Talk:Romila Thapar/Archive 1

The author of my history textbooks
I grew up being taught history from the three History of India text books written by her in my school. Our History teacher took the the official History text for class VII and dumped it. Then she made sure we all had a copy of HoI volume I, and our real education about Indian history began. Most of my understandings, beliefs, and knowledge about my country stem from those three books. I'm glad to see someone decided to write an article on her.

--h y dkat 06:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

communalism
User:vkhaitan Firstly, we must understand the contexts of blame of communalisation of historybooks and communalism in hisotry. The contexts are two conflicting streams of thinkings, that is nationalist and communist stream of opinions. Communist historians claims of nationlist historians of communalisation, whereas nationalist historians claims about them of outright lies and politics. Wikipedia is not about pushing one standpoint in controversies. That's why I am not in favour of removing the communalisation allegations.

To tell you the fact, the NDA government did some changes in the history textbooks. All of them were reveres by current indian regime UPA. The ncert website gives the details of reversal of changes and see whether this is communalisation or not(I myself have studied them). This is a long debatable issue. But main thing should be very clear, this is not the platform to usher one standpoint.


 * This is not the issue. It's just confused to say someone took a stance against alleged X, since a stance is a personal position.  Thapar herself would presumably state something like "I'm trying to counter communalism", not "I'm trying to counter alleged communalism".  And to say Thapar took a stance against communalism is not to make any claim about the extent or origins (or even existence) of communalism.  Perhaps the term "communalism" is debatable and scare quotes might be appropriate - though I think it's meaning is clear enough even if its politics is complicated. -- Danny Yee 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a stark difference between "She was trying to counter communalism" and "I am trying to counter communalism". First assumes that communalism is really there and she was countering, whereas second says that it is her statement, hence her opinion. Stance is a personal position, sure. But against what is not personal opinion. The word "alleged" shows here that there are groups who has done allegation of communalism(not proven). The word "alleged" has nothing to do with allegations by thapar even. So the word "alleged communalism" has nothing to do with thapar's viewpoint. I hope, after understanding the issue, you would yourself change it back. --Vkhaitan 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the implication is that Thapar only opposes alleged communalism, and that if there were verifiable cases of communalism then she wouldn't be opposed to those. Which is just bizarre. -- Danny Yee 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret the sentence. The context in which the sentence is written is that she opposed the communalism spread by "Hindu Historians" and NDA government. She has taken strong stance upon so-called communalisation of History, that is true, but then that is her allegation that that is a communalisation. Interpret the sentence in the given context. If there are verifiable cases or if there are not, that is another issue, which is not in that context. BTW, Romila thapar and other left-historians also have tried to downplay the atrocities done by muslim rulers. So her word "communalisation" has double meanings too. I am of the viewpoint of removing the sentence related to communalisation, because the same blames are also there for Romila Thapar. In fact, according to wikipedian guidelines, unless both side of controversy is represented inthe article, that sentence is planely biased. But I hoped you would realise the issue.

If you are hell bent on not having the word "alleged communalism" as it looks confusing to you, then change the whole tone of the sentence. This must not look like there was real communalism. If there is one point of view shown by the article, I may put the "neutrality disputed" tag here. --Vinay Khaitan 13:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For some understanding of controversy about left-leaning historians of double standard on communalism see this wikipedian article of a book Negationism_in_India_-_Concealing_the_Record_of_Islam. --Vinay Khaitan 14:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Romila sows communalism
It's great that an encyclopeadic article is created for Ms. Romila Thapar. Under the pretext of being a left leaning Marxist historian, Ms.Romila has authored many anti-Hindu works. She questions the scriptures of Hinduism, but doesn't have the same approach towards other religions. She takes a fanatical extremist anti-Hindu stand. She, of course is a proponent of Western thinking. It is said that the grass on the other side is greener and that is true for people like Ms.Thapar. But she would do well to understand that the grass on the other side, could be poisonous too. Ms.Thapar conveniently says she is fighting communalism. If she says she is secular, and tolerant, then I presume she is culturally tolerant as well. She would be a global citizen. I would request her to go to some theocratic states and preach secularism there. Her tirades against Hinduism are tolerated in India, not just because India is a secular state. Let me tell you that even if India would have been a theocracy (read Hindu Rashtra), she would have been tolerated. Tolerance is in Indian ethos. But if she would have been in a theocracy (like those Islamic states), she would have been severely prosecuted for blasphemy. But she doesn't understand that. She goes on rambling about things that doesn't exist. I am not a Hindutva supporter, but historians like Ms.Thapar make me feel that I should be one. But my true Indian origins stops me from adopting the Hindutva ideology. As far as I dislike Hindutva, I also abhor distorted history lessons of Ms.Thapar. However, as I said it's my personal opinion. I am a liberal and a proponent of free speech, so I would say let this article remain, but make it neutral and I would say let the word "alleged" remain as she doesn't seem to be removing communalism but feeding the Hindutva hate preachers and Islamic fundamentalists as well.

Naamdar Saheb 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've only read a few of her books, but nothing in those strikes me as at all "anti-Hindu", unless maybe one takes a very narrow view of Hinduism. If anything I'd say it helped open my eyes to just how complex and diverse Indian religion is.  (And I don't see why adovcates for secularism should be required to work for that outside their own countries -- I'm a secularist opposed to the intrusion of religion into school teaching, for example, but surely I can oppose that in Australia without worrying about Shinto in Japan or stuff I know nothing about!) -- Danny Yee 06:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's where the problem lies. You have read few of her books and you know only of one viewpoint. Knowing one viewpoint is always dangerous to neutrality. Get to know the controversies surrounding Aryan Invasion Theory debate. There are so much of politics involved. To know the other side of viewpoint, study books written by Shrikan Talegeri and Koenraad Elst on same topic. -- The best things to understand the real problem is that "don't rely on words of a historian. Check yourself about facts." Romila Thapar is many times accused of straight lying. For some controversies, read the book written by Arun Shourie "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud" . BTW, Arun Shourie is by belief Agnostic, not hindu. --Vinay Khaitan 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed POV words and made the article more neutral.

I really fail to understand Ms.Thapar's ideology. She refuses the Indian award 'Padma Bhushan'(because she can't accept state awards) and then accepts the title of First Holder of the Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the South at Library of Congress, the USA, an organisation funded by the US Government. Seems like hypocrisy to me. But there may be other reasons as well. Fighting communalism is one thing. But she must do well to understand that a nationalistic passion is necessary for a country's overall development. And for nationalistic fervour, one cannot disown one's ethnic past.

Naamdar Saheb 09:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A few rebutals about the above statements I would love to make here...
 * Romila Thapar has made it clear that she accepts no awards or recognitions from anyone except her scientific peers and their representative bodies. The Library of Congress is a premier research institute more than 200 years old. It is very much autonomous and a very very very very important repository of all human knowledge. I guess that was why she thought she should accept their honorary title, or else she would have deserved your title of hypocrisy.
 * she must do well to understand that a nationalistic passion is necessary for a country's overall development - If you read any of her books you will understand that she is one of the best assets we have got for nation building- a historian who shows us nothing but a actual history. And it is great!
 * one cannot disown one's ethnic past- Nor should one promote Bigotry in the garb of promoting an ethnic or religious group. Especially not for one as great, ancient and comprehensive as Hinduism.
 * --h y dkat 13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, who are we to decide whether her approach is scholarly or not. Secondly, she takes a stand against communalism, is a POV statement, to which some sections of the public may object. Hindutvavadis will certainly object. I am not a Hindutvavadi, but I take objection. It is appropriate to write that she is percieved as opposed to communalism.

Naamdar Saheb 13:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking a stand against communalism is not POV. Its a stand. And very precise one.. there is no disamguity allowed here; She doesn't claim you are a communalist. She is targetting communalism not YOU!
 * Hindutvavadis supports Hindutva. You do not say Hindutvavadis support alleged Hindutva. Romila Thapar is against communalism. Get that difference in your head first. If you claim Hindutva is communalism, then you are doing a great diservice to those who have painstakingly worked to show it holds for a way of life.
 * --h y dkat 13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me ask you, when have I said Hindutva equates to communalism ? I've just said I'm not Hindutvavadi. Now, does that make Hindutva communal, or for that matter, does that make me secular ? No, my friend ! One can not be a Hindutvavadi, yet one can be communal ! And by the way, when Gujarat happened, it was you guys only, who went on screaming that Hindutva is communal and blah blah... And now you do a U-turn and tell me it is a way of life. For your kind information, it is Hinduism that is a way of life, not Hindutva ! And this is according to the Supreme Court. Hindutva is an ideology. Don't tell me all Hindus have a Hindutva way of life. Get your facts straight, kid ! And then argue. And by the way, the Hindutva policy as practised today by hate preachers is certainly close to communalism. The form of Hindutva which advocates Hindu way of life is not.

Naamdar Saheb 17:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all don't call me kid. You are one really confused person and you are confusing me. :Secondly, whats the Gujrat riots got to do with a.)me and more importantly b.)this article.
 * Thirdly I was just trying to point out to you that personal stands are not alleged or POV if stated and true. They are just stands.
 * And finally don't revert something without discussing it in the talk page first, and convincing other editors first. Or you have a revert war in your hands.
 * --h y dkat 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

rm word alleged
was not signed in... --h y dkat 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"documented proofs"
An encyclopedia can't just endorse a book. We should state what the books say, and perhaps describe their reception and any controversy surrounding them, but to venture into endorsement of their claims will just result in endless POV. Does the Bible provide documented proof that Jesus rose from the dead? Does Thapar provide documented proof that common myths of Indian origins are false? This is just the wrong way to go. -- Danny Yee 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of endorsing any book. Mr.Shourie has provided documented proofs in the book, which is a common knowledge in journalism and history circles. He doesn't stop at accusing Ms.Thapar, but he provides documented proof. Your comparisions of this book with Bible or religious scriptures is out of place here. We must show what is there in the book and documented proofs are there, so why deny them. It is not unencyclopeadic. The documented proofs have been verified by the critics themselves. And by the way, just check the original article on the book itself. It is mentioned there as well. So, I am reverting back to the earlier version.

--  N aamdar   Saheb |talk to your Saab 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But you *aren't* showing what's in the book, you're just stating that it demonstrates something. And if there is a consensus among historians that it does in fact demonstrate what you claim it does, then you need to cite a statement to that effect from some acknowledged body of historians or something like that. -- Danny Yee 05:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we could change it to read "without any solid evidence", which would be just as wrong. Unless we can cite some evidence for a consensus reception of the work by historians, we're best off avoiding evaluative claims for its failure or success. -- Danny Yee 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am quite hesitant to have "documented proofs" in the main article. But after a thought, I think that hyperlinking documented proof is only possible if the book is available on the web, which is normally not the case. So the word documented proofs can still be there if documents are actually available in the book. Consensus among historians is neither required nor possible because of a sharp divide between marxist historians and nationalist historians, which has gone so far to the fact of straight lies.
 * I would accept the word documented proofs only if the book gives the official documents to emphasize their viewpoint. The official documents here means the excerpts from government circulars, excerpts from Romila Thapar's books(within context), excerpts of Actual historical records to prove the excerpts wrong.
 * I have not read the book, but some articles from that book. What I have come to conclusion is that most probably namadar saheb is right about documented proofs. However the word "documented proofs" can be changed to "rigid proofs" or something like that. --Vinay Khaitan 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The threshold of inclusioin in Wikipedia is Verifiability. Please verify your sources or anything that suggest 'proof' does not go into the article. --h y dkat 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I read that article. An excerpt "This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." So it is not necessary for it to be truth, only verifiability. As the book is published, anyone can look into the documents provided into the book. So according to wikipedian guidenlines, there is nothing wrong in writing "documented proofs". In fact, I now think that "solid/correct proof" would be a POV. Instead, documented proof is good word because it doesn't tell clearly whether documents in the book actually is undeniably correct. However I do think that Namadaar Saheb should have written at least in one line about what types of documents are actually cited.

Iconoclasm
When did romila thapar was accused of false islamic iconoclasm ?


 * Koenraad Elst, in the article cited, accuses Thapar of mistakes in her accounts of the destruction of idols by Islamic leaders. We want "Islamic iconoclasm" rather than "Hindu iconoclasm" as the sense of the phrase is "destruction of idols by X", not "destruction of X idols". -- Danny Yee 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * uh, you are totally mistaken. for example read Hindu Iconoclams by elst. Actually elst has even accused thapar of producing false evidences of Hindu Iconoclasm just to counter islamic iconoclasm claims. Islam is nowhere in the picture even.--Vinay Khaitan 12:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, that paper is about claims about Hindu iconoclasm. But Elst also accuses Thapar of errors about Islamic iconoclasm, which is why I got confused. -- Danny Yee 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars
I have been following this for sometime. Edit wars are bad. I do hope that the users here are mature enough to resolve differences through talkpage rather than getting into unnecessary and unproductive revert wars. Also, seeing anon IPs and new users immediately enter revert wars raises concerns of sockpuppetry or strawman puppetry. I was reviewing this to see if the page requires protection. Page protection is bad and typically, the last line of defense - I hope that you will not let matters to deteriorate to that extent. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to mention that I reverted only once and that is because someone edited the page to "Romila Thapar is a Bitch" . I do understand that revert wars are the worst thing to happen on wikipedia. Hence I never indulge into that. I have made policy for myself that I would like to discuss matter in the talk page. But if after 1-2 day, no response on talk page, I change it according to my understanding.--Vinay Khaitan 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the current version of the criticism section meets everyone halfway. The article now has her accomplishments and her critics in equal measure. This page is really meant to inform people about who she is, not to make/promote an opinion about her. So please lets leave it at that and be done with this. --h y dkat(msg me) 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, every action has certain reaction? The article about her has certain POV included with it. it doesn't talk only about her role in history writing, but also the political side relating to hindutva ideology. Then, of course, it is necessary to present other viewpoints on her. I had only added the "alleged" word to say that the word "communalism" is not generally acceptable. People removed it initially using arguments like "it is her opinion", then after that second argument came for rescue. Now, if these things keep on happening here, it is necessary to represent other side of POV. Noone can clap with one hand.--Vinay Khaitan 06:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand... you will not accept the current version? --h y dkat 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

POV?
One paragraph of criticism doesn't seem excessive, and I think it's notable that Thapar has been subjected to such attacks. -- Danny Yee 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will remove it. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that is lot of material both on the internet and in print that is critical of Thapar, I think it is appropriate that a Controversy section (although small) be present. User:Outlookeditor

Marxist
I suspect Thapar could correctly be labelled "marxist" - as a statement of her approach to history - but "Marxist" would depend on her political stance rather than her historiography. -- Danny Yee 11:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"critical"?
For early India, "Hindu customs and beliefs" has (at least if "Hindu" is interpreted broadly) much the same meaning as "customs and beliefs", but it would make no sense to describe Thapar as "critical of customs and beliefs". And "critical of religion" or "critical of Hinduism" don't make much sense in that context either. Actually, "critical" here may be confusing - as a marxist historian, Thapar tries to elucidate class structures and their workings, but is generally free from judgements about them. -- Danny Yee 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pls cite sources for what you claim.-Bharatveer 11:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the claim that she has 'anti-hindu views' has to be sited then. Only thing known is that she is criticised. Removing statement --h y dka t 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)