5 ms·

I don't think it is worried plan. Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. That is not only history of India, they are just adding old hist

I don't think it is worried plan. Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. That is not only history of India, they are just adding old history as well.

r_singh 9y ago
I agree with you actually. Having studied ICSE growing up, those 2 topics are the most prominent parts of Indian history in my memory, after which come Maratha and Rajput history.
- newyankee 9y ago
  I remember studying in Pune i had some ICSE friends who did not care or knew much about Shivaji and his contributions. Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu. So Tamil Nadu, has its own rich history, literary heritage, food habits, clothes, festivals etc etc. Going back to thousands of years. Same with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka or Kerala. Why do you expect they study Maharashtra's history?
    - newyankee 9y ago
      Even in my MH board i have studied about most South Indian empires from Cholas, Krishnadevaraya, Harihara and Bukka and so on. They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now.
      - kamaal 9y ago
        >> They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now. So sufficient enough history is being taught. That should settle the discussion.
kamaal 9y ago
>>Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. History goes as back it as it can go. Unless you wish to transform the entire school syllabus into a kind of a history specialization there is no way you can teach all of Indian history. At the same time, you have to teach history whose effects are relevant to you. This is the biggest dilemma that Indians face throughout. You have to learn in which language? Most likely in almost everybody's case that is 'English'. So you have to talk about that bit of history in great details given the effects of colonization reflect on the masses and their culture even now. North India relishes Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani poetry, movies, songs and all based on literary legacy of the Mughals. Heck even to a great extent food and clothing habits come from that era. So you have to talk about them. Then you go as far as you can go and talk a little about people like Ashoka etc. But then again, it makes no sense to keep talking about era of bygones which doesn't influence the current state of affairs in any real way. Or like I said, you just have to toss out other subjects and just teach history.
- msravi 9y ago
  You are severely and grossly underestimating the influence of ancient culture on our everyday lives in India - a living example of what whitewashing of our history has achieved. In the words of B B Lal, director of the Archaeological Survey of India: ...the application by married Hindu women of vermilion (sindūra) in the partition line of the hair on the head, the wearing of multiple bangles on the arms and of pāyala around the ankles; practice of yogic exercises; worshipping Lord Shiva, even in the form of liṅga-cum-yoni; performing rituals using fire-altars, using sacred symbols like the svastika; and so on. Indeed, be not surprised if I told you that the way you greet each other with namaste goes back to the Harappan times. Above all, even some of the folk tales, like those of ‘A Thirsty Crow’ or ‘The Cunning Fox’, which grandmothers narrate to the children while putting them to sleep originated in the Harappan times. https://www.newsgram.com/vedic-and-harappan-are-respectively-literary-and-material-facets-of-same-civilization-b-b-lal/amp/ https://www.newsgram.com/vedic-and-harappan-are-respectively...
- chauhankiran 9y ago
  I don't personally think that only those part of history needs to be teach that is relevant to generations. >> it makes no sense to keep talking Indian flag has Ashoka chakra in middle.

I don't think it is worried plan. Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. That is not only history of India, they are just adding old history as well.

r_singh 9y ago

I agree with you actually. Having studied ICSE growing up, those 2 topics are the most prominent parts of Indian history in my memory, after which come Maratha and Rajput history.

newyankee 9y ago
I remember studying in Pune i had some ICSE friends who did not care or knew much about Shivaji and his contributions. Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu.
- kamaal 9y ago
  >>Imagine this happening in Tamil Nadu. So Tamil Nadu, has its own rich history, literary heritage, food habits, clothes, festivals etc etc. Going back to thousands of years. Same with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka or Kerala. Why do you expect they study Maharashtra's history?
  - newyankee 9y ago
    Even in my MH board i have studied about most South Indian empires from Cholas, Krishnadevaraya, Harihara and Bukka and so on. They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now.
    - kamaal 9y ago
      >> They were never excluded and made a point to include prominent contributions from all part of the country as we define it now. So sufficient enough history is being taught. That should settle the discussion.

kamaal 9y ago

>>Textbook treats history of india as only Mughals and British. History goes as back it as it can go. Unless you wish to transform the entire school syllabus into a kind of a history specialization there is no way you can teach all of Indian history. At the same time, you have to teach history whose effects are relevant to you. This is the biggest dilemma that Indians face throughout. You have to learn in which language? Most likely in almost everybody's case that is 'English'. So you have to talk about that bit of history in great details given the effects of colonization reflect on the masses and their culture even now. North India relishes Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani poetry, movies, songs and all based on literary legacy of the Mughals. Heck even to a great extent food and clothing habits come from that era. So you have to talk about them. Then you go as far as you can go and talk a little about people like Ashoka etc. But then again, it makes no sense to keep talking about era of bygones which doesn't influence the current state of affairs in any real way. Or like I said, you just have to toss out other subjects and just teach history.

msravi 9y ago
You are severely and grossly underestimating the influence of ancient culture on our everyday lives in India - a living example of what whitewashing of our history has achieved. In the words of B B Lal, director of the Archaeological Survey of India: ...the application by married Hindu women of vermilion (sindūra) in the partition line of the hair on the head, the wearing of multiple bangles on the arms and of pāyala around the ankles; practice of yogic exercises; worshipping Lord Shiva, even in the form of liṅga-cum-yoni; performing rituals using fire-altars, using sacred symbols like the svastika; and so on. Indeed, be not surprised if I told you that the way you greet each other with namaste goes back to the Harappan times. Above all, even some of the folk tales, like those of ‘A Thirsty Crow’ or ‘The Cunning Fox’, which grandmothers narrate to the children while putting them to sleep originated in the Harappan times. https://www.newsgram.com/vedic-and-harappan-are-respectively-literary-and-material-facets-of-same-civilization-b-b-lal/amp/ https://www.newsgram.com/vedic-and-harappan-are-respectively...
chauhankiran 9y ago
I don't personally think that only those part of history needs to be teach that is relevant to generations. >> it makes no sense to keep talking Indian flag has Ashoka chakra in middle.