Kanheri Caves; numbering more than 100, were the site of an ancient Buddhist university and contain gigantic Buddhist sculptures.
A monastic complex, it slowly grew over a thousand years, till it was large enough and important enough to be reckoned a mahavihara, like Nalanda in Bihar. The earliest recorded structures in the complex date to the second century CE, while textual records attest to the continued use of the caves as late as the 12th century. As a result, the complex is an iconographically rich site where you can see religious styles ranging from early Theravada through early and mature Mahayana, and also the beginnings of Vajrayana Buddhism.
#buddhism #cave #architecture #map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
A monastic complex, it slowly grew over a thousand years, till it was large enough and important enough to be reckoned a mahavihara, like Nalanda in Bihar. The earliest recorded structures in the complex date to the second century CE, while textual records attest to the continued use of the caves as late as the 12th century. As a result, the complex is an iconographically rich site where you can see religious styles ranging from early Theravada through early and mature Mahayana, and also the beginnings of Vajrayana Buddhism.
#buddhism #cave #architecture #map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Question: @ nikhil sheth Sir.
I sincerely and truly love history and many times fail to defend the virtues of reading it. I request you Sir, kindly provide you views on Importance or History and Significance of it in concrete arguments. Why one should history? Sir academic type answer. Thanks Sir.
Answer:
It will involve a long discussion, about purpose of history, utility of history. The reasons vary from culture to culture also. Sometimes people want to build nation and societies, while other times, they want to build character.
I was asked this question in both the UPSC interviews I gave - its utility as civil servant or in life.... In one of them, I even told the chairman that if we look at all the knowledge only from the instrumentalist perspective, from the point of view of utility, then we would never be wise and happy. Knowledge sometimes can be for the sake of knowledge only. (may be this answer is more suitable for a philosopher than a future civil servant)
Of all social sciences, it is the oldest one. But when I began reading history, I was told that there are certain virtues which are developed over last couple of centuries, with the rise of positivist history writing, and academic scholars claiming monopoly over history writing.... History got method, it claimed certain objectivity, it got its distinct identity. And academics claimed territory.
But I soon discovered that over last 3-4 decades all these walls are falling off with the rise of post-colonial, post-structural, post-modern views laced with critical, literary and cultural turn.... Objectivity is found to be impossible, history and myth are still not very clearly separated, rationality is de-bunked as post-Englightnment fundamentalism, academic scholars painfully discovered that they don't monopolize history writing, and de-politicization history was termed as unethical because it is after all a praxis. You create theories for some political agenda.
Disillusioned by all of this, the more I read about it, the more I realize that it is just personal preference.
I find that all the differences between history-memory, history-identity, history-literature, history-mythology, history-philosophy collapsing when I go deeper. History also provides raw material for every other social science - from management to political science and sociology to psychology - so if you like history, you will end up liking all these subjects. I am also dissatisfied with my present class-caste-cultural-regional being and history helps me travel temporally and spatially very wide afar. And that journey is inward, not outward, which helps me identify who I am, makes me better aware of my own self. Finally, I like stories of humans. For me, history is the story of human endevour.
Not for lessons to be learnt (instrumentalist), but for self realization and more importantly for amazement.
PS: It is not a very academic answer as you wanted... but a personal one. There is a separate subject called Philosophy of History, which you can read for the pedantic viewpoint. People have thought a lot about it.
@nikhilhistoryoptional
I sincerely and truly love history and many times fail to defend the virtues of reading it. I request you Sir, kindly provide you views on Importance or History and Significance of it in concrete arguments. Why one should history? Sir academic type answer. Thanks Sir.
Answer:
It will involve a long discussion, about purpose of history, utility of history. The reasons vary from culture to culture also. Sometimes people want to build nation and societies, while other times, they want to build character.
I was asked this question in both the UPSC interviews I gave - its utility as civil servant or in life.... In one of them, I even told the chairman that if we look at all the knowledge only from the instrumentalist perspective, from the point of view of utility, then we would never be wise and happy. Knowledge sometimes can be for the sake of knowledge only. (may be this answer is more suitable for a philosopher than a future civil servant)
Of all social sciences, it is the oldest one. But when I began reading history, I was told that there are certain virtues which are developed over last couple of centuries, with the rise of positivist history writing, and academic scholars claiming monopoly over history writing.... History got method, it claimed certain objectivity, it got its distinct identity. And academics claimed territory.
But I soon discovered that over last 3-4 decades all these walls are falling off with the rise of post-colonial, post-structural, post-modern views laced with critical, literary and cultural turn.... Objectivity is found to be impossible, history and myth are still not very clearly separated, rationality is de-bunked as post-Englightnment fundamentalism, academic scholars painfully discovered that they don't monopolize history writing, and de-politicization history was termed as unethical because it is after all a praxis. You create theories for some political agenda.
Disillusioned by all of this, the more I read about it, the more I realize that it is just personal preference.
I find that all the differences between history-memory, history-identity, history-literature, history-mythology, history-philosophy collapsing when I go deeper. History also provides raw material for every other social science - from management to political science and sociology to psychology - so if you like history, you will end up liking all these subjects. I am also dissatisfied with my present class-caste-cultural-regional being and history helps me travel temporally and spatially very wide afar. And that journey is inward, not outward, which helps me identify who I am, makes me better aware of my own self. Finally, I like stories of humans. For me, history is the story of human endevour.
Not for lessons to be learnt (instrumentalist), but for self realization and more importantly for amazement.
PS: It is not a very academic answer as you wanted... but a personal one. There is a separate subject called Philosophy of History, which you can read for the pedantic viewpoint. People have thought a lot about it.
@nikhilhistoryoptional
My comment in the context of controversy over Iqbal's song:
(This issue is still being discussed in various newspapers. So, here is an opinion, based on my limited understanding. I may not be correct on every issue and this is indeed a very controversial topic. But I still think something must be said - because you either read about Iqbal as good or Iqbal as bad. But everything needs contextualization.)
If you put politics aside, you will notice one thing - the parallels between Iqbal and Azad. Both were scholars of Islam and created profound amount of literature.
At the beginning. Iqbal was for all India, not at all communal. So, his poetry in the first two decades of the 20th century indicates secularism, all India nationalism and also his profound philosophy of Khudi (which he develops further later). On the other hand, at that time, Azad believed in global Islam, no belief in nation-state, he was regarded as 'world's' greatest Islamic interpreter of Quran, lived long time in West Asia. He supported Khilafat movement for Islamic cause.
But things evolve. Gradually in 1920s, things became opposite. Iqbal started to support Muslim separatism. He became spiritual father of Pakistan movement. He convinced Jinnah to come back to India and lead it politically in 1930s, so that his own philosophical ideas get material shape. But he didnt live long enough to see it really happen. On the other side, now Azad joined Congress, started to follow Gandhi and became champion of Hindu-Muslim unity. He even led Congress during the early 1940s as the President when all negotiations were at crucial stage.
So, it is all selectivism. Those commentators who want to prove Iqbal as secular and broad minded would generally cite his poems from before 1920s - eg Bachche ki Duwa, Naya Shivala (one of the greatest poems I feel), or the very beautifully evocative Sare Jahan Se Achha.... And those other commentators who want to show that he was a spiritual father of Pakistan movement, would cite his poems after 1920s, when he wrote another version of Sare Jahan se acchha - it read as Chin-o-Arab Hamara, Hindustan Hamara, Muslim hai ham, vatan hai sara jahan hamara.
Iqbal was one of the great philosophers of 20th century and there is no doubt about it. He was also one of the great Urdu poets too. (although he didnt like Urdu as much as Persian, and he Persianized Urdu too much). After Ghalib and before Faiz, you have Iqbal as a great Urdu poet. But, when it comes to his politics, there is no one Iqbal, there are two Iqbals - one before 1920s and another after.
Real question one should be asking is - why would Iqbal, who was champion of such Indian patriotism, turn into ardent supporter of Islamic ummah and also spiritual father of Pakistan? This transition happened in 1920s. What happened to India in 1920s? There are many other things happening to India in 1920s.
In 1920s, Communist Party of India started to come to India. In 1920s, youth was disillusioned and turned towards revolutionary acts. In 1920s, NCM-Khilafat failed and Moplah revolt shocks India. In 1920s, Hijarat movement starts. In 1920s, few of the worst riots in India ever - Kanpur and Kohat riots - happened. In 1920s, RSS was formed. In 1920s, Jinnah starts going away from Hindu-Muslim Unity. In 1920s, Gandhiji rises in politics. In 1920s, Trade Unionism starts becoming intensely political. In 1920s, we have the elections under 1919 Act and consequent politicization... And many more things...
1920s is one of the dangerous decades in our pre-independence history. A lot of modern political ideologies become crystallized in Indian society and sections/parties get formed on those lines. There was, as Sekhar Bandyopadhyay says (in some other context but I re-purpose it here) - In 1920s, a crisis in the unity of India.
(This issue is still being discussed in various newspapers. So, here is an opinion, based on my limited understanding. I may not be correct on every issue and this is indeed a very controversial topic. But I still think something must be said - because you either read about Iqbal as good or Iqbal as bad. But everything needs contextualization.)
If you put politics aside, you will notice one thing - the parallels between Iqbal and Azad. Both were scholars of Islam and created profound amount of literature.
At the beginning. Iqbal was for all India, not at all communal. So, his poetry in the first two decades of the 20th century indicates secularism, all India nationalism and also his profound philosophy of Khudi (which he develops further later). On the other hand, at that time, Azad believed in global Islam, no belief in nation-state, he was regarded as 'world's' greatest Islamic interpreter of Quran, lived long time in West Asia. He supported Khilafat movement for Islamic cause.
But things evolve. Gradually in 1920s, things became opposite. Iqbal started to support Muslim separatism. He became spiritual father of Pakistan movement. He convinced Jinnah to come back to India and lead it politically in 1930s, so that his own philosophical ideas get material shape. But he didnt live long enough to see it really happen. On the other side, now Azad joined Congress, started to follow Gandhi and became champion of Hindu-Muslim unity. He even led Congress during the early 1940s as the President when all negotiations were at crucial stage.
So, it is all selectivism. Those commentators who want to prove Iqbal as secular and broad minded would generally cite his poems from before 1920s - eg Bachche ki Duwa, Naya Shivala (one of the greatest poems I feel), or the very beautifully evocative Sare Jahan Se Achha.... And those other commentators who want to show that he was a spiritual father of Pakistan movement, would cite his poems after 1920s, when he wrote another version of Sare Jahan se acchha - it read as Chin-o-Arab Hamara, Hindustan Hamara, Muslim hai ham, vatan hai sara jahan hamara.
Iqbal was one of the great philosophers of 20th century and there is no doubt about it. He was also one of the great Urdu poets too. (although he didnt like Urdu as much as Persian, and he Persianized Urdu too much). After Ghalib and before Faiz, you have Iqbal as a great Urdu poet. But, when it comes to his politics, there is no one Iqbal, there are two Iqbals - one before 1920s and another after.
Real question one should be asking is - why would Iqbal, who was champion of such Indian patriotism, turn into ardent supporter of Islamic ummah and also spiritual father of Pakistan? This transition happened in 1920s. What happened to India in 1920s? There are many other things happening to India in 1920s.
In 1920s, Communist Party of India started to come to India. In 1920s, youth was disillusioned and turned towards revolutionary acts. In 1920s, NCM-Khilafat failed and Moplah revolt shocks India. In 1920s, Hijarat movement starts. In 1920s, few of the worst riots in India ever - Kanpur and Kohat riots - happened. In 1920s, RSS was formed. In 1920s, Jinnah starts going away from Hindu-Muslim Unity. In 1920s, Gandhiji rises in politics. In 1920s, Trade Unionism starts becoming intensely political. In 1920s, we have the elections under 1919 Act and consequent politicization... And many more things...
1920s is one of the dangerous decades in our pre-independence history. A lot of modern political ideologies become crystallized in Indian society and sections/parties get formed on those lines. There was, as Sekhar Bandyopadhyay says (in some other context but I re-purpose it here) - In 1920s, a crisis in the unity of India.
As a student of history, this poses an interesting question - use of public memory as a source of history.
We don't depend on the use of only documentary sources to recreate history anymore. They are never exhaustive. Living community memory, folk-tales, folk-songs are important too. But if we see closely, public memory tells us more about perceptions of the public rather than the actually events. What they think they saw, rather than what really happened. And it is very useful tool to analyze, as these forces, real or unreal in origin, are powerful in shaping our behaviour.
In Maharashtra, there is one Muslim character - Madari Mehatar - in the history of Shivaji, which is almost certainly fictional because there is no contemporary evidence. But common people believe he happened. Most probably, in Assam also, Bagh Hazarika can never be proven. Lets grant that he is a myth. Then the next question is, is it a useful myth? Should it be deconstructed?
A real test for promotion of scientific temperament :)
We don't depend on the use of only documentary sources to recreate history anymore. They are never exhaustive. Living community memory, folk-tales, folk-songs are important too. But if we see closely, public memory tells us more about perceptions of the public rather than the actually events. What they think they saw, rather than what really happened. And it is very useful tool to analyze, as these forces, real or unreal in origin, are powerful in shaping our behaviour.
In Maharashtra, there is one Muslim character - Madari Mehatar - in the history of Shivaji, which is almost certainly fictional because there is no contemporary evidence. But common people believe he happened. Most probably, in Assam also, Bagh Hazarika can never be proven. Lets grant that he is a myth. Then the next question is, is it a useful myth? Should it be deconstructed?
A real test for promotion of scientific temperament :)
From where are you all studying the following topic in World History? Can you throw some light on the sources?
Decolonization and Underdevelopment: Factors constraining Development ; Latin America, Africa.
Decolonization and Underdevelopment: Factors constraining Development ; Latin America, Africa.
I had been busy for the last few days. I will go through all these messages in the Discussion group and reply asap now.
How is the preparation going on? How are you planning to manage the Optional preparation along with Prelims for the next three and half months?
Forwarded from Nikhil Sheth - History and Culture
William Darlymple's new book is finally just around the corner. UPSC has asked the question in the past - about spread of Indian culture outside India.
@nikhilhistoryoptional
@nikhilhistoryoptional
William Darlymple says that before 1783, the British state had no role to play in the wars, conquests and colonial expansion in India. This is a typical western view. Many Indian historians would not agree with it.
What is your assessment?
@nikhilhistoryculture
What is your assessment?
@nikhilhistoryculture
Mapping Practice
From today, I will share some practice maps for you. Since many of you have entered Prelims zone, this will be a fun activity, which will keep you in touch with optional by engaging you for minimum time.
Each map will have 5 sites from the same theme/era. You are supposed to take some time, and try to identify the sites and put your answers here. The themes will start from Paleolithic.
#map
From today, I will share some practice maps for you. Since many of you have entered Prelims zone, this will be a fun activity, which will keep you in touch with optional by engaging you for minimum time.
Each map will have 5 sites from the same theme/era. You are supposed to take some time, and try to identify the sites and put your answers here. The themes will start from Paleolithic.
#map
Day 1: Paleolithic Era
Identify the five sites and write their descriptions here in the comment.
#map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Identify the five sites and write their descriptions here in the comment.
#map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Day 2: Mesolithic Sites
Identify the five sites and write their descriptions here in the comment.
#map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Identify the five sites and write their descriptions here in the comment.
#map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Day 3: Neolithic Sites
Identify the five sites and write their descriptions here in the comment.
#map
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Identify the five sites and write their descriptions here in the comment.
#map
@nikhilhistoryoptional