History textbooks from decades ago in schools and colleges, teachers, discussions of the day are now fun. But what about the next discussion? What is the future of ‘study of history’ during the Asmita period?
It is true that there are controversies from history to the Supreme Court today but this article is not about any of them. Readers need to remember how we learned history in school. Think honestly about your past: History is a favorite subject of many! There was no compulsion at the time to draw any moral or political meaning from the history of the book, to make a narrative for today’s movements, or to make history useful for hating one another.
In short, the study of school-college history is not used as ‘you and it’. Apart from the lack of supporters, it was possible for Akbar and Maharana Pratap to take sides. Aurangzeb’s religion was accepted by all, but not even in the cities of Jaipur-Jodhpur where I grew up. If not only these two cities but also other Cock peoples held various positions in the kingdom of Aurangzeb.
The immediate causes of war, its terms, etc. were taught. But sometimes even in the classroom or outside the classroom, ethical questions are discussed about the motives behind certain events in the history of the book. However, at this point it is difficult to understand exactly what was intended a few hundred years ago. And on such an answer, do we determine the moral quality of that action? It is clear that all this is to show whose power. But why show such power? One of our teachers is a historian. ‘Temples were looted for wealth, temples were demolished’ is not enough .. that is also morally wrong but why? If you say, ‘Destroying shrines of other religions for petty reasons like money is proof of your inferiority’ .. that teacher did not stop .. it is time to stop and move on. “Besides, it’s okay to ask careful questions about the past, but I understand that not every question needs to be answered, and haste does not work.
Even at school-college age my personal study of history continues to grow due to the ‘immediate cause’. We had social service. I undertook the task of reading textbooks for blind students. This was done with the help of a new cassette-tape recorder at the time. I took time to read books at home and do soundtracks and she went to the kids. For the same company, I started doing this work during the holidays and started reading books to upper class kids. Read Hindi too, read English too. It was then that I realized that the history textbooks of the Northern Kingdoms did not explain the history of the Chola and Rashtrakuta kings in any class. Second, the textbooks of the day contained quotes from historians of all kinds. Namely Jadunath Sarkar, Irfan Habib, R. C. The questions posed to Mazumdar and Romila Thapar as historians may differ from one another, and their answers may seem different, but the textbooks give a summary of what they all say. V. who later wrote only college level textbooks. D. As Mahajan did, his book has a similar structure, for example, describing how Ghazni’s Mohammedan went so far. Same lists. Suitable for objective answers. But now I think how important it is to be comprehensive .. He also gave a wide range of ideas.
It is a matter of time before those textbooks of a few decades ago became ‘history’, because ‘history’ is no longer a simple subject. The ‘old-fashioned’ Nehru-left stamp is being sidelined by some historians. Even outside of university history studies, historiography is seriously considered these days. It should be blamed on university discipline as the level of Indian history-study method is limited by these university study methods. These universities do not know the intensity and scope of various studies, such as the history of intellectual or ideological traditions, the history of science or political science. . But if you want to deny it, why only universities? Zagozag History Research Boards, records in many places also had the opportunity to study various subjects, why was it also missed? Is it not true that the scope of historical studies is limited?
In fact, the controversy over what constitutes “hidden history” today is unlikely to expand the horizons of history-study or deepen the study of history. Because what is taken as ‘hidden history’ is memorized without using methods of studying history. Explaining the difference between memory, recollection and history, Pierre Nora says that using all the facts at hand to illuminate what someone is proud of is a form of memory. Memoir writing is done to provoke the spark of the reader or eater, because self-awareness is the only tool of memoir writing. Such a memory would seem to have drawn the boundaries of society. Writing memoirs is as simple as a parable. The history provided at the end of the study is not always like a parable;
Maharana Pratap, Prithviraj Chauhan, Aurangzeb .. why even Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj .. is not about the ‘basis of study of historians’ etc. when the discussions are going on these days. Actual history) It is based on memories and recollections, so using such a discussion ‘means you are on the side of Aurangzeb !!’ Such chatter is mainly about finding the enemy. The second use is to verify that ‘yours’ is someone. ‘Which history is true?’ Such controversies have never happened before, but they are at least about history, not about memories. Of course, it should also be noted that memories and discussions based on them are also helpful. It should be noted, however, that such discussions are likely to turn violent.