I borrowed this book from a friend in 2007 and just yesterday I get to finish it. Dont get the idea that this book is all about argumentative techniques. In the first chapter Amartya Sen tried to prove that we Indians argue a lot with references from history. The whole argumentative nature of Indians is mostly confined to that chapter only.
Later he talked about gender discrimination in india, our indian culture and heritage, how we usually treat our past, about ancient Indian Astronomy, Diaspora, the way history was presented in schools, how British Empire tried to prove their Intellectual superiority ( Author was against James Mill through out the book, John Mill is the one who wrote extensively about India, without visiting India and without learning Sanskrit or any other Indian Language. ).
Then there is boring chapter on India-china relations in the ancient times. And an equally boring chapter dedicated to calenders. He kept on talking about why we have chosen Saka calender instead of kaliyuga calender. And his views on pokhran nuclear tests are little weird.
His opinions on understanding people from other culture are really interesting. And his arguments supporting secularism in India is a must read to all who call indian secularism as pseudo-secularism.
Seems Amartya Sen is very much influenced by Tagore and Akbar, and their references appear all over the book.. He made me realize that Tagore is more than just another poet with Noble Prize and Akbar is a true liberal. And now i have new found respect for those two There is chapter about Reasoning and philosophers who specialized in it.
Over all its a good book. But the targeted readers are not Indians. Its for the students of other counties who are reading Indian History and culture.
Later he talked about gender discrimination in india, our indian culture and heritage, how we usually treat our past, about ancient Indian Astronomy, Diaspora, the way history was presented in schools, how British Empire tried to prove their Intellectual superiority ( Author was against James Mill through out the book, John Mill is the one who wrote extensively about India, without visiting India and without learning Sanskrit or any other Indian Language. ).
Then there is boring chapter on India-china relations in the ancient times. And an equally boring chapter dedicated to calenders. He kept on talking about why we have chosen Saka calender instead of kaliyuga calender. And his views on pokhran nuclear tests are little weird.
His opinions on understanding people from other culture are really interesting. And his arguments supporting secularism in India is a must read to all who call indian secularism as pseudo-secularism.
Seems Amartya Sen is very much influenced by Tagore and Akbar, and their references appear all over the book.. He made me realize that Tagore is more than just another poet with Noble Prize and Akbar is a true liberal. And now i have new found respect for those two There is chapter about Reasoning and philosophers who specialized in it.
Over all its a good book. But the targeted readers are not Indians. Its for the students of other counties who are reading Indian History and culture.
6 comments:
Heard that Akbar was neither generous nor secular a king.
ummm could u share the source
ఆయన ఆస్థాన కవి అబుల్ ఫజల్ రాసిన అక్బరు నామా (indirectly though) :)
ఎం. వీ. ఆర్. శాస్త్రిగారు రాసిన ఏది చరిత్ర? చదివి మీ అభిప్రాయం చెప్పగలరు.
http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%8F%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%9A%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%A4%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%B0%3F_%28%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%A4%E0%B0%95%E0%B0%82%29
We call a king non-secular if he endorses his own religion in the country and show discrimination based on religion. Akbar is the one, who started his own religion i.e Din-i-ilahi and didnt make it the religion of the country ( only two persons joined in this one, those are akbar and birbal, not even his wifes joined in that) When a king didnt force ppl to join the religion which he started, i guess we can safely call him secular. Of course it was mentioned in akbar nama that akbar was a good muslim. మనవాళ్ళు బుద్ధుడిని దశావతారాల్లో ఒకడ్ని చేసేసారు....అలా అని గౌతమ బుద్దుడు ఒక హిందూ దేవుడు అనలేం కదా
"ఏది చరిత్ర" పుస్తకం నేను చదవలేదు ఇంకా ...
బుధ్దుణ్ణి ఏకాదశావతరంగా పేర్కొనడమనేది గడుసుదనంతప్ప మరింకేమీకాదు. Kinda desperate attempt to brand the people as hindus even thoug they were fleeing away :)
ఈ దీన్-ఇ-ఇలాహి కూడా చాలా funnyగా వుంటుంది. నిజానికారోజుల్లో దీన్ని హిందువులూ, ముస్లిములూ కూడా ఒకే విధంగా ద్వేషించారట. ప్రజలందరూ ద్వేషిస్తున్న మతాన్ని వాళ్లమీడకు బలంగా రుద్దితే నాశనం తప్పదన్న తెలివిడి ఆయన లౌకికత్వానికి కారణం కావచ్చు. ఆవిధంగా అక్బర్ లౌకికుడే (లౌక్యుడు అన్నది సరైన పదం). రాజపుత్ర స్త్రీలను "వివాహమాడటం" గురించి, "గౌరవించడం" గురించి, విధించిన పన్నుల గురించీ అదే పుస్తకంలో కూడా చదివాను. చదివేటప్పుడు నిజంగానే అక్బర్ మంచివాడే అయ్యుండి గొప్పకోసం... కేవలం గొప్పకోసం కాఫిరులను వేధించినట్లు అక్బరునామాలో రికార్డుచేయించొచ్చుండొచ్చుగా అనిపించింది. That is my desperate attempt to keep Akbar in the iconic position there by thwart the un-learning process which this book call for :)
haha u r right...historians twist the facts with more imaginative mind than a fiction novelist
Post a Comment