At times in the dynamic world of human interaction it is good to follow a odd reading habit. I say odd with blinking muse of three different worlds, yes three worlds within us-the society, the economy, and the politics.
I also find more useful and also peaceful to simply read things at lea-nth rather to co-opt to write and argue the same stuffs with different slang in languages.
Here are the recent odd reading:
Most of my last decade was spent working with nuts in govts.....At no point I can bear with good B.............ts as saying there are exceptions.
... there are too many people and too much paper money around.
Politics over new head of ICHR- I tend to agree more with S.Dasgupta than R.Guha.
From Guha's piece: "Contrary to what is sometimes claimed in the press, there are many fine historians in India. From my own generation of scholars, I can strongly recommend — to student and lay reader alike — the work of Upinder Singh on ancient India, of Nayanjot Lahiri on the history of archaeology, of Vijaya Ramaswamy on the bhakti movement, of Sanjay Subrahmanyam on the early history of European expansion, of Chetan Singh on the decline of the Mughal State, of Sumit Guha on the social history of Western India, of Seema Alavi on the social history of medicine, of Niraja Gopal Jayal on the history of citizenship, of Tirthankar Roy on the economic consequences of colonialism, of Mahesh Rangarajan on the history of forests and wildlife, and of A.R. Venkatachalapathy on South Indian cultural history."
From Dasgupta's piece: "as repeated controversies have indicated, history is too serious a business to be left to the “eminent historians”. For the past few decades, India’s awareness of its own past has shrunk on account of the growing insularity of its historians. Judging by the dense and jargon-infested prose, India’s historians are no longer communicating with the wider world but engaging in closed-door conversations. This has to change."
Rajaji said to the governors: “You should not imagine that you are just figureheads and can do nothing… Our prime minister and deputy prime minister do not hold that view. They want you to develop your influence for good and they expect you to find means for achieving it without friction and without prejudice to the march of democracy.”
I also find more useful and also peaceful to simply read things at lea-nth rather to co-opt to write and argue the same stuffs with different slang in languages.
Here are the recent odd reading:
Most of my last decade was spent working with nuts in govts.....At no point I can bear with good B.............ts as saying there are exceptions.
... there are too many people and too much paper money around.
Politics over new head of ICHR- I tend to agree more with S.Dasgupta than R.Guha.
From Guha's piece: "Contrary to what is sometimes claimed in the press, there are many fine historians in India. From my own generation of scholars, I can strongly recommend — to student and lay reader alike — the work of Upinder Singh on ancient India, of Nayanjot Lahiri on the history of archaeology, of Vijaya Ramaswamy on the bhakti movement, of Sanjay Subrahmanyam on the early history of European expansion, of Chetan Singh on the decline of the Mughal State, of Sumit Guha on the social history of Western India, of Seema Alavi on the social history of medicine, of Niraja Gopal Jayal on the history of citizenship, of Tirthankar Roy on the economic consequences of colonialism, of Mahesh Rangarajan on the history of forests and wildlife, and of A.R. Venkatachalapathy on South Indian cultural history."
From Dasgupta's piece: "as repeated controversies have indicated, history is too serious a business to be left to the “eminent historians”. For the past few decades, India’s awareness of its own past has shrunk on account of the growing insularity of its historians. Judging by the dense and jargon-infested prose, India’s historians are no longer communicating with the wider world but engaging in closed-door conversations. This has to change."
Rajaji said to the governors: “You should not imagine that you are just figureheads and can do nothing… Our prime minister and deputy prime minister do not hold that view. They want you to develop your influence for good and they expect you to find means for achieving it without friction and without prejudice to the march of democracy.”
