may 30th, 2011 CE
as JNU is to universities
and as sen-rothschild is to economists
so is guha to historians.
guha would not recognize history if it were presented to him on a platter and it jumped up and hit him on the nose.
after all, he is a 'historian' of cricket. cricket is about as important as, oh..., pigeon-droppings, maybe?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sri
Date: Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Historian Ramachandra Guha -- 'There was no sense of a nation or nationhood in India'
To:
If these are the type of historians that mainstream India looks up to
.. no wonder .. general Indian masses have no pride or identity or
clue as Indians.
Historian Ramachandra Guha inteviewreviews ...
http://specials.rediff.com/india60/2007/aug/28sld2.htm 'There was no sense of a nation or nationhood in India' Q: One of the questions you raise in the book is intriguing: Why is
there an India at all? A: One of the limitations of this book is that it starts in 1947. If I
were to ask why there is an India at all, I believe there was no India
at all before the British came. There was no sense of a nation or
nationhood in India. It was the British that united the country, accidentally, and out of
commercial and political motives. So they gave it an artificial unity;
an artificial territorial and political unity. This artificial unity
was endowed with a moral purpose by Mahatma Gandhi and his national
movement. This was furthered by the Indian constitution and the first
generation of Indian nation builders.
From: sri
Date: Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Historian Ramachandra Guha -- 'There was no sense of a nation or nationhood in India'
To:
If these are the type of historians that mainstream India looks up to
.. no wonder .. general Indian masses have no pride or identity or
clue as Indians.
Historian Ramachandra Guha inteviewreviews ...
http://specials.rediff.com/india60/2007/aug/28sld2.htm 'There was no sense of a nation or nationhood in India' Q: One of the questions you raise in the book is intriguing: Why is
there an India at all? A: One of the limitations of this book is that it starts in 1947. If I
were to ask why there is an India at all, I believe there was no India
at all before the British came. There was no sense of a nation or
nationhood in India. It was the British that united the country, accidentally, and out of
commercial and political motives. So they gave it an artificial unity;
an artificial territorial and political unity. This artificial unity
was endowed with a moral purpose by Mahatma Gandhi and his national
movement. This was furthered by the Indian constitution and the first
generation of Indian nation builders.
2 comments:
This "historian" seems to be uncivilised, semi-educated or ill-educated. He is ignorant of not only history, but also of basic facts about our country and its people.
For instance:
In all Hindu religious rites – Vaidhika Karmam, which go back to pre-historic times – performed in the sub-continent, the prayers start with a sankalpam which has the phrase: Bharatha Varshe, Bharathah Khande etc. which describes the geographical position of the place where the rite is performed. The word Bharatham and its derivatives mean India. This fact is recognized even in our Constitution, in the phrase “India, that is Bharat, [shall be a Union of States...]”
And to top it all Guha disses Dharampal in his book "An anthropologist among the Marxists and other essays", after acknowledging that Dharampal helped him in his search for archival material. The INGRATE!
Post a Comment