The question of foundations and their significance causes an interesting debate between Prakash and O'Hanlon and Washbrook. Frankly however, after reading the response that Prakash gives I understand the line that needs to be maintained between writing Indian history thematically and giving a particular theme totalizing value. However, according to my reading of his response even Gyan Prakash does not believe in abandoning the foundational categories entirely.
While going over this debate I was reminded of the time we talked about Shahid Amin's piece on Chauri Chaura. The idea that heterogeneity of local histories can be lost when compiled under the banner of a major theme (reference to Nigel Kelly and other history textbooks). This is all Prakash seems to be asking to avoid. However, the complete rejection of a thematic writing would be a disservice to the discipline and where I strongly disagree with Prakash is his extrapolation of the definition of myth and fiction.
The fact remains that even if empirical sources are not so fragmented and we get a complete picture, the picture will never be the truest representation of the past because there is only so much a historian can derive from an archive as we have discussed repeatedly over the course. Hence, there needs to some level of recognition that an interpretive leap simply has to be made but while being cognizant of the limitation of historical understanding and keeping in mind that it is not that the archives are just noise that need to be given a voice but rather a 'pregnant silence' that a voice can perhaps be extracted from as Prakash would put it.
While going over this debate I was reminded of the time we talked about Shahid Amin's piece on Chauri Chaura. The idea that heterogeneity of local histories can be lost when compiled under the banner of a major theme (reference to Nigel Kelly and other history textbooks). This is all Prakash seems to be asking to avoid. However, the complete rejection of a thematic writing would be a disservice to the discipline and where I strongly disagree with Prakash is his extrapolation of the definition of myth and fiction.
The fact remains that even if empirical sources are not so fragmented and we get a complete picture, the picture will never be the truest representation of the past because there is only so much a historian can derive from an archive as we have discussed repeatedly over the course. Hence, there needs to some level of recognition that an interpretive leap simply has to be made but while being cognizant of the limitation of historical understanding and keeping in mind that it is not that the archives are just noise that need to be given a voice but rather a 'pregnant silence' that a voice can perhaps be extracted from as Prakash would put it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.