India’s precolonial schools were more diverse than our traditional image suggests. Colonial rule helped turn the Brahmin teacher into the archetype of the Indian classroom.
Jatakas tell us that Siddhartha Gautama had left behind 40,001 wives when he embarked in search of enlightenment. These were not meant to be taken literally, but rather to suggest the grandeur of legendary royal figures.
The Arthashastra of Chanakya—the coldest manual of statecraft the Sanskritic tradition ever produced—issues a warning that the BJP’s Chanakyas might wish to heed.
Two nationalisms are shouting past each other. One would dissolve Murugan into a pan-Indian Hindutva spectacle, while the other would make him an icon to be guarded against the North.
Once in demand as far as Japan, over the course of the 10th and 11th centuries, Indian Buddhist translators found both international and domestic opportunities drying up.
Outside the Vijayanagara king Krishna Raya's new city of Nagalapur, Hospet, Paes counted 15,000 or 20,000 labourers, crowding “like ants, so that you could not see the ground on which they walked."
The past decade under the Modi government has seen a dangerous erosion of evidence-based histories in India, owing to an ongoing neglect of both public universities and museums.
BlackRock Global Funds have acquired less than 1% stake via open-market transactions in Ather while a Bloomberg EV index is down 1%, dragged by Tesla, BYD and Xiaomi.
Given how arrogant and self-loving Imran is, he may not be capable of introspection even in the isolation of Adiala jail. The harsh truth is, he played the same game when it suited him.
Knowledge-based society is a 20th century concept. Almost no country anywhere had “education for everyone” before that, so what is the point of this article? English historians have noted that literacy rates were in excess of 25% in India before their rule, much better than what was in UK. I think this author has a restricted/myopic view when he does his research
Knowledge-based society is a 20th century concept. Almost no country anywhere had “education for everyone” before that, so what is the point of this article? English historians have noted that literacy rates were in excess of 25% in India before their rule, much better than what was in UK. I think this author has a restricted/myopic view when he does his research