Talk:Romila Thapar

Marxist Historiography

I have added this - " E.Sreedharan in his book "A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000" discusses Thapar's historical works under a chapter titled the Marxist phase of Indian History writing.He lists her name along with other renowned Marxist historians such as D. D. Kosambi, R.S.Sharma, Bipin Chandra and Irfan Habib." . Please note that the reference cited is from the book, which has been previously cited in the article. -Bharatveer (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Bharatveer (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem to call Thapar a Marxist when she has said that she isn't, and that she believes the label is abusive. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is not calling thapar a "marxist" ; it is merely reporting that in the book

"A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000" , her works are discussed under the chapter "the MArxist phase" . This shows the scholarly perception of her works. -Bharatveer (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you contending that a textbook written by a transit engineer is representative of the mainstream scholarly evaluation of Thapar's work? That's probably not the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please dont jump to wild conclusions.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really an adequate rejoinder. What's "wild" about my conclusion? Take a look at E. Sreedharan--this is the gentleman who wrote the textbook, no? Is he a historian? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how you reached that conclusion , my dear friend. Is there any reference in that article E. Sreedharan, about his writing history books. -Bharatveer (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means, then, tell us: who is this expert, E.Sreedharan, who writes history books? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the references from this book was used in this article before . Just wondering why questions are being raised now. Anyway , it is always good to ask questions.

This link (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/archive/041017/books9.htm) is a review of the book mentioned. This link (http://www.staff.brad.ac.uk/akundu/csa/csa-books.htm) shows that he has another book to his credit (Sreedharan, E., A Manual of Historical Research Methodology. Trivandrum: Centre for South Indian Studies, 2007) . Hope this information helps.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User Doldrum deleted the entire reference completely .The title of a wikipedia need not be referenced. This clearly shows how this particular article us being protected by users doldrum and Akhilleus . I would ask some sane admins , to intervene here , as it is a clear case of WP:OWN.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

by all means, do. or you could walk over to WP:HIST and ask someone who knows something about how historians work to look at what the source says and determine whether ur interpretation of it is correct. Doldrums (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But as you clearly know , thats not how WP works .The edit was properly referenced and the edit in question was not in anyway abusive. So please give your reasons why you deleted it. The reason you have given is extremely childish and you know it very well too. I would request you to reinstate that deleted portion and add appropriate tags , if you feel necessary -Bharatveer (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the first paragraph (p. 469) of the chapter on Marxist history explains what Shreedharan is talking about, and what he is not. Doldrums (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please give your reasons why you are deleting this particular edit? -" E.Sreedharan in his book "A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000" discusses Thapar's historical works under a chapter titled the Marxist phase of Indian History writing.He lists her name along with other renowned Marxist historians such as D. D. Kosambi, R.S.Sharma, Bipin Chandra and Irfan Habib" . ??-07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)U

you're welcome to describe Thapar's work, including its Marxist underpinnings, and how it relates to the work of Kosambi and other historians. naming a chapter title in a book and listing other names in the chapter, however, doesn't cut it. Doldrums (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP welcomes any one who can edit. My edit is entirely valid. It states that this particular author list her name under "the marxist phase" .Now I can understand why you are so much worried about this edit .But thats how the truth is. Better get adjust to it.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer, this also allows us to revert your edits. Without providing any context the content you added looks like a clumsy and politically motivated attack against Thapar. Dance With The Devil (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this google books link allows reading a few pages where this chapter lies. Read and decide for yourself. HTH. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Bharatveer's edit, which has been restored by User:Tripping Nambiar, is not very informative. It boils down to "Sreedharan calls Thapar a Marxist." I don't see how that's useful for the reader--it doesn't tell us why Thapar might be called a Marxist, which is a fairly elastic term. And, as has been discussed before, Thapar sees the label "Marxist" as a politically-motivated attack.

From the link that GDibyendu supplied above, it appears that Sreedharan classifies a number of historians as "Marxist" or within the "Marxist phase" because they employ "analysis and explanation in terms of economic production and social classes" as "basic tenets in historical reconstruction". This is a remarkably vague definition of Marxism, and I think it's almost useless, because it's so broad as to include a huge number of academic historians (if not a majority). I don't think this edit needs to remain in the article; if it stays, it certainly needs to be contextualized better, and Thapar's comments about the political motivation of calling historians "Marxists" also needs to be in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what I tried to bring up on Bharatveer's talk page. Sreedharan fails to provide specifics as to why he considered Thapar's work Marxist historiography. If he actually provided some logical reasoning (and if Bharatveer had provided a sensible context for the Marxist label), then I wouldn't have any problem with the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User Akhilleous , Sreedharan discusses only a select few (very emininent marxist indian historians). It is a very detailed anaylsis and an important one at that. Don't try "judging" Sreedharan (erroneously calling him a transit engineer, not a mainstream scholar etc). One more thing , this article definitely needs more of the "historiography" part of Romila thapar and in that subsection, this edit will definitely find its place. I would request users AkhilleousNishkid, Doldrum, Devildance etc not to WP:OWN this article.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Section: Criticism of Romila Thapar

Despite all the pro-Thaparism :) above, I have once again tried to add some criticism of the subject. I hope this edit doesn't get dismantled like the ones above did. Please help! Nshuks7 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to discuss these edits first. "Criticism" based on sources such as Koenraad Elst doesn't add anything useful to this article, in my opinon. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Negationism is not a valid source for criticism? Coming from an independent as well as professional historian, both of which were cited in above discussions. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for replying to myself :) but can't help wondering why the above discussion led to complete elimination of Arun Shourie's criticism? I understand two points in favor of this: (1) he is not a notable historian and (2) one book of his is alleged to be self published. All the same, Shourie has been an editor of The Indian Express, a notable publication in India with a record of fearless mainstream journalism. As such his views should be incorporated, right? What am I missing here?

Secondly, if there has been a lot of controversy surrounding her work and speech, it ought to find a mention as it has been a significant feature of her public life -- keeping in mind that this is a biographic article. The fact is that almost every debate/dialog she has been involved in has ended in her favor, both in terms of outcome and in terms of public/intellectual support. The latter ought to find a place in her bio, which cannot be done unless the fact of controversy is mentioned. Again, am I missing something here? Nshuks7 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for user --Akhilleus to cite reasons for undoing an entire section. As an academic and published historian, counter-views and criticisms from valid sources should stay on page. Specifically, Koenraad Elst has been deemed useful in discussions above. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of the past debate but I reverted the most recent addition of the section, since its relevance to Thapar's biography seems a huge stretch (Elst criticizing Thapar for influencing Spear into not criticizing Aurengzeb adequetely + a quote about Elst writing about Spear writing about Aurengzeb's activities; how is that relevant or due here ?! ) and the indiastar link failed WP:EL requirements, especially for a BLP. Without having looked for sources myself, I would guess there are academic and ideological critiques of Thapar (as would be true for any prominent historian) and it would be prefectly fine to include such properly sourced and notable views in the article; however till such sources are located we should not settle for less direct or credible material just for the sake of having "criticism". Abecedare (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The "past debate" is up above :) I read through it and it does not dispute Elst's validity.

Point taken, Abecedare. However, the indirectness could have been stated in a more direct way, hence an edit would have sufficed: no need to remove the whole section. Also, out of curiosity, does it not bother you that an "eminent historian's" bio has no section on criticism? Nshuks7 (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll read the whole debate some other day when I have more time; but to address your last question: In most cases I hate seeing "Criticism" sections in articles about people, or even books, movies etc. You'll hardly ever find such fenced off negative evaluations in other encyclopedias or obituaries, and so far as wiki bios are meant to be a summing up of a persons life and work (living obituary, if you will), I think such sections are signs of bad writing, and reflect an unhappy compromise reached by a committee of wikipedia writers. Of course it is both fair and important to include well sourced and notable (even biased!) reviews of a person's life and work in their wiki bios; but such (positive and negative) critiques should ideally be integrated into the article body, giving each aspect due weight. That said, I don't see myself as King Canute standing in the way of adding Criticism sections to any biographical article as a matter of principle. My reason for reverting the addition in this specific instance was, as stated above, its relevance, and dueness. Abecedare (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand; sometimes there is undue noise in such sections, and indeed there are cases when articles on unpopular figures have larger sections on criticism than the person themselves.

On the other hand -- provided that the section is well composed (which I hope you will help me in) -- it is an invaluable resource to the reader in setting up the dialectic. Likewise, in the case of Romila Thapar, I had to look very very hard to find the counterpoint to her writings. To my surprise even Google did not throw any light on scholarly disagreements with Thapar. Then I found out that actually much of her work is a critique on past historians (I have added that line in the section above the Criticism section). Once again, if you find any POV in my writing, please edit, but at the same time, please don't drop the section altogether. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nshuks, I have again undone your addition for reasons explained below:

Although works of Romila Thapar have met with unequivocal plaudits from the historians in particular, she has also met with criticism from other quarters, specifically extremist Hindu organizations and members of the Indian right wing.

No citation supporting "unequivocal plaudits from the historians" + characterization of critics. Remember, that sourcing requirements don't dissappear just because the statement being made is largely positive; also the currency on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Apart from the above, Koenraad Elst, a Belgian writer and orientalist without any institutional affiliation, wrote a book titled Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, in which he cites Thapar as having co-authored a "Negationist" view in "Penguin History of India" where the influence of Islamic rule on India had been blunted, as in: "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares."

This is simply false! Thapar wrote the first volume of the Penguin's A History of India (also known as The Penguin History of Early India in later rewritten editions) that covered the time-period till 1526, i.e. the pre-Mughal period, so obviously she did not "co-author" the statement Elst/you ascribe to her. The second volume of the book was written by historian Percival Spear, and contains (approximately) the quote you cite; of course the quote by Spear is irrelevant in Thapar's bio.

Where Aurangzeb is well known as an intolerant Mughal emperor who enforced the Shariah on non-Muslims during his rule.

This sentence is a perfect example of original research, whereby you contradict a statement by a published historian without citing a source. Note that, even with sourcing and proper attribution such a statement would probably constitute synthesis - but the whole issue is moot, since the Aurengzeb issue itself is irrelevant here.
Even your other addition to the article, "In her works, she has also struck down Indian historians such as K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and R. C. Majumdar, when in Early India she says that their views "were biased by nationalistic sentiments" is phrased inappropriately (struck down?! are we talking about historians or WWE  ?). I'll reword the sentence for now, but we need an in-line citation, if it is to be retained.
I trust that you are editing in good faith, but currently you don't seem to have got the hang of sourcing, neutral wording requirements. So, I would highly recommend that you compose and dicuss any further additions to the article here on the talk page, before adding them to them to the article. I hope you take my critique and advice in the positive spirit it is intended. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nshuks, I had intended to edit your statement, "In her works, she has also struck down Indian historians such as K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and R. C. Majumdar, when in Early India she says that their views "were biased by nationalistic sentiments", but having looked at the source (Chapter 1, "Perceptions of the Past" in Early history: From the Origins to AD 1300) I see that the quote is a mis-characterization of the content by selective and incorrect quote-mining (in fact the phrase "were biased by nationalistic sentiments" doesn't seem to appear in the book. Are we looking at different editions ? I am referring to the 2004, University of California Press, ISBN 0520242254 edition; what edition did you pick the quote from ? )

In the chapter, Thapar discusses and contrasts different viewpoints on Indian history, including those of European historians who instinctively used the framework of the Roman empire and Greek culture; some Indian historians who "were either participants in the national movement for independence or influenced by it"; as well as communal histories, Marxist histories, the mix-up between language and race; the contrast between "administrative histories" focused on rulers and dynasties and social histories looking at the peoples and society etc. There well may be material to be culled from this 37 page chapter that can be included in the biography (although it may be better placed in an article about the book, if someone want to create it), but doing so will require careful organization and thought. If you are interested in doing so here on the talk page, I will be happy to help. Abecedare (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that I am an amateur at wiki-references :) unfortunately I also do not have a copy handy. Please follow this [1] to the phrase "Prominent among them, and expressing varying degrees of nationalist sentiment were R. Mitra, R. G. Bhandarkar, [...] R. C. Majumdar,..". Even the Google books view is unfriendly so I rest my case. If you could reproduce the relevant para from what Google says is Page 16 of the book, we could be a little more clear. Nshuks7 (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Snippets can be deceptive :)

You can read more of the book here, including the full page 16. Also, do read the first few pages of the chapter and section to understand the context. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's alright now, have my copy with me :) Here's the complete paragraph:

"Most India historians of the early twentieth century were either participants in the national movement for independence or influenced by it. Prominent among them, and expressing varying degrees of nationalist sentiment, were R. Mitra, R. G. Bhandarkar, R. C. Dutt, A. S. Altekar, U. N. Ghoshal, K. P. Jayaswal, H. C. Raychaudhuri, R. K. Mookherjee, R. C. Majumdar, K. A. Nilkanta Shastri and H. C. Ojha. Historical interpretation often drew from existing views but could be changed to what was now regarded as a legitimate nationalist interpretation. Nationalist historians tended to endorse the more favorable views from colonial readings of the early past, but criticized the unfavorable."

As for the context, it is basically one of showing how every historian of the past has had some monkey on their back -- you can't miss the context: the chapter is titled "Perceptions of the Past" :) The colonial historians were biased by their aim of administration and the local ones by their nationalist zeal.Nshuks7 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please comment on why Arun Shourie's criticism was removed? I couldn't locate a reason in the discussion above. Nshuks7 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, why is Praful Bidwai relevant enough to quote? He happens to have held a "correspondent" rank in the same organization where SHourie was an editor. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2 reverts, I don't want to take a chance. I read up on Wiki policies: should I add a "Reception" section instead of "Criticism"? Nshuks7 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The lack of response is disappointing. I will make the above said edits in 1-2 days. Please let me know your concerns. I will post the edits here before changing the article. Nshuks7 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"marxist"

Sreedharan says:

By the Marxist Phase (of historians) is not meant that the writers were all Marxists but that they more or less adopted materialistic interpretation as a method of understanding the historical phenomena. Their interpretation derived from the historical philosophy of Karl Marx, particularly dialectical materialism.

And Thapar says:

A historical study is not a juxtaposition of islands or fragments of historical facets which are lined up: political, environmental, technological, economic, social, religious and other histories. A historical analysis requires recognizing the fragments, but relating them to a whole that determines what causes events, and formulating an explanation.

So while Thapar says she's not "a Marxist", that does not mean she is refusing a Marxist reading; also, Sreedharan's publisher is notable (Orient-Longman), and E. Sreedharan is "with the University of Pennsylvania Institute for the Advanced Study of India and the Centre for Policy Research". I do not understand the problem here. Nshuks7 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't label a person L just because we find a source that says that the person is L. Instead, if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, we state the the person is considered L by the given source with proper attribution, explain the reasons and significance of the opinion etc.

By the way, your juxtapositions of the quotes to claim that Thapar is accepting that hers is a Marxist reading, is simply wrong; but since this a not a forum, and such discussion will be of no value to the article given WP:NOR, I'll desist from entering that irrelevant debate. Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can keep reverting the article, I can keep on adding the references. I have already established the notability AND reliability of the source. AND I am adding to the reference base. How many references is enough for you? Thank you for sparing the debate :) Nshuks7 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How many references are enough for what statement ? Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the heading here? What revert are we talking about? Nshuks7 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. E. Sreedharan is "with the University of Pennsylvania Institute for the Advanced Study of India and the Centre for Policy Research
2. Burjor Avari, Department of History & Economic History, Manchester Metropolitan University
3. Gregory D. Alles, Chairperson Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies Western Maryland College

All three are in agreement, with Shreedharan giving an overarching explanation to the current phase of historiography - pretty much where Thapar left off in the introduction to her revised edn. Early India. Now is there is still some problem with the marxist label or should I get more references? Nshuks7 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Also, the juxtaposition above is not for the article, it is to illustrate Sreedharan's point, based on which I had placed the Marxist tag. I can gather that Sreedharan is praising (as you say) the people mentioned; so why do you revert the Marxist tag over and over? And why should we care whether Sreedharan is praising them or denigrating them. He says they are a Marxist phase, so do many others. Nshuks7 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read my comment above. I'll quote the relevant bits:

The problem is that we don't label a person L just because we find a source that says that the person is L. Instead, if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, we state the the person is considered L by the given source with proper attribution, explain the reasons and significance of the opinion etc.

I don't know how I can explain that any better. If you still have a question on this specific issue, it may be better to post it at WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN, or start an RFC (although that will be an overkill). Abecedare (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it'll be an overkill too. What I want to figure out is why it is so sticky? I mean, it's just a label, it's a label that has been confirmed by many sources, many appreciative sources, sources whose credentials are not questionable. Are you saying that the historians mentioned are not Marxist? Despite the references I have given? Nshuks7 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Are you saying that the historians mentioned are not Marxist?" That is exactly the wrong question for us to consider (see WP:NPOV), as I have tried to explain multiple times above!

Let me try one last time: I am sure we can find sources that say that a Prime Minister of India (call him/her X) was corrupt/weak/ignorant etc. Even if we have multiple such sources from historians, journalist etc, we cannot say on wikipedia that "The corrupt prime minister X..." The same would hold true even if the label under consideration was "honest" instead of corrupt. Of course we are free to explain and discuss what historians etc though of the PM and why, as long as we comply with WP:RS, and WP:DUE.

Now please re-read my statement, "we don't label ... significance of the opinion etc." and see if it makes sense. Else, I'll again recommend using WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, thought I too could contribute. Abecedare your logic sounds good. But don't you think your logic needs to be applied uniformly in all cases?. Look at the lines which you have shown so much concern about, it says "were under severe criticism from the Hindu right". Now if you can't label somebody as 'Marxist' "even if we have multiple such sources from historians, journalist", then by the same yardsticks you cannot call somebody as "Hindu right". Your logic is good, but looks like it is stretched too wide in one side. Regards nihar (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihar, I agree with you! The sentence, as it stands makes little sense. It states, "... were under severe criticism from the Hindu right." without specifying:

• What time period does "were" refer to ?
• What were Thapar and others being criticized for ? Just saying that A criticized B is pretty thin information for the reader.
• Who are these Hindu right and who labeled them as such ?

These are the reasons I added a note to the sentence (which Nshuks inexplicably removed once before I reverted back). Hopefully one of us will read up the sources and help spell out the answers to the above questions and others that may arise in the process. The only reason I didn't remove the sentence in toto (like I removed the tagged-on Marxist label), is that it does not seem to raise the same WP:BLP concerns that we try to be particularly wary of. I hope you'll join in and help improve this article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One more comment. Although I am not supportive of a general label being used in a vague sentence like that, but what makes us so touchy about the word 'Marxist'. I fail to understand why it constitutes blp. Romila Thappar has many times been candid about her ideological leanings. She has said and written many times that she has been inspired and influenced by Marxist doyen Kosambi's writings and his contributions to ancient Indian history.

If somebody were to be called a 'Gandhian scholar' would it be perjorative in any sense. Similarly 'Marxist' is not a perjorative term. As Mukul Dube puts it in the letter written in support of Romila Thappar in Kluge Chair controversey, "Is it a crime to be a Marxist?" Regards nihar (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion to Nshuks7, why don't you explicitly quote the historians and sources rather than using a label they have used. The quotations would set the context of such terms and what such observations are based on nihar (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is called for in this article. Maybe on an article on Indian historiography, but in this context it's just an adjective that I thought was appropriate (and without any negative connotations) — inserting the complete quotations in the body of the article would be an overkill. Hence I have left explicit quotations in the references section. Perhaps Marxist is frowned upon here :) We can leave it at that.

So going by Abecedare's first post, the re-write of the last line can be:Noted Indian historians like Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma, Bipan Chandra, Satish Chandra and Arjun Dev — whose text books had been prescribed in schools for a long time, and who, together, form the Marxist phase of Indian historiography according to their peers — were under severe criticism from the Hindu right. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is worse than what we have at present! It clarifies none of the issues mentioned above, while mischaracterizing the source ("form the Marxist phase"), misattributing the classification ("according to their peers"), and contravening WP:SYNT to boot. Note that I have previously pointed out similar issues with your editing of this article [2], [3], two months back. Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Making the most of the attention around this issue, can we discuss (1) inserting the Arun Shourie/Op-ed criticisms and (2) adding the bit about Thapar's view on "nationalist historians" — which I believe is an important fact since she almost dismisses the works of Indologists/Indian historians preceding her (other than Kosambi, of course). Nshuks7 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion focused. As I told you just yesterday: "If you are interested in reopening that question, start a new section on the talk page, and ping the editors previously involved." Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Marxist historian

Please note that the label 'Marxist' should be applied with care. Ms. Thapar is a historian and is notable as a historian and does not self-identify as a 'Marxist'. If others label her as a 'Marxist historian' then that labeling should be in the context of her work and not used in a general sense. Either way, the usage as written in this article is not proper because

1. it implies that the Hindu right was critical of Marxist historians of which Ms. Thapar just happened to be one. This is not borne out by the source provided (where the term 'Marxist' is not used).
2. the two sources (Dalrymple and Sreedharan) do not adequately support the claim that she is a 'Marxist historian'. Dalrymple merely quotes Naipaul as saying Romila Thapar's book on Indian history is a Marxist attitude to history. That is clearly a personal opinion, and second hand to boot, and anyway only refers to her book rather than to her. Sreedharan includes her as a historian in his categorization of the 'Marxist phase of of historians' and then clarifies that by Marxist he doesn't mean that the historians were marxists but that he uses the term for historians who adopted materialistic interpretation as a method of understanding historical phenomena.

In other words, the use of the term 'Marxist' in a general sense is incorrect and not supported by the sources provided. This is not a question of POV censorship but rather a question of using sources correctly and avoiding labels that are not explicitly attached by reliable sources. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that it is not a question of censorship of POV but rather a question of context and reliable sources. In general, unsourced material can be deleted and it is the responsibility of the person adding the material to provide adequate sourcing (see WP:V for our policy on verifiability and WP:BLP for issues pertaining to BLPs). If you intend adding reliable sources in the form of footnotes, that is good. But, please add material only when you provide those sources, not before. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term 'Marxist Historian'

1) George Thompson writing on Thomas McEvilley, says that the latter supports the view that Thapar's works were Marxist http://www.springerlink.com/content/jk216x2499w12730/

2) Daud Ali's review of A History of India: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=333711 interprets many of Thapar's views/ works as Marxist.

3) Economic and Political Weekly Jan (2000) Gopal Guru and V.Geetha refers to Thapar as a " Marxist Historian" in a discussion of Dalit culture. - Bharatveer (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More sources

1). Thapar is quoted as one of the marxist historians in the entry "Hinduism" of a "A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought"(Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard Univeristy Press, p.204)

2.Ronald Inden in his "Imagining India[1990:pp. 154-156, 197] refers to Thapar as a marxist scholar.

3.Shankar Goyal discuss thapar's interpretations of ancient india in the sections on Marxist Historiography in his book "Recent Historiography of Ancient India, Kusumanjali Prakashan: Jodhpur (1997)

4.Ravi Shanker Kapoor refers to thapar as a "Leftist Historian" in his book " More Equal than Others - A study of the Indian Left, Vision Books: New Delhi (2000)

--Bharatveer (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'll need to look at the references in detail to see what they say and what context they say it in, so please be patient till after the holiday weekend (US)! I'll try to check the online ones later today.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Regentspark, Did you complete the 'checking'??- Bharatveer (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote from George Thompson writing on Thomas McEvilley [4]] says this much.

McEvilley knows that Romila Thapar is "an Indian historian reviled by some Indian scholars for her acquiescence to many western points of view" (658). But in characterizing her in this way ("acquiescing to western points of view"!), he tacitly embraces the view of the "scholars" who also have attacked her for publishing in so-called "Marxist" journals. He does not seem to be aware of the long chronicle of ghastly attacks that scholars of all ethnicities have had to endure in this nationalist "war of independence." This is an instance where McEvilley's Pyrrhonism--his deep suspicions regarding authoritarianism--is sadly absent. At times, he seems utterly naive about what goes on in Indian popular discourse.

Does it mean that Thomas McEvilley "supports the view that Thapar's works were Marxist". Bharatveer is just a POV pusher. 220.227.207.32 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP information and protection

For the last time, any text in a BLP needs to be properly sourced. Please find a proper source for 'Marxist historian' before re-adding it. There are strict rules for BLPs and I will protect the page if unsourced information is added. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 22:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NCERT controversy

I have edited the section to add context and details to the sentence dealing with the NCERT controversy. I have tried to focus on Thapar's role, since this is her bio, but the description may still be too long, given its relative importance. Any suggestions to shorten or improve it are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am note sure what User:MrinaliniB found objectionable in the edits describing the NCERT controversy, so here is my motivation for making the changes:

As discussed above with User:Nihar S, the previous version ("Noted Indian historians like R.S. Sharma, Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Satish Chandra and Arjun Dev whose text books had been prescribed in schools for a long time were under severe criticism from the Hindu right.") did not lay the context and specify:

• What time period does "were" refer to ?
• What were Thapar and others being criticized for ? Just saying that A criticized B is pretty thin information for the reader.
• Who are these Hindu right and who labeled them as such ?

So the new version I wrote (1) provides the context, (2) specifies what changes were made to Thapar's textbook, and what she though of the changes, (3) describes what other historians had to say, and (4) what was the government's stated justification and response to the historians. Each of these points is sourced; and I avoid using labels like "Hindu right", which are unjustified without proper attribution.

If you have suggestions to further improve the section, those are welcome too. Keep in mind though that this is a biography of a living person, so any proposed edits need to be properly sourced, neutrally worded, given due weight, and, as far as possible, focused on Thapar - and not the general controversy (which is covered in the linked NCERT controversy article). Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this matter, Abecedare. I completely agree that MrinaliniB's version provides no context of the alleged objections from the Hindu right. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is completely biasied, one-sided and pro-Romila Thapar. This is not a neutral text. Others - like Nshuks - have been sidelined and prevented from making their changes. I would encourage the Indian journalists to cover this episode - the hijacking of Wikipedia by biased ideologues--Lankaputran (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the text is biased, suggest changes with proper sources and we can calmly discuss the issue. Simply using sock accounts, edit-warring, violating BLP and throwing wild bad-faith accusations is hardly a recipe for getting your point across. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that either Romila herself has deputed some of her henchmen to keep her page on wiki clean or some ldeological merceneries have taken it upon themselves to remove any trace of criticism of their Goddess. For Christ's sake, this is a biographical page and not a paen to Romila. Who are you all to decide whether the critics of Romila are worthy enough to be called critics. Fact of the matter is - it is an information page and any refrence to Romila cannot stand completed without a refrence to criticism her work has attracted, from whatever quarter. What is more shameful is that even the old discussion page which contained quite a lot of material on the history of Romila Thapar page edits have been removed altogether.

Reaction of these ideological mercenries completely mirror those of their Gods. Anything which they are uncomfortable with is immediately denounced as fascist, reactionist and God knows how many 'ists'. Likewise, rather than discussing on merit, all criticism is dismissed as those coming from sock accounts, edit-warring, violating BLP and throwing wild bad-faith accusations blah blah. It is real real shame that the ostensible progressives are the most thin skinned and unscrupulous of the entire lot. Puruvara (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree with Puruvara.

Abecedare, Nishkid64, RegentsPark et al had censored the debate, blocked edit access to numerous individuals on the false charge of sock accounts, edit-warring, violating BLP etc and have effectively ensured a narrow ideological point of view backed with a selective set of citations alone. I intend to review the issue next month during the holidays and introduce edits supported by a broader list of academic/journalistic citations. The ideal article would need to retain the current Leftist/Marxist appreciation of Romila Thapar's undoubted scholarship but also provide space for alternative scholarly critiques of Romila Thapar. The latter has been censored by the current group in the current version of the encyclopedic entry.

The onesided coverage of the NCERT and California Text Books controversy is a case in point. --Dipendra2007 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)