On Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 12:54 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > while it is useful to document narratives, that is not the same as > documenting fact. the further narrative is from an event, the less > likely it is to be fact. so while things would have been easier for > historians of india if indians documented events in greater detail (this > is also true for many other parts of the world, e.g. africa, or south > east asia) documenting narratives _today_ doesn't really help. > > a narrative of the past that can be documented today would be about as > close to historical fact as, say, the bible.
Absolutely. But it is likely to reduce the number of claims to who is Hindu and who isn't and what beliefs and practices continue today in comparison to whatever information we have from the past. It will serve to define what has been "intelligently" bandied about as "animism". What sort of word is that to describe people one knows nothing about? The word is as bad or as good as calling them Hindu. Narratives, if told honestly will serve to show Hindus what they really are, and not what they think they are what what they imagine they are, or even what sothers may imagine they are. I personally believe that there will be some really surprising findings. In the early 1900s Hindus studied for government jobs. In the late 1900s Hindus became doctors and engineers and are now slobbering after "software engineering". Hindus have not produced many sociologists or historians. Where are the PhDs studying and documenting Indian society? Not too many Hindus as far as I can tell. There is a lot of work to be done within Indian society to see what is what. Otherwise we argue about 1929 sastrigal and Ms.(deserving of a) Thapad. shiv
