Why Indians are not aware of History...
I have not yet read any reference about ancient Indian text which passes as history. I may be wrong, if I am wrong, please don't hate me for my ignorance.
One of the oft repeated charges against Indians culture is that as a civilization India is not aware of History. When I say History, I mean both an "objective" analysis of the past and an effort to record events accurately for posterity.I am in qualified agreement with this.
Intellectual output of ancient India is remarkable for confluence of spirituality, narrative, mythology and philosophy.
MahaBharata and Ramayana are works of sublime grace, before them Odyssey and Iliad pale in comparison.
However, while Greeks did have works which fulfill modern criteria for History, Indians did not write anything which will satisfy the modern definition of History. So yes, the charge stands, then why is it qualified?
I think that this view suffers from lack of understanding on two counts.
First count is technology. Information transfer is dependent on the available technology and involves three opposing parameters, persistence, cost and accuracy*.
Now in the age of internet, this poses no problem.
However 2 millennium ago it was different.
The knowledge transfer was very difficult, first because writing was a tedious and thankless job, second writing medium ( i.e. papyrus or stone tablets) were either too fragile or almost impossible to work on, third even if everything was passed from generation to generation, it was impossible to instruct a large percentage of population in letters. Lastly, even if material was written and a certain percentage of population was instructed there was a real possibility that your friendly Goth (Ostro and Visi both), Franks, Huns could push you back to stone ages.
That is what happened with Greeks and Romans, while they did produce "historical" work, it was lost after their decline. In the intervening centuries church did its best to erase Greek civilization. That Europe was able to rediscover Greeks was ironically due to Arabic civilization. In short what Greek did is analogous to narrowcasting*.
However Indians used a different approach. They let go of accuracy. They used historical events as inspiration for intellectual and creative effort. Instead of prose they used verses, because verse can be easily passed orally which can not be done with prose.
Hence the emphasis on "Shruti" (What is heard).
The narrative was enmeshed with philosophy, spirituality, literature and rituals. Indian history became Indian folklore, it was passed by tales of grandmothers, it was now part of everyday song and daily grind of life.
In short, Indian way was broadcasting*.
If I have to contrast Greek and Indian civilization, I will say that Greek was elitist civilization, while India was not.
The other lack of understanding is the motivation behind history. I have bemoaned in past that Indians do not take history seriously. Let me add that even modern historians do not know the utility of history. Otherwise why a 12 year old kid should be subjected to such superfluous data as pottery in Harappa? **
Let me state the purpose, we study past in addition to natural curiosity, for a better future. This is a intellectual exercise.
Intellectual exercise in general depends on the surplus labor of the civilization .
Therefore while it is ok if we learn about Aztecs or Mongols, it did not make any sense for population at large in older times. Therefore history was transformed so as to be part of day to day life.
* I am not a student of communication science; the words are not to be taken in technical sense.
** NCERT syllabus.
One of the oft repeated charges against Indians culture is that as a civilization India is not aware of History. When I say History, I mean both an "objective" analysis of the past and an effort to record events accurately for posterity.I am in qualified agreement with this.
Intellectual output of ancient India is remarkable for confluence of spirituality, narrative, mythology and philosophy.
MahaBharata and Ramayana are works of sublime grace, before them Odyssey and Iliad pale in comparison.
However, while Greeks did have works which fulfill modern criteria for History, Indians did not write anything which will satisfy the modern definition of History. So yes, the charge stands, then why is it qualified?
I think that this view suffers from lack of understanding on two counts.
First count is technology. Information transfer is dependent on the available technology and involves three opposing parameters, persistence, cost and accuracy*.
Now in the age of internet, this poses no problem.
However 2 millennium ago it was different.
The knowledge transfer was very difficult, first because writing was a tedious and thankless job, second writing medium ( i.e. papyrus or stone tablets) were either too fragile or almost impossible to work on, third even if everything was passed from generation to generation, it was impossible to instruct a large percentage of population in letters. Lastly, even if material was written and a certain percentage of population was instructed there was a real possibility that your friendly Goth (Ostro and Visi both), Franks, Huns could push you back to stone ages.
That is what happened with Greeks and Romans, while they did produce "historical" work, it was lost after their decline. In the intervening centuries church did its best to erase Greek civilization. That Europe was able to rediscover Greeks was ironically due to Arabic civilization. In short what Greek did is analogous to narrowcasting*.
However Indians used a different approach. They let go of accuracy. They used historical events as inspiration for intellectual and creative effort. Instead of prose they used verses, because verse can be easily passed orally which can not be done with prose.
Hence the emphasis on "Shruti" (What is heard).
The narrative was enmeshed with philosophy, spirituality, literature and rituals. Indian history became Indian folklore, it was passed by tales of grandmothers, it was now part of everyday song and daily grind of life.
In short, Indian way was broadcasting*.
If I have to contrast Greek and Indian civilization, I will say that Greek was elitist civilization, while India was not.
The other lack of understanding is the motivation behind history. I have bemoaned in past that Indians do not take history seriously. Let me add that even modern historians do not know the utility of history. Otherwise why a 12 year old kid should be subjected to such superfluous data as pottery in Harappa? **
Let me state the purpose, we study past in addition to natural curiosity, for a better future. This is a intellectual exercise.
Intellectual exercise in general depends on the surplus labor of the civilization .
Therefore while it is ok if we learn about Aztecs or Mongols, it did not make any sense for population at large in older times. Therefore history was transformed so as to be part of day to day life.
* I am not a student of communication science; the words are not to be taken in technical sense.
** NCERT syllabus.
Categories : Civilization , History , Culture , India
8 comments:
But atleast lots of Greek records still remain, such as this.
I would suspect that in the ancient Indian listings of subjects that ought to be studied and researched, history did not figure.
As for utility, I think many pure mathematicians, theoretical physicists etc. too today don't care for applications. And that the ancient Indians were more interested in utility to the society ( hence India did work work on engineering, medicine, astronomy ( for astrology which people considered useful ) etc. while they did not axiomatise euclidean geometry, for instance ). Today there is this blind notion that all kinds of research should be supported by the government using taxpayer's money ( I am digressing ).
Frog,
I think it is more complicated.
Even religion doesn't have practical application. But Indians worked on it.
As I have said before there is some idea, some sort of guiding hand for all the civilizations.
Greeks were material. Indians were spritual.
And again in the historical times researchers more often that not did not directly work for society they worked for a rich patron.
This is sought to be replicated in modern times by Government support.
That is incorrect ofcourse,
but for that another post.
Regards
Regards
Religion doesn't have practical application? Atleast according to vEdAnta religion is all about practising.
I remember listening to a lecture in which what some medieval keralaite mathematician wrote about the philosophy of setting theories was quoted. If I remember it right it said something to the effect that a theory is good precisely to the extent to which it generates application needed ( hence not by its intrinsic rigour/structure/beauty ). And the person who delivered the lecture was arguing that this was the philosophy in India throughout.
People might in practice very well have worked to please patrons ( atleast there were musicians who composed in praise of their patron ), but in theory the above notion about theorizing seems to have been accepted. And then - I don't really know - but didn't hindu kings fund buddhist nalanda etc.?
Frog,
When I meant practical, I meant material.
Religion does have a practical component which is ethics, but religion goes beyond ethics in philosophy, spirituality.
Regarding whether knowledge should be persued only for application or for its own sake is a debate which has gone since many hundred years and in a way is parallel to debate between athiests and theist.
When I talked about the patron it was not for religion, but for sciences.
Regards
So what I meant was this : ancient Indian view of studies was application-oriented, whether material or spiritual. We would certainly not be interested in formal logic or P!=NP, I guess - though we would be interested in nyAyas that are applicable in arguments. Greeks developed axiomatic euclidean geometry, history etc.
It was very unusual for an ancient Indian mathematical text to give proofs of most theorems it stated - something which, they say, distinguished this mathematician from the rest of ancient/medieval Indian mathematicians.
Frog,
You think Formal Logic is not application oriented,I wonder what sutdent of Computer Sciences will say ;-).
I usually do not think in terms of Application, I think in terms of understanding.
First, I support any branch of knowledge which increases our understanding of the world.
Second, I do not support Theological or Semantic Hair Splitting that is arguing for sake of arguing.
Third, The emphasis on a particular branch is dependant on their suitability to their immediate utility.
Fourth, This means Engineering, Medicine, Jurisprudence, Ethics will always have more resources devoted.
Fifth Sprituality, Philospohy will
have lesser resources devoted.
Sixth The resources are allocated upon immediate utility. However long term utility may differ.
Regards
I thought formal logic wasn't application-oriented, I may be wrong ( may be lambda calculus which is used in lisp is an application? I have forgotten computer science! ). Anyway I think as long as support for research comes from private hands and not tax payers' money, it is all okay.
Regarding this understanding of our world : currently I am a student of mathematics, and I am really at pains to see whether what I study improves our understanding of the world. Is it really possible to make such a statement about many disciplines?
Well, I am digressing too much.
Frog,
Since relativity and quantum mechanics Maths define the reality. :-)
Seriously speaking Maths is a most powerful application oriented subject
I am not a computer engineer myself, just used to see some of my friends carrying the formal logic book
Regards
Post a Comment