In general Lal's course seems to be partly conducted in response to Hindu nationalism. Lal doesn't spend much time to define Hindu nationalism, nor does he show where it hits the scene and who are the main figures involved. Yet, what is made clear over the entire course, which covers 5000 years of history, is that the interpretation of India's history is greatly politicized by Hindu nationalism and Lal disagrees with its tenants - whatever they are.
Hindu nationalism needs to be distinguished from Indian nationalism, which enters the scene in the 19th century and whose most famous figure head is Gandhi. Indian nationalism, is the movement that began to strive for independence. The goal for one such as Gandhi was to have a unified India containing both Hindus and Muslims. Implicit in this goal is that India as a cultural entity is carried by both these religious communities. The Hindu nationalists - apparently - seem to believe that true Indian equals Hindu.In this respect Lal is unclear about Hindu nationalism, but makes a point in using another term in the discourse: Communalism. Communalism is a social cultural approach to people, culture and tradition and poses religion at the pinnacle of human identity. In the communalist view, one can be man, living in Delhi, Hindi speaker, but ultimately one is a Hindu, or alternately, a Muslim. In that view one is not a Bengali first and a Muslim or Hindu second. The religious identity politics that is founded by the communalist view makes the coexistence of Muslims and Hindus more problematic and tends to view the Muslim element in India History as intrusive. Lal on the other hand claims that for example the Moguls are profoundly Indian and an the Mogul empire is an integral part within Indian history, even if it is Muslim.
All of this material is so rich, one simply must have more podcasts to get a better picture. If I walk backwards through the course I can mention a couple of tremendously fascinating subjects which are touched upon by only few or no other podcasts I know of:
The life and works of M.K. Gandhi - half a lecture in Lal's course and some attention in Berkeley's Introduction to nonviolence
The rise of Indian nationalism and unrest in the 19th century (with the rebellion of 1857) - Hardly more than a lecture and a half with Lal and no other podcast to cover even a bit of this.
British India (under the company and under the Crown) - Few lectures with Lal. In courses that touch on British History, here and there one will touch upon India, but I do not recall anything substantial on the top of my head.
The Moguls - What little you have in Lal can be nicely supplemented and compared with UCSD's MMW4
The Guptas - What little you have in Lal can be nicely supplemented and compared with UCSD's MMW3
Hindu texts; Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata - Lal uses these extensively to relate to Indian History until the Middle Ages. For me this is the most confusing part. Which podcasts brings some order?
Indus Valley Civilization - There is a very old issue from David Kalivas' World History that touches upon this civ, as well as five minutes in Engines of our Ingenuity. Lal's contribution is to show how even this history is politicized.
Lal's last remark in the course made a huge impression on me. He said to make a distinction between Indian Civilization and the Indian State. The Indian state may be very young, but Indian Civilization is very old. Also, the civilization stretches much further than the state. Civilization can be much richer and contradictory than a state can be.
More History of India:
8 podcasts I listened to,
History of India or Europe?
History of India.
5 comments:
Anne,
His lecture series is clouded by the fight against Hindu Nationalism that it is no longer a history lecture. He makes it sound as if it the only problem in India right now, ignoring the crime that Marxists and Socialists have caused. The course is not a balanced presentation of India.
I have not completed the series yet, but from what I have heard, he has left out lot of informationand in some cases, the informationis quite old. One of the textbooks is by Nehru, who was India's Prime Minister and not a historian.
The "Story of India" by Michael Wood is a good presentation on India.
This TV series?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2359467386775757720#
I'll have to watch it then. Still more podcasts would certainly serve us well
Anne
Dear Anne
Well i don't have a clear clue of what are the exact contents of Professor Vinay Lal's lecture are; but the final statement by him and i quote "The Indian state may be very young, but Indian Civilization is very old", is very true.
The earliest records of Indian history dates back to the Indus valley. The general recollection of history for most is post the Mughal era, but the fact remains that there is a lot more in the pages of history between the Indus Valley civilization and the invasion of Mughal on the Indian subcontinent. The evolution of so many cultures and traditions is embedded in the history that dates back to 5000 years. Again Prof. Lal's states that 'Mughal's empire is an integral part within Indian history, even if it is Muslim'. stands true because, the Mughal era has had a very heavy cultural influence on the way the Indian society shaped up in it's present day and age. The Mughal's invaded the India subcontinent from over the Himalayas with the idea of plundering the rich merchant class. But after a couple of repeated invasions they realized that the subcontinent was divided in smaller kingdoms plagued with internal feuds. So inserted of returning to their home land they conquered these weak kingdoms and established there own kingdom. The first two Emperors still continued to plunder the country of it's riches, but all this changed with the Third Emperor 'Akbar', who realized that he had a growing empire in his hand and need of the hour was to act as a efficient administrator instead of a king with the sole aim of loot. This changed the dynamics of things as he spread his kingdom in the southern part of subcontinent, there by spreading the Muslim culture too. Another phase in the Mughal empire which can be considered as a factor in this discussion, is marked by Aurangzeb's regime. Considered by many as the worst phase for the mass, in his regime he forced conversion to Islam, there by creating a situation in were by the Muslim culture became an even bigger integral part of the Indian society. If you ask a Indian like me, i would say yes indeed Muslim people and the Muslim culture is a vital part of the way life has shaped up around me. I have Muslim friends and I am fascinated by predominant Muslim delicacies like /'Biryani'/, they are just a part of this country now.
As amazing as the pre-independence history of India is; the post independence history of this country be it relatively very new is also very interesting, specially the political history.
I like biryani too, but I love Alu Ghobi and Saag chicken better. :)
As to Aurangzeb; Lal tries to move him away from the description you gave (as a Muslim oppressor) and delivers a short attempt to portray him as a kind of realpolitiker not very dissimilar to Akbar
Anne
I do think Professor Lal's lectures on Indus Valley Civilistion is confusing. He is so upset with Hindu Nationalist that he was willing to compromise his lectures by ignoring latest research on this subject.
Post a Comment