At 2007-07-14 10:59:57 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Please elaborate on this part of your sentence: "probably a much more > modern concept than you're giving it credit for."
I'll rephrase. The concept exists today and has existed for some time. It seemed to me that you think it is ancient, and I think there isn't enough evidence to support that view. (Note, however, that that is a separate question from whether pilgrims and their movements tell us anything relevant to a national identity. Note also that I have been discussing the latter so far, and haven't said anything about the former until the message you just quoted.) > Specifically, how did you weigh the amount of credit I am giving the > issue, based on my statement I got the impression that you think this is an ancient concept because of the period we've been discussing: when there were several kingdoms, when various people collected in the subcontinent due to geographical circumstance, when the Greeks were extending their empire eastwards, your mention of Somnath, and so on. Do you, in fact, *not* think that the concept is ancient? If so, I had the wrong impression, and I apologise. In that case, though, I'm honestly puzzled: what is it you *are* saying, and why bring up pilgrimages at all? > What degree of relevance can I give to your sentence based on > the paradigm you use to attribute a measure of relevance to a > fundamentally vague statement from me? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. > Naturally, you will oppose anything that sounds like what is > stated by whoever you consider part of a lunatic fringe No, I tend to ignore people I consider part of a lunatic fringe. > I would appreciate something more that your personal likes and > dislikes. Then I would appreciate it if you would read everything else I wrote, rather than latch on to a single parenthetical reference to the RSS. > You are vaguely opposed to what I said I am very specifically opposed to your contention that the movement of pilgrims can be used to infer anything about an awareness of national identity in ancient India. The chronicles of (esp. Buddhist) pilgrims provide plenty of evidence that travel was fraught with hardship, and varied from place to place and at different times, both in and outside the subcontinent. I also disagree with (what I saw as) your opinion that the concept of a national identity was ancient. But I know of no way to *prove* that it did not exist, any more than I know of a compelling reason to believe that it did. > In the absence of historical records, why something was "not done" by > someone in history is a matter of pure conjecture. Of course. > Kindly tell me what your conjecture might be on this issue? That the feeling of national identity did not exist in any exploitable form at that time, and that it emerged only later. > In particular, which smaller kingdoms emerged from which empires over > what timescale? Sorry. I'm fifty kilometres away from my history books (which is why I didn't have an ISBN for the Somnath book). If you're really interested, I might be motivated to dig them up sometime when I'm across town. But history isn't something suited to analysis through soundbites, rather than reading voluminous and often boring tomes. -- ams
