Brahmins and Ashraafs not only set the rules for social climbing but also imposed rigid categories on the masses through their proximity to British power.
From Kautilya’s Arthashastra to Mughal policies and British non-intervention, India’s response to supply shocks has long been defined by the role of the state.
When the British replaced Persian with English as the administrative language in 1837, they uprooted a seven-century tradition that had become, in every sense, Indian.
The relationship between Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent was built over five centuries by people who were entrepreneurial, mobile, literate, and commercially connected.
From the inception of Indian statecraft, political theorists were aware of the dangers of corruption. Arthashastra recommends that all senior officials be tested by secret agents.
Temples, military labour markets, and land-grant regimes structured medieval caste hierarchies. Today, access to education, employment, bureaucratic categories, and media platforms do.
As early states developed in the Iranian plateau and northern India, ideas continued to circulate between the steppe and the settlements of the Iranian plateau and the Punjab plains.
Migration in North India isn’t just due to lack of development today. It was shaped by the evolution of labour markets under Sher Shah, Mughals, and the East India Company.
The Indian Right and Liberals all accepted the British conception of Hindu, Muslim and British India and the country's eventual decline. What they disagreed on was its cause.
French newspaper La Tribune earlier last week indicated that UAE withdrew from deal to fund EUR 3.5 billion. India is looking to order 114 new Rafales, which could include the F5.
China patiently invested capital, skill and technology in coal gasification. Unlike it, we won’t move from words to action. As crude prices decline, we lose interest.
My original comment got removed, not sure what was offensive about it. This article is very much anti-Sanskrit in tone. Once again, let me say it: Criticism is welcome but why this unnecessary hatred (though it tries to hide it with polished words and phrases).
On the face of it, Indians have a peculiar relationship with the term “South Asia”. Of all the groups we have discussed so far, Indians have the most to lose with the adoption of this term, and the epistemological replacement/erasure of the “Indian Subcontinent”. So why would any Indian be interested in using this term? It is a mystery indeed, but I think there are two primary, and interconnected, reasons for this.
(The reader is urged to read that article completely).
The author concludes his article with these lines, “The language of science and progress is not English, or Persian, or Greek, or Latin. Nor is it Sanskrit. It is mathematics, it is reason, it is evidence: the common heritage of all humanity.”.
Though the last para is couched in wonderful, progressive language, the entire article is very much a rant against Sanskrit (which is already a “dead” language, compared to other Indic languages).
The author pretends to be very much progressive and what not, but he hates Sanskrit. There is no other word to put it. Yes, Sanskrit is far from perfect, which language is? At one point, Sanskrit was called the mother of languages, language of the Gods, etc. The speakers of each language have their own pride, arrogance and ego.
Here in Tamil Nadu, our Tamil (Thamizh) language is supposed to be so ancient that it is at least 10,000 years old according to some groups!
It’s easier to bash Sanskrit because none of us cares. The author would not dare to write a critical or even an unbiased article about any other Indian language because there are vocal, fanatical groups which will make him regret his statements.
Suddenly very suddenly, books like “Snakes in the Ganga” and terms like “fifth column” start making sense.
Interesting read and definitely worth reflecting on.
I’ll also be waiting for a similar take on the history of Urdu, which has also seen a deeni stagnation (e.g. there’s no word for science or most modern disciplines, most literature including contemporary has religious undercurrents).
My original comment got removed, not sure what was offensive about it. This article is very much anti-Sanskrit in tone. Once again, let me say it: Criticism is welcome but why this unnecessary hatred (though it tries to hide it with polished words and phrases).
Reading this article, reminded me of this article: https://theemissary.co/the-indian-mimicry-behind-south-asia/
I will quote one paragraph from that article:
On the face of it, Indians have a peculiar relationship with the term “South Asia”. Of all the groups we have discussed so far, Indians have the most to lose with the adoption of this term, and the epistemological replacement/erasure of the “Indian Subcontinent”. So why would any Indian be interested in using this term? It is a mystery indeed, but I think there are two primary, and interconnected, reasons for this.
(The reader is urged to read that article completely).
The author concludes his article with these lines, “The language of science and progress is not English, or Persian, or Greek, or Latin. Nor is it Sanskrit. It is mathematics, it is reason, it is evidence: the common heritage of all humanity.”.
Though the last para is couched in wonderful, progressive language, the entire article is very much a rant against Sanskrit (which is already a “dead” language, compared to other Indic languages).
The author pretends to be very much progressive and what not, but he hates Sanskrit. There is no other word to put it. Yes, Sanskrit is far from perfect, which language is? At one point, Sanskrit was called the mother of languages, language of the Gods, etc. The speakers of each language have their own pride, arrogance and ego.
Here in Tamil Nadu, our Tamil (Thamizh) language is supposed to be so ancient that it is at least 10,000 years old according to some groups!
It’s easier to bash Sanskrit because none of us cares. The author would not dare to write a critical or even an unbiased article about any other Indian language because there are vocal, fanatical groups which will make him regret his statements.
Suddenly very suddenly, books like “Snakes in the Ganga” and terms like “fifth column” start making sense.
Interesting read and definitely worth reflecting on.
I’ll also be waiting for a similar take on the history of Urdu, which has also seen a deeni stagnation (e.g. there’s no word for science or most modern disciplines, most literature including contemporary has religious undercurrents).