Comments on: Introduction to South Asia

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Tue, 02 May 2006 15:31:15 +0000

Sepoy: btw, since I wrote the comment on the Jaffrelot Pakistan book, I’ve had a chance to go through it: “random” and “clunky” are well-chosen indeed. Quite disappointing.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Tue, 02 May 2006 15:19:43 +0000

I think Nehru’s “Discovery…” is a great idea, though I certainly agree it should be used in conjunction with something else (Khilnani is a good juxtaposition).

someone else: certainly at a popular level the stereotype persists, but I find that in academia we have a reverse– not stereotype certainly but almost a reflex by now– narrative of partition populated by a misunderstood Jinnah and overwhelming Congress responsibility.

By: someone else

someone else — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:50:58 +0000

Oh, and I’m a big fan of bose and jalal’s national, democracy, and development. especially the essays “nation as mother” and amartya sen’s essay on history.

By: someone else

someone else — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:50:17 +0000

I vote for Sumit Sarkar and the first few chapters of Discovery of India. History of Modern India was one of the best books on India I’ve ever read.

I also didn’t like Wolpert, which my undergrad professor used. I can’t put a finger on why.

Also, for partition, it might be interesting to use Joya Chatterji’s book on the partition of Bengal to counter the conventional narrative that Muslims were responsible for Partition and to focus some attention on the Partition in the East.

By: sepoy

sepoy — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:11:26 +0000

I loved using Nehru – esp. in conjunction w/ Khilnani :) The students, tho, were a tad confused by the whole thing.
No doubt about the well-written aspect.

By: whitney

whitney — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:36:32 +0000

hey folks, my first peep in to the blog in a long time: anyone still following this thread? In the quaint sentimental favorite category (a la pdcs’s shout-out to Barney Cohn’s book): who else besides me gives it up for Nehru’s The Discovery of India? Dated, sure; straight-up nationalist, what else did you expect? But it’s still the most beautifully written overview ever, and for classroom purposes, its weaknesses are its strengths. Matter of fact, I hearby _swear_ that I’ll write a lengthy intro cum commentary on it for the Wiki, once it gets going.

By: emullah

emullah — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:52:07 +0000

Antimonies of Islam (can’t find the ref but that was the title of an article published i nresearch journal)

Lewis, Bernard, “The Revolt of Islam,‚Äù New Yorker, Nov. 19, 2001.

Beinin, Joel and Joe Stork. “On Modernity, Historical Specificity, and International Context of Political Islam.” In Political Islam. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

Halliday, Fred. “The Middle East and International Politics”. In Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion and Politics in the Middle East. London; New York: tauris, 1995.

By: desiknitter

desiknitter — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:29:06 +0000

wow, that’s quite an endorsement of the books, eh? am looking forward to taking a look at it this summer.

By: pdcs

pdcs — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:10:47 +0000

folks, please read this oped in the Hindu by Sumit Sarkar:

http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/17/stories/2006041702711000.htm

By: a

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:33:23 +0000

the metcalf book barely touches on pre-british india (like 1 set up chapter), how would you use that for the first part of the course? keay goes back all the way. keay is far more entertaining to read, although metcalf really isnt bad either.

By: vanon

vanon — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:04:25 +0000

R.C Majumdar, Dutta and Roychowdhary. Somewhat old but comprehensive.

By: Zak

Zak — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:22:27 +0000

Modern Pak history Stephen Cohens the idea of Pakistan, a journey into disillsionment by Sher Mazari. Personal reads..Olaf Caroes the Pathans, Philip Hitti’s the Arabs is useful with regard to the basic Islamic history from 7th century to 11th..stuff on the Ottomans is hard to find. There is a new book on Sher Shah Suri I would like to read..I can’t remember it’s name but he is an interesting character. Any fans of Dalrymple? There is this mythologising of British rule over India now which should be taken with a pinch of salt.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:15:52 +0000

Sam: no more/less than the many European countries for which books like “Europe: A History” are written…

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:13:07 +0000

Looking at the South Asian history, I guess you might say that the countries have a common history but is this true even after 1947?

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:02:31 +0000

…actually don’t think there’s much of use in the Cohen book, REGARDLESS of whether one is an intro student or not… :-)

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:56:58 +0000

I doubt there’d be much of use in the Cohen book as far as intro. students are concerned…

I did note that the Jaffrelot edited book might be random, but there isn’t much else out there…Talbot has a tiresome writing style (at least if “Khizr Tiwana” is any indication)…

http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2006/03/khizr-tiwana_30.html

By: vausey

vausey — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:07:02 +0000

Wow, I am glad I have been reading this blog and thread. I have learned a great deal and enjoyed the discussion. Special thanks for the advice on Wolpert — like dacoit Wolpert was the first survey I read for my India courses in grad school for a minor field. Looking back, I see how his political narrative fit with how my professor taught and wrote history. So, with his foundation it is now time to broaden my understanding.

By: sepoy

sepoy — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:02:25 +0000

Ian Talbot’s writing, I just couldnt get into it… plus, I know that doom-and-gloom is paramount in any narrative of Pakistan but … still. Let’s just go with the working hypothesis that it functions for now and into the near future [i will leave aside my aside on how every book on pakistan must feature a bearded soldier/mullah/crowds of soldiers/mullahs on their cover and 'failure' on the title page since this one actually doesnt!].

Hmmm… maybe Rushdie’s Shame could be used :)

By: pdcs

pdcs — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:55:56 +0000

I also haven’t seen the new NCERT history books; I did try to get them but they weren’t available. May be i should try to get them this summer and write a detailed review. Satish Chandra’s medieval India is probably my favorite and Bipan too has some good chapters on European traders, colonialism and freedom movement, which are all accessible, even if they are ideological to a certain extent. that’s the key.

I like Khilnani’s Idea of India, have used it to good results but it would be appropriate for a course on the 20th century India. If we can have one or possibly two reference works which provide the history of the subcontinent, then course packet can do the trick. But it is imperative to have that one book, which students can refer to get their dates, chronology, geography and general context. John Keay is good for this purpose.

By: desiknitter

desiknitter — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:40:46 +0000

prithvi, i actually haven’t seen the old NCERT texts for a long time! but then i haven’t thought of bipan chandra in a long time either. i’m eager to go and look at some of the new books they have brought out after the whole saffron fracas over ncert books. there was some initiative to include local histories and projects into the school syllabi..

sepoy, you don’t like the talbot modern history of pakistan, then? i had quite liked its chapters on the 60s, the bangladesh movement and the zia period.