| CARVIEW |
I feel so sad. He was such a kindly man with a gentle sense of humour. Full of good advice that I always followed to my own advantage.
I am eighty years old now and often have to reflect on days gone by with such fine companions who have gone before me.
I salute his memory.
Conrad Wood. SOAS 1971-75. ]]>
BM
I shall try to respond to your post on the other thread “Giant in the east II”.
“I am not sure what methodology of teaching is followed in India and if the learning of history there is also marked by an emphasis on dates and memorization.”
That is sadly true for India as well, but it’s the fault of students and teachers and not the textbooks. A few months ago, we had a discussion here with regard to this subject, and Girish provided links to the present NCERT textbooks. They are superbly written. I have some issues with the writers, however. Most of the historians in India are professed marxists or leftist. Nothing wrong with that, except that their thinking, ingenious as it may be, is quite antiquated and fossilized with respect to the times. One of the grating aspects is their desire to whitewash events in History that conflict with their narrative(yeah, BJP is not the only culprit here.) So, all the historical events referring to sack of temples or cities are either quietly expunged or explained with fatuous theories. This leads to a peculiar situation. For example: almost 14 years ago, when I first moved to Delhi, we went sightseeing to Qutub Minar along with some relatives. There written in introduction is a reference to some 30 odd temple destroyed to make that monument. My cousin was quite angry about that event not even mentioned in his textbook. Apart from taking us as gullible fools, what these historians don’t realize is that people when they come to know of these events go to search for interpretations from a different source, which is even worse. That’s where distortions and the infamous rumor mill comes into play and you hear of staggering theories of Taj Mahal in reality being Tejo Mahalya or something of that sort. You would be surprised how many buffoons I have met who believe that nonsense.
]]>Speaking of history books, Pak Studies which is a required course in Pakistan and covers the the general history leading upto to 1947 and then, the events afterwards, is so riddled with falsehoods that I refused to teach it and said so to my principal, who was very supportive of my decision. The fact that the person who wrote it did not reference one single sentence and had comments, which were simply outlandish and to me, they appeared to be a work of an addled mind.
Pak Studies replaced the history of the subcontinent, which was required reading from grades 4 onwards and used to start with the Indus Civilization all way to 1947. Then came Z. A. Bhutto and changed that to Pak Studies and this must be about the middle of 1970s. Pak Studies did favor the PPP and the role of Bhutto, as a leader, but it was secular-minded but then came General Zia-ul-Haq and Pak Studies started to adopt an overt religious color.
As far as history is concerned, I missed the Zia years as I was out of the country and was, most likely, one of the last group of students to have studied the history of the region from the pre-Islamic period. There is no hope of revising the curriculum in Pakistan, because it is so jaded with politics and there is so much political interests involved mixed with an inflated dose of ubermensch syndrome, that if the truth were ever to emerge, it would humble the WikiLeaks “Cablegate” fiasco in comparsion.
The only sanity, which seems to prevail is that when students reach their “O” and “A” levels, they are exposed to “dissenting opinions” on history and for the first time, have to start to rationalize their thinking and question what was simply preached to them as the offical gospel. Still, history is taught as a rote and the emphasis is on dates, but not on understanding the events or their peripherial contextual implications.
On the university level, and again I am refering to Pakistan, history is more ideological than it is objective and mostly professors, with rare exceptions, teach history based on their own personal opinions and where they stand on the political issues of the day and with which political party they affiliate.
I am not sure what methodology of teaching is followed in India and if the learning of history there is also marked by an emphasis on dates and memorization or is there an attempt to critically study history. I would be very much interested if any Indian, on this site, could provide an answer.
ciao
]]>Feroz. Yes, all new articles will be posted on the new domain. We are keeping this site live during the transition phase. Thanks for the comment.
]]>For some reasons, there has been a spate of articles, especially in Pakistani newspapers, painting a different story that what we think is true. These commentators want to convince us that the present rise of India is a hoax, a sort of a charade, or as one of the venerable gentlemen put it, an “orwellian spell.” I must say I do wonder sometimes whether we are in a sort of a “matrix.” Then I remember times from 20 years ago and it just doesn’t square up with what these people are saying. The pied piper is, of course, Ms. Roy, but there are a lot of similar cliches spewing writers(Jawed Naqvi seems to be stuck with Sukhi Lala. This might provide fresh grist to PMA.)
What do you think? I can vouch for Bihar that things have definitely changed.
]]>Yes, I found those books online. But Feroz Sb. and I were talking about History books. In any case, the NCERT History books are probably the most politically correct books possible. I noticed that the class XII History book even has a chapter on partition which I found slightly tilting towards the minority sentiment. They were written by JNU professors -Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Irfan Habib, etc. – who are routinely criticized as Children of Macaulay, Marxist and so on by RSS ideologues. ]]>
Arun mian,
I have already proved your stance to be a historical lie.
How many times must you act like a Mullah?
]]>One assessment of these WikiLeaks is, if the article is to be believed, that US diplomacy has been severely handicapped because it will be some time before the US rebuilds the level of trust to allow people to speak openly to it and it will make the US diplomats think twice before sending dispatches as the seal of confidentiality has been torn away by WikiLeaks.
ciao
]]>ciao
]]>Thank you for some very insightful comments.
Having a background in political science and international relations and in history as well, I tend to see political science as more theoretical than practical, when it comes to the application and execution of political power. Political science, certainly, does offer the required framework to the understanding of the events, but the experience of predicting and understanding the seemingly disconnected and chaotic events requires a historic background to place the events in their proper context.
If we assume political science as a means to predict the future, then one has to question as to on what premise is the speculation to be based? The judgement, if you will, to understand the events and make the correct decision comes from understanding the past process and how it has arrived at the present situation.
I am also linear in my thinking and being a history teacher, as well, it seems strange that I do not feel a strong sense to hold on to the past, because the past to me is only a guide to the future and future is best extrapolated by inweighing the lessons of history and from them; to discern those trends and patterns, which enables a more comprehensive synthesis of knowledge with experience. One of the flaws of political science and its weak point, as subject of rational enquiry into the nature of political power, is the ad hocism of its explanations, which seem so transient and so mutable to events.
The Greek historian Herodotus defined history as a means to hold the past accountable and then, we can well ask the metaphysical question as to what purpose the past needs to be held accountable for? Is it, because the past provides the documentary evidence by which we judge and if that is the case, what are we judging? The diffrence between pre-history and history is not a consequence of an arbitary chronological determination, but rather the idea of preserving records; pre-history is considered as time before there were written records and history, as a time period, when they were records.
Therefore, what source does political science draw upon to lend weight to its conclusions and even if political science is an attempt to decipher the future, it still relies, for the basis of its predictions, upon the records and experiences of the past and what are those, but the annals of history.
Indeed, political science can be aptly termed as a more “contempoary history” but then modern history, by most scholarly agreements starts from 1789 – the year of the French Revolution and as some historians quip; everything after 1789 is political science!
I am not making any sweeping statments or settling ancient arguments or being a partisan in the endlessly predictable debate on India and Pakistan, but I do wonder that if the past is being left behind for the sake of a future, in India as well as in Pakistan as far as history is concerned, what does that make of our understanding of that future, when we have no comprehension as where that future arrived from and what course it took to present itself before us in its present avatar?
In any case, please disregard this post, as I am only musing my own wonderment at that what you have said, because it interested me and as this is an estoteric post more true to my own biases and inclinations, please ignore it.
Regards
Feroz R. Khan
]]>you do absolutely nothing in terms of the women who were raped in Bosnia (maybe because they are Muslims?) in any form or shape -They have been left high and dry by the so called “upholders” of liberty and justice in the West that you rub shoulders with so closely – you should consider these atrocities and bring them to the foreground.
There is nothing in your activity on the women who suffer the brutality of the “nazi” state of IZNOTREAL. Yes the Palestinians or the masses of rape that go on in Pakistan and many other places.
You support particularly anti-islamic issues which help the “haters” of Muslims in the West for which you get a great amount of platforms .
Now that,s not very smart or enlightening is it?
On reflection I think its better you stay in your hole as you just do not like Muslims!
]]>I support people who fight against contradictions and political bullying-is that a problem for you? I support people against racist attitudes and sub-servient politics? I support many things including some of the things you mention.
So you really need to know more about me instead of making silly immature statements – you do a disservice to knowledge about a person by making some stupid statements.
I have heard about your organization but do not know enough to say anything and neither do I wish too.
I am confident that my work against injustice sees me on the frontline of issues whether its in Bradford or Afghanistan, South Africa or Australia.
Anyway ask me anything about Bosnia and will be happy to address issues and you might just find my views overlap with issues that go on in Iran but I will not be a political tool for some third party .
Please seek some knowledge before posting banal or untrue statements because then your doing what many propagandists do , wherever they maybe. A humble request.
]]>