I have finished the lecture series at UCLA by professor Vinay Lal about the
history of India (
feed). As written before: it was not an easy ride. I ascribe this to the fact that I had next to no former knowledge about India in general and its history in particular. Yet, a fellow blogger (
varnam) criticizes professor Lal to '
teach in a very confusing manner'. Whatever is truth in the matter, for me the bottom-line is that there is a great need for more podcasts on India. In that respect I appreciate any recommendation I can get.
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.
To this end host Marshall Poe interviewed Toby Lester and he gave a thrilling account of how the Americas got shape in the concept of the world. In this respect one needs to immediately set aside the myth that people thought the world was flat. It was known the world was round and there was even relatively sound data about the extent of the Asian continent in addition to a fairly accurate idea of the circumference of the earth. On the basis of those data Columbus's journey was folly, considering the vast amount of ocean that needed to be crossed. An intermediate continent was not expected and Columbus just thought he'd found some islands along the way when he got onto Hispaniola. Like the Canary Islands and the Azores.
