Dalrymple is a fantastic writer, but why have Indian historians not been able to produce anything even close? Because of the ideological lens. That is why so many “summary” PHDs get awarded (not just in history, but in all arts subjects like sociology, political science etc.). It is easier to paint yourself in the color of your guide’s choice than to write something that challenges the orthodoxy because the indoctrinated guide (whether red or saffron or even any other color) does not have the mental openness or even capacity to objectively judge something new.
I am not hopeful of any change unless we create new institutions staffed perhaps by younger faculty with a significant proportion educated abroad.
For too long history was under the thumb of Marxist historians. One of the leading government Bank with over centuries of history behind it commissioned a historian from Bengal
It turned out to be Marxist – Bengal oriented history. Such examples are plenty. India has never a culture of writing history. It was the British who started this practice.
Even those who wrote Indian history wrote it from today’s perspective of rich- poor, oppressed castes-rulers. History writing must be about the times and notes existing at that time and an examination of the growth of the economy and people.
Sady this perspective has always been missed.
Excellent analytical article.
Communist and socialist ideologies are responsible for India’s history.
Who is responsible for the state of India’s history? Indias teachers, government and Indians.
Indian social sciences is rife with folk who refuse to admit they are wrong and will use authority to thrust their incorrect intrepretations on their students. Then use coercion to make the student believe in the victimhood.
I had teachers who consistently pushed their opinions on the students and used them to gang up and bully folk. As a Brahmin student in Tamil Nadu I have been personally bullied, hit and have had marks cut until I left the state.
Historians in India like Romila Thapar who will not admit to communist bias and will force her interpretation despite not knowing Sanskrit has been put on a pedestal. Any interpretations that deviate from that norm are thrown in the dustbin. How will historians thrive in a one sided environment, the same way abused make peace with abusers.
Ruchika Sharma , the historian quoted here was happily criticisi ng Hindus online. The Hindus of India trained in self flaggelation by historians of past let it continue with grumbles. She happened to criticise muslims and got death threats. Her next act exposes what is wrong with academia in India. She said she will now only talk about i.e. criticise Hindus.
Bully the week and give the strong a pass since they can be feared. Strength not in numbers but whether one of them can cut your hand off or head off.
Anirudh ends by saying we need time and money. I would not gtive this breed of historians any money to reverse the pendulum that has swung right after decades of gaslighting. This should be perhaps centuries since it started with the British trying to suppress Indian confidence to rule.
It starts with historians and academicians in social sciences in India have the honesty to use to the following phrases. ‘I dont know. ‘ ‘ I have one letter that says something and I am building on that to mean something else’. ‘ I am deliberately ignoring sources or fudging facts to help a certain interpretation’.
It starts with a public apology from left wing historians for gaslighting us not attempting to guilt people in to giving them more money.