| Revision as of 01:53, 13 April 2007 edit70.113.114.144 (talk) →Criticism: how's that?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:02, 13 April 2007 edit undo70.113.114.144 (talk) →Criticism: +Next edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Johnson criticizes Sen for his simplistic portrayal of ] ] rulers in Indian history, with ] (generally regarded as a tolerant and pluralistic ruler) as "good" and ] (who figures prominently in the ] in India) as bad, which Jonhson criticizes as a historical cliche. Johnson elaborates that shades of grey exist with both rulers, with bouts of intolerance against Hindus from Akbar and significant military, political and economic achievements from ]. | Johnson criticizes Sen for his simplistic portrayal of ] ] rulers in Indian history, with ] (generally regarded as a tolerant and pluralistic ruler) as "good" and ] (who figures prominently in the ] in India) as bad, which Jonhson criticizes as a historical cliche. Johnson elaborates that shades of grey exist with both rulers, with bouts of intolerance against Hindus from Akbar and significant military, political and economic achievements from ]. | ||
| Historian N.S Rajaram also criticizes the book for allegedly espousing British colonial propaganda with ] bias, specifically with regards to his attacks on Hindus. He writes: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| A serious reader is likely to be offended by the book's approach and even its tone. The condescension displayed towards the reader borders on contempt. Running through the book is a politico-social agenda of the Left. That is his prerogative. But it does not excuse factual errors and blatant misrepresentation. This is especially the case when it comes to history. Those with some knowledge of the subject will see it as presumptuous— of using celebrity to put forward shoddy scholarship. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 02:02, 13 April 2007
| Author | Amartya Sen |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Allen Lane |
| Publication date | June 2, 2005 |
| Pages | 256 |
| ISBN | 0713996870 |
The Argumentative Indian is a book written by the Indian Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen. It is a collection of essays that discuss India's history and identity, focusing on the traditions of public debate and intellectual pluralism.
The Argumentative Indian brings together a selection of writings from Sen that outline the need to understand contemporary India in the light of its long argumentative tradition. The understanding and use of this argumentative tradition are critically important, Sen argues, for the success of India's democracy, the defence of its secular politics, the removal of inequalities related to class, caste, gender and community, and the pursuit of sub-continental peace.
Criticism
Gordon Johnson , president of Wolfson College, Cambridge, and general editor of "The New Cambridge History of India", critiques Sen's history when he writes:
Sen's history is weak. He chooses his examples to suit his present purpose without apparent awareness of their historical context...Although nicely written, and with many points of interest, there is a thinness and superficiality about the whole that displeases..My greatest disappointment with this book is that its use of history is as unscrupulous and trivialising as that of those Sen wishes to bring down. The Argumentative Indian is not sufficiently thoughtful and serves as a forceful reminder that history is constantly being used in a dangerously naive way.
Johnson criticizes Sen for his simplistic portrayal of Islamic Mughal rulers in Indian history, with Akbar (generally regarded as a tolerant and pluralistic ruler) as "good" and Aurangzeb (who figures prominently in the Persecution of Hindus in India) as bad, which Jonhson criticizes as a historical cliche. Johnson elaborates that shades of grey exist with both rulers, with bouts of intolerance against Hindus from Akbar and significant military, political and economic achievements from Aurangzeb.
Historian N.S Rajaram also criticizes the book for allegedly espousing British colonial propaganda with Marxist historiographical bias, specifically with regards to his attacks on Hindus. He writes:
A serious reader is likely to be offended by the book's approach and even its tone. The condescension displayed towards the reader borders on contempt. Running through the book is a politico-social agenda of the Left. That is his prerogative. But it does not excuse factual errors and blatant misrepresentation. This is especially the case when it comes to history. Those with some knowledge of the subject will see it as presumptuous— of using celebrity to put forward shoddy scholarship.
References
- G. Johnson, Effort to right wrongs leaves past shackled, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 30 September, 2005.
External links
- The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen, a review published in The Asian Review of Books.
- Beyond the call centre, a review published in The Guardian.
- In defence of reason, another review from The Guardian.
- Effort to right wrongs leaves past shackled, a critical review from The Times Higher Education Supplement.
 | This article about a non-fiction history book is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |