Most narratives of the historiography of ancient India inspire a strong sense of déjà vu. There is the mandatory bashing of the imperialist historians, followed by a litany of complaints against the nationalist historians. This is followed by an account of post-Independence developments, in which the writing of ancient Indian history is presented as coming of age, with the imbalances and biases of the earlier eras replaced by a more sophisticated and sounder understanding of the past. This simple tripartite division of ancient Indian historiography (imperialist, nationalist, recent) does not work. It conceals the fact that there are spill-overs from one phase to another. For instance, the ‘nationalist’ glorification and idealization of the ancient past today serves other political agendas. The tripartite division of ancient Indian historiography also conceals the fact that while certain features and frameworks of ‘imperialist’ historiography have rightly been discarded, there are others that have been internalized and absorbed into post-colonial history writing.
January 2004, volume 28, No 1
786491 831124Aw, it was a extremely very good post. In concept I would like to devote writing such as this furthermore,?C spending time and specific work to produce an excellent post?- nonetheless so what can I say?- I waste time alot and never at all appear to obtain 1 thing completed. 113922
476554 840576Ive applied the valuable points from this page and I can certainly tell that it gives plenty of assistance with my present jobs. I would be very pleased to keep getting back in this web page. Thank you. 471981
958511 916829Thanks for the post, was an interesting read. Curious as to how you came about that solution 661433