tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943761936704519680.post3298728990245652093..comments2023-06-08T09:05:48.297-07:00Comments on Medieval History Club: Medieval History Clubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05399023536739702888noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943761936704519680.post-84385455673633559932010-09-27T21:05:43.451-07:002010-09-27T21:05:43.451-07:00north-east was never considered contiguous to hind...north-east was never considered contiguous to hindustan as it was hardly ever conquered systematically. i have argued that the roots of this proto-nationalism were vague, n did not remotely resemble modern nationalism, as u have also pointed out. but the idea of watan or qaum had significant communitarian connotations, that varied from a local qaum to a larger geographical and cultural domain.the indian nation is a result of continuous evolution, one of the latest being the contribution of the british annexations. even in 1857, the pamphlets that were doing the rounds mentioned hindustan as the land of the muslim and hindu brethren. surely, these semi-literate sepoys had little chance to be mobilised by western nationalist thought or discourse, they had rather groped for existing communitarian feelings that could envision their concepton of a watan, in a limited sense though, broadly on the lines of the former mughal empire. what they envisaged certainly does not resemble the indian nation of today, but one can arguably assert that these communitarian ideas got reshaped into modern indian nationalism when it came in contact with european thought. the element has often no separate entity in the compound it makes, but that nevertheless does not diminish its importance.somakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208739311020593104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943761936704519680.post-21205833914458648622010-09-27T14:51:47.438-07:002010-09-27T14:51:47.438-07:00Tanima, congratulations on such a detailed and pro...Tanima, congratulations on such a detailed and provocative post. A few points need to be made, not as criticism though, but as thoughts expressed aloud.<br /><br />As you said during your presentation as well, you believe that the British have not been given their due credit for introducing the modern discipline of history to us. But how can we forget the concomitant ideologies and politics that came with this? How can we forget that history was the mask to legitimise political occupation, military subjugation, economic exploitation and colonial rule? If the Indian subcontinent could have managed without any of these latter experiences, what was the need for the modern discipline of history here? History would have taken a different path, but could we not been able to do without it?<br /><br />You have said, '...the idea of a geographical and cultural entity like “India” did exist during medieval period...'. I disagree with this strongly. The present nation state of India gained its form only in the nineteenth century and coincides roughly with the British empire of this time. There were only various regional identities and conceptualisations like Hindustan (meaning land beyond Indus, signifying mainly the Ganga Basin), Rajwarra (roughly modern rajasthan), Bangla (Ganga-Brahmaputra Delta), al-Hind (entire south and south-east Asia beyond the Indus)etc. Of course, you may differ. But how would you argue your case for it?<br /><br />You have argued a case for making dates and centuries the basis for division/periodisation of history. As examples of the dates, you have cited the dates of two political events. Fine. But what about economy, religion, society, culture? Do they have such dates? How do we compare the culture, economy, commerce of two different time periods then? Wouldn't the centering of dates make us re-oriented towards political history? And what about the histories of the millions of unnamed peasants, workers, traders, priests, witches, madmen etc whose dates we have no idea about?<br /><br />Just to give you some food for thought. Think about it. :) <br /><br />@Somak: You clearly have located the seeds of the Indian nation in its medieval history and argued your case for it. But tell me, would the whole of North East India be there in India, if the British had not conquered them from Tibet and Burma? This is just an example to point out that the Indian nation state as we know it today is entirely a product of British colonial conquests. watan/qaum were terms that I don't think remotely resembled the modern notions of nation/national community.Pratyayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090869114034276330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4943761936704519680.post-57565578428573927092010-09-27T09:39:54.567-07:002010-09-27T09:39:54.567-07:00well, the post is certainly elaborate in its expo...well, the post is certainly elaborate in its exposition but i do feel the statement that 'hindustan' did not convey any 'political or national' meaning as we understand today merits serious qualification. as to political, the term certainly had a political connotation, howsoever vague, to refer to certain geographical areas that varied greatly from author to author. for ex: Al Biruni in his Kitab-al-hind(1035), actually defines the geography of the country as limited in the south by the indian ocean, and on all three other sides by the lofty mountains. In 1318, Amir khusrau also states in his metrical work 'nuh sipihr' that 'hind was the land of his birth, ....the love of one's native land(watan) is part of one's faith(iman)'.Isami's 'ode to india' (1350) also reflects this maturity of hindustan as a political and cultural domain. clearly, one may assume that the idea of a cultural community fosters the idea of a political community. chris bailey has also argued for the existence of a pre-colonial nationalism as evident from the terms 'watan', 'qaum' etc. it may not have been a modern idea of nationalism , but they can surely be called a sort of proto-nationalism. also, while defining his realm, Akbar did use the term Hindustan as a politico-cultural construct. thus, it may not have had a pan-indian vision while envisaging hindustan, but it can certainly be conceived of as a stage in the evolution of this idea. perhaps, a case of limited nationalism after all. hence to categorise hindustan as a term that did not evoke any political connotation or otherwise, is perhaps gravely incorrect.somakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208739311020593104noreply@blogger.com