What do you think?
Rate this book
Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History and Society, Vol. 8: Essays in Honour of Ranajit Guha
The essays in Subaltern Studies VIII take up themes from the writings of Ranajit Guha. They link subaltern experience and mentality in India with colonial knowledge and power as well as with the culture and politics of the country's elite population.
- GenresHistory
240 pages, Paperback
First published May 23, 1996
1 person is currently reading
60 people want to read
About the author
David Arnold
131 books22 followersDavid Arnold is professor emeritus of Asian and global history in the Department of History at the University of Warwick. Among his numerous works are Science, Technology and Medicine in Colonial India; Gandhi; and The Tropics and the Traveling Gaze: India, Landscape, and Science, 1800–1856.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 3, 2016
God love the Germans because they still have faith in this sort of project. And presumably a reading public that makes it viable. A new 21-volume history of the world written by leading historians for a popular audience. If the quality is uniformly this good then I look forward to reading the other 20 volumes (some are published, some forthcoming).
This was an excellent survey of the Indian subcontinent. Arnold writes clearly and engagingly, covering pre-history through to the modern day. He strikes a reasonable tone, alluding to controversies and inclarities in the historical record without sinking into unreadable historiographic aporia. Of course you might have wanted him more al dente or soggier according to your taste.
I won't summarise or criticise, just a few comments. I was expecting something like the history of China: a continuous or contiguous series of dynasties stretching back millennia. Instead, it's unclear as to whether ancient India could ever have been considered a kingdom as such. There were periods of more-or-less extensive rule punctuated by centuries or millennia where no central rule can be established. The civilisations we know about covered only parts of the subcontinent, and nothing nearly as extensive as India pre-1947. Vast stretches of what we would consider the "country" were never under consistent rule (and arguably are not today).
Ironically, the notion of an ancient India that informs Hindutva and the ruling religious-nationalist BJP is largely a construction of western orientalists. (This will be no surprise to those who are aware that most nationalisms are built on a sand of myth, legend, distorted history, invented tradition, misunderstandings, misrememberings, xenophobia and lies). The most ancient Indian civilisation, the Harappa culture was literally lost in the sands of time until its cities (Harappa, Mohenjo Daro etc.) were unearthed by British archaeologists. Some ancient scripts e.g. the Brahmi were deciphered by British scholars working with the East India Company. Borrowings, fusions and cross-pollination of religions also speak against the ideal of a unified ancient Hindu civilisation. Before the advent of Buddhism for example, the practice of Hinduism included animal sacrifice and did not emphasise vegetarianism.
As for the British, it's the usual dialectic between recognising the brutally exploitative nature of the Raj and the What-'ave-the-Romans-ever-done-for-us (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi3...) realisation that the British also contributed enormously to the modernisation of India and to our notion of what "India" even is. Cities like Mumbai, Madras and Calcutta were essentially founded as colonial trading outposts. Soberingly, Arnold implies that the deaths of millions in various famines throughout the British Raj can in large part be blamed on British policies. If so, this would constitute a sort of horrific Holodomor that puts the British Raj in a very different light.
Recommended.
This was an excellent survey of the Indian subcontinent. Arnold writes clearly and engagingly, covering pre-history through to the modern day. He strikes a reasonable tone, alluding to controversies and inclarities in the historical record without sinking into unreadable historiographic aporia. Of course you might have wanted him more al dente or soggier according to your taste.
I won't summarise or criticise, just a few comments. I was expecting something like the history of China: a continuous or contiguous series of dynasties stretching back millennia. Instead, it's unclear as to whether ancient India could ever have been considered a kingdom as such. There were periods of more-or-less extensive rule punctuated by centuries or millennia where no central rule can be established. The civilisations we know about covered only parts of the subcontinent, and nothing nearly as extensive as India pre-1947. Vast stretches of what we would consider the "country" were never under consistent rule (and arguably are not today).
Ironically, the notion of an ancient India that informs Hindutva and the ruling religious-nationalist BJP is largely a construction of western orientalists. (This will be no surprise to those who are aware that most nationalisms are built on a sand of myth, legend, distorted history, invented tradition, misunderstandings, misrememberings, xenophobia and lies). The most ancient Indian civilisation, the Harappa culture was literally lost in the sands of time until its cities (Harappa, Mohenjo Daro etc.) were unearthed by British archaeologists. Some ancient scripts e.g. the Brahmi were deciphered by British scholars working with the East India Company. Borrowings, fusions and cross-pollination of religions also speak against the ideal of a unified ancient Hindu civilisation. Before the advent of Buddhism for example, the practice of Hinduism included animal sacrifice and did not emphasise vegetarianism.
As for the British, it's the usual dialectic between recognising the brutally exploitative nature of the Raj and the What-'ave-the-Romans-ever-done-for-us (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi3...) realisation that the British also contributed enormously to the modernisation of India and to our notion of what "India" even is. Cities like Mumbai, Madras and Calcutta were essentially founded as colonial trading outposts. Soberingly, Arnold implies that the deaths of millions in various famines throughout the British Raj can in large part be blamed on British policies. If so, this would constitute a sort of horrific Holodomor that puts the British Raj in a very different light.
Recommended.
Displaying 1 of 1 review