On 11/15/06, Kiran Jonnalagadda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The study of English literature (Shakespeare, et al) originated in
India, not in England. Now I really can't believe that the English would not study their own literature in their own country, and that, going by your statement, (a) that they would study it in India, or (b) Indians would study it in India. Where did you read this? ...NOW have I got my quotes and less-than and all the geekan-work embroidery right, KIng Vod? Deepa. On 11/15/06, Kiran Jonnalagadda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 15/Nov/2006, at 10:24 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: >> How about a discussion on Rajeev Srinivasan's series on Rediff about >> the relative merits of South India over North? >> >> Part 1 is here: http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/08rajeev.htm >> Part 2: http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/13rajeev.htm From first reading, it is apparent the man is not a trained historian. He presents no causal relationships between the bits of evidences and claims he's assembled, nor acknowledges anything that doesn't fit his model. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong, just that he fails to convince. Of course, the blanket dismissal of Islam and Christianity makes him even less appealing. Perhaps more interesting: I recently learnt that the East India Company, when it controlled India, severely restricted Christian missionaries operating here, for fear of upsetting local populations. They figured they could teach Christian values via literature instead of religion. The study of English literature (Shakespeare, et al) originated in India, not in England. -- Kiran Jonnalagadda http://jace.seacrow.com/
