Romila thapar
Bipan Chandra⤴️
Harban mukhia⤴️
In "Communalism and the writing of Indian history", for instance, Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia and Bipan Chandra, professors at the JNU in New Delhi, the Mecca of secularism and negationism in India, denied the Muslim genocide by replacing it instead with a conflict of classes : "Muslims brought the notion of egalitarianism in India", they argue. The redoubtable Romila Thapar in her "Penguin History of India", co-authored with Percival Spear, writes again : "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance, is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts
… (more)
Glad to answer. Read thoroughly!!!
Marxist history writing in India could not become as ridiculous as is the case of the Soviet or Chinese writings. But this was only due to different circumstances. In India too, the Marxist history writing (as also the writing on other social science subjects) would inevitably have reached the same ridiculous state had there been no check on it of an independent press, democracy, competing political parties and the presence of writers and scholars holding various viewpoints. Only because of communist monopoly, the social science books of the Soviet Union (and
… (more)
She is a Hindu hater and communist. Most people here think Romila Thapar is a left wing historian and academic. She is known to be scholar on ancient Indian history and has written many books on it. In her first work, Aśoka and the Decline of the Maurya published in 1961, she praises Ashok the favourite posterboys of Chacha Nehru and his Communists clowns.
So basically she's a rice bag convert on a payroll who takes pride in abusing Hinduism and mocking deities to support her Jihadi/ Marxist agents. There are certain interesting or comical things she does bring out in her books.
Now here's why s
… (more)
So there is Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan, fighting against the Islamic hordes, laid down his life and his descendants continued the fight for centuries.
After him, Delhi is captured by Islamic invaders, temples are destroyed, his people who are hindus massacred and forcefully converted and a Islamic state is declared.
Now a historian comes and says, that this has nothing to do with Islamic jihad and these invaders are secular. That the Samrat and his men and women were only fighting for territory and their contribution do not match that of Islamic invaders.
How will you feel?
If this was done to mali
… (more)
Others may call her a historian, but she actually is not, as per her works and words. A historian is objective and puts forward findings, discoveries and evidences based on facts. Her entire narrative is based on an already built-up British theory that chiefly emanated through Oxford (known for the Boden-Professorship), Max Mueller, Sir Jones and others. It is surprising that the history of Ancient India has been brought from England as created by the British, rather than the researches and evidences already existing within India itself. Her reliance over the alien narratives are not only intr
… (more)I will assume you are talking about Mr. D N Jha's claim, the then president of Indian History Congress, in his presidential address to the Congress in 2004. I wouldn't presume to argue and debate a claim by an eminent scholar like Mr. Jha simply on grounds of him being a man of Marxist leanings. It is a claim, and like all claims has its own merits and demerits. Mr. Jha undoubtedly did his fair share of research before presenting his hypothesis, and the subsequent endorsements and criticisms this theory received deal with issues I am neither qualified nor arrogant enough to delve into.
As far a
… (more)
From a neutral and academic standpoint, you fail to realise the scope and observational nature of Marxist historiography.
Dialectical observations, or dialectic materialism as a whole is not concerned with the the perceived “glory” of a nation. It is based on Marxian theories on economics. Dialectical historians view economy as being the infrastructure of society, whilst culture and other organelles of society form a superstructure. They also focus on class struggles and the proletariat rather than religion, or territorial conquests, or any of the like.
Various perspectives in the Indian social
… (more)
- India is a country governed by the procedure established by law and not by the dictates of men or by any party.
- It is true that the left liberals have advanced their theories and accounts for long and obviously under the patronage of the then governments.
- It is necessary to discover and academically refute their false accounts with historical evidence and architectural analysis. That is the right way.
- In India, even a Pakistani woman who smuggled herself is given the protection of the law, is not tortured or subjected to ill treatment. Then how can we put respected academics to jail without crimi
Mughals are not regarded very highly by entire Indian subcontinent people, nor Hindus.
- Prior to Mughals, we had 300 years of Muslim rule in Delhi immediately after the Ghaznavis and Ghorid plunderers and looters.
- The first 200 years of Delhi Sultanate was very busy in destroying and pillaging Buddhist monasteries, Buddhist temples, libraries, stupas and other Buddhist iconic institutions, few Jain libraries and temples, temple destruction was far too low compared to Buddhist and even Jain structures.
- There should be strong reasons for virtually cleaning out entire Buddhist markers in India.
- Prior
Marxist historians were allowed to dominate Indian History studies by the Congress party for political reasons.
The successive Congress party adminstration needed historians to write Indian history that
(1) suggests that Hinduism like Islam and Christianity is a foreign import,
(2) reports about the killing of millions of Hindus, destruction of Hindu temples and forcible conversion of Hindus by Islamic invaders in the period 1200 - 1700 ce are exaggeration, ( you could read the post given below to get an idea of what was suppressed)
(3) Buddhism is far superior t
… (more)
I was intrigued by this question and wanted to answer it. However, I didn’t know much about DD Kosambi so I had to do a bit of research about him and I got to know more about him through my friends on social media and through Internet in general. As I write this answer, I’m currently reading a book related to the topic in question. I’m reading Arun Shourie’s Eminent Historians: Their Technique, Their Line, Their Fraud which is an exegtical work on Marxist historiography in India. I’ve referred to it while writing this answer. I received inputs from my friends Hamsanandi (ಹಂಸಾನಂದಿ) and Udipi Sh
… (more)
When and where? Such claims should be able to identify in some specific way when this carnage happened. For instance, I find this on a Wikipedia page:
The reign of Aurangzeb witnessed one of the strongest campaign of religious violence in the Mughal Empire's history. Popular historian Matthew White claims an estimated 4.6 million people were killed under his reign.[84] Aurangzeb banned Diwali, re-introduced jizya (tax) on non-Muslims,[85] led numerous campaigns of attacks against non-Muslims, forcibly converted Hindus to Islam and destroyed Hindu temples.[86][88][89]
I haven't confirmed these st
… (more)There are many reasons behind why I and many others loathe Marxists. One of the primary ones is that in the Indian context, their ideology is diametrically opposed to the very existence of an Indian state (only as long as they're not in power of course).
Remember that Marxist ideology is rooted in an emotional appeal that "we must feel bad for people who are poor or oppressed", and that leads to "their poverty is a result of them being oppressed by those more powerful than them". This further leads to the government or certain institutions being deemed the "chief oppressor", as power is concent
… (more)
Thankyou for A2A.
Yes. Our History books to be rewritten. No doubt in that.
- Our History books not includes the details of Indian kings before the invasion of Islamic Kings, sufficiently.
- These books do not say informations of South Indian kingdoms, there are some informations provided just for the name sake only. If the Mauryan empire and Mughal empire could reach upto Deccan, Why do not they believe the informations of Southern Kings crossing the Ganges, Inscribing on the Himalayan Rocks?. Why the Southern emperors influenced the SouthEast Asia for few centuries are not glorified in our text boo
Who will do the rewriting? Are there successors of P.N.Oak, Baburao Patel, Diwan Germani Das available to take up the task? Does Sudarhana Rao who said that that Ramayana and Mahabharata are historical accounts get a chance? Will Balusa Jagathayya and Bhaskara Yogi who claim that there were never any communal riots in India and that Hindus never lost a war get an official backing for propagating their brand of history?
Yes.They need an overhaul. Who white washed is immaterial. We have to rewrite, refine our Glory and hand over correct History to our Generation next. We have lost our original path ie the Hindutva,the foundation of this great Civilization, in the Jungle of pseudo-Secularism.Hinduism is either suppressed or wrongly interpreted. Inspite of Many Glorious principles like “Vedammulamidam Jagath", “Ahimsa Paramo Dharma",”Vasudhiaka Kutumbakam",”Paropakara Punyaya",”Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti",”Yatranariyastu Poojyanthe",”Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitaha",”Satyamev Jayathe",”Yogakshemam Vahamyaham" etc.
… (more)
Some of us like minded bibliophiles at the ISRO Satellite Centre had formed a book club in 1982 and ran it for about 4 years. We had bought about 150 books in that period on assorted subjects in all. We shared these books equally when I left ISRO in 1986. I read Romila Thapar's book on Ancient India together with Perceval Spear's book on India from medieval times to modern times as a companion volume, about 37 years ago. Obviously my memory is rather hazy regarding fine details now on her wonderful book.
The fact that Professor Romila Thapor has left wing orientation in her historical understan
… (more)
I am a firm believer that all castes were united somewhat till the British found it an advantage to use the few temple and warrior people to enforce their empire. I am located in Malaysia where they used the Sri Lankan Tamils who were few to control the population. They did this all over their empire. We have two races here named Ibans and Bidayuhs who look the same, have the same food habits and culture but who hate each other; the British developed the rivaly amonst them. The British were worried the Budayuh and Ibans would get together to run them out. And gave them both beer to weaken them
… (more)What is true is that Hindus don’t have a tradition of history telling, like they do in the West and in China. For Hindus, history and myth are the same. That needs to be understood.
A thousand years ago, there weren’t even 100 million people living in India. How is it possible that 100 million Hindus were genocided?
Marxism came to India not from the usual suspects, but from the Jesuit missionaries, who realized early that while it was useful to convert Hindu to Christianity, not everyone would be amenable to it. So they propagated the halfway house of Marxism and gave them the role of “keepers of new knowledge”, that is western narratives on “Hinduism” and Hindu history. “Intellectual sepoys”, as it were, in order to deracinate the Hindu!
They have been true to their colonial masters. If things had gone well, and colonial rule had been perpetuated, these Marxists would have had great personal benefits as
… (more)
They are made for each other, supportive of each other, follow the same principles in different ways, and choose to kill each other only when alone, and there is no one else around.
Marxist history is the interpretation of history through the lens of Marxism, a socio-economic and political theory that was developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. Marxism views history as a progression of class conflict, with the working class eventually overthrowing the ruling class and establishing a socialist society.
Marxist history has been used to interpret Indian history in a number of ways. Some Marxist historians have argued that Indian history is a history of class conflict, with the working class (the peasants and the lower castes) being exploited by the ru
… (more)
I wouldn't call that as true. Generally what happens in India is that local leaders get cocky and start nickling and diming their human capital resources. Then talented human capital summon a foreign leader, rally under him and he establishes da Desi EMPIRE for the next couple hundred years.
Marxist historians generally means those who are influenced by Marxist ideas and who sees this world as a class struggle. They see everything as class struggle starting from the beginning of the world. And they have another strategy of writing false history or re-writing history.
There were no Marxist historians in the past (before Indian independence except in communist party ). In India, they were mostly given chances to work in academia post independence. These Marxist were supported and established by left universities who gained huge fundings and support from Soviet Union (who claims to be
… (more)
They are wrong. They don't have the special eyes and vision to notice,
How good those invaders are.
How many temples are developed by those Muslim rulers.
How many Muslims converted and adopted in to Hinduism.
How many Muslims lived like Ram and Sita. One man one woman.
How they helped girl children, women to live in a dignified manner.
How kashi, ayodhya, madhura, somanath temples etc are developed in a grand manner.
Especially education. How could we forget that! How well educated they are and how much they tried to educate Hindus. So many schools and libraries they built.
Hindus unnecessarily got s
… (more)
On the contrary ,the brutality of Tippu against hindus ,only certain excerpts are appended under:
“”According to historian Lewis B. Boury, the devastation Tipu Sultan inflicted on the southern part of India was harsher and more barbaric than the atrocities performed against the Hindu inhabitants in India by the infamous Mahmud of Ghazni, Alauddin Khalji, and Nadir Shah.
Tipu Sultan’s 17-year reign, according to Sandeep Balakrishna, author of ‘Tipu Sultan: The Tyrant of Mysore,’ was indeed a unified image of military, economic, and religious torment for the Hindu population. Tipu had declared Tip
… (more)
A common misconception is that Mughals were able to establish a stable and prosperous empire in entire India. Modern history purposefully hides the struggle mughal had to face throughout entire existance against Hindu armies. There were only 6 prominent Mughal rulers in that period - Babur to Aurangzeb.
Babur could not simply attacked and conquer, he failed four times. Only fifth time could bring him enough success. However, apart from capturing Delhi and part of north-western India, we don’t hear much about him. Babur did not face any united Indian army (like any coalition of Kings that happen
… (more)
They can justify and defend themselves as their opinion. Behind them were their political masters. They write as per their command. Even the Britishers distorted our history.
So, instead of putting them in jail, we can rewrite our history which is true.
ISlamic invasions of India started from the time Islam was born in the 7th century. By the 12th century, Islamic rule was established in the Rajput city of Rai Pithora (today, a part of Delhi), where they destroyed a huge complex of temples and observatories to create what is today better known as the Qutab Minar complex. From this base, they sent out expeditions as far East as Bengal from the 12th to 15th centuries, looting and raping, and plundering our temples, with each temple having wealth that was more than all the Islamic kingdoms of the world put together at any time.
There were constan
… (more)
Right of conquest was a thing back then. When Hindus conquered other kingdoms and wiped out the local culture to instate their culture, they too had the right of conquest. It’s somewhat ridiculous to look back now and pretend right of conquest wasn’t a thing. People of all nations lauded their monarchs for conquering.
And unfavorable attitudes towards genocides in conquest didn’t arise until the World Wars happened. Where do you think the saying ‘All is fair in war’ comes from? Literally everyone thought back then that to dominate a lesser people and stamp your mark was a good thing. And as alw
… (more)There were genocides several times on indian territory for more than 1000 years. It was the harshest, bloodiest truth of our country's history.
They will go to jail only if they break the law. The fact that their work is no longer highly regarded or respected is punishment enough for these authors.
I must thank Frederic Truong for inspiring me to answer this question even though he has already answered the same question.
The issue is not Romila Thapar, but the issue is India’s past. Nations are relatively new and artificial constructs created by bringing disparate tribes, ethnicities, and peoples together in the last two centuries.
History is used (or abused, depending on one's point of view) as one of the tools to justify such constructs, with each nation having its own narrative which it believes to be accurate. In fact, all these narratives embellish history to suit their needs. Indian
… (more)
No comments:
Post a Comment