Thread by @shrikanth_krish

"South Asia" is an egregious term esp when discussing history

When people use "Greco-Roman" to refer to classical civilization, they don't just mean modern Italy and Greece

But the whole Greco-Roman world which spanned the Meditteranean, N Africa, and parts of Central Europe

https://twitter.com/blog_supplement/status/1139715988671197185

Hadrian's Wall is a part of Roman history. It represents Roman civ.

Not British history. Not Celtic history. Leave alone Anglo Saxon history as they hadn't even landed in UK at the time the Wall was built

Similarly the civilization of Sri Lanka is Indic, as it originated in the eastern parts of the subcontinent from where the earliest Indo-Aryan migrations to Ceylon happened

It is more Indian than say the civilization represented by Abul Fazal or Ahmad Sirhindi

Similarly when one writes a history of the English speaking peoples, that history will include the discussion of the American colonists, the American founders, the American Constitution, the colonists of Australia and NZ, of Canada

English civilization isn't restricted to England. It spans large parts of the world.

Including India, one must grudgingly add

So while a "history of India" should discuss Macaulay and Curzon, they have no place in a "history of Indian civilization"

They do have an important place in a history of the English speaking peoples though

This is a distinction we don't often make

"History of India" is very different from a "History of Indian civilization"

History of Indian civ includes Shri Vijaya, includes the ancestors of the Abbasid Barmikids

Though these things don't have to feature in a "history of India"

Another example is Turkey...

When one attempts a history of Turkish civilization, one begins with the settlements starting 11th century or so

There is no place in this history for pre-Islamic Turkey, the Turkey before the settling of the steppe people

That old Turkey was "Greek" in culture. Greek in spirit.
It belongs to the history of Greek culture, a culture that dominated much of SE Europe and West Asia

Many people in India are upset that Pakistani textbooks don't discuss Vedic civilization, or for that matter Mauryas or Guptas

In my view Pak textbooks are spot on!

Pakistan represents the civilization of Islam in South Asia

Men like Panini or Kautilya have no place in it

Kautilya, Panini, Vasubandhu may feature in a history of the territory that is Pakistan today.

But they have no connection. No civilizational connect to the Pakistan of today

They have even less of a connect with modern Pak than what Macaulay has with modern India and Pak

Pakistan rightly regards its history in civilizational terms. Not territorial terms

In contrast, Indians write their history without a civilizational mooring

We spend more time discussing Amir Khusrao than Mahavamsa - a work of Sri Lanka

That's a travesty

Mahavamsa is much more Indian than Amir Khusrao can ever be

Yet Indians are conditioned to think of Mahavamsa as "foreign" and Khusrao as Indian

The sort of confusion to which Pakistanis are admirably not susceptible

This is not to say that we must view our history in ethnic terms. No

In my view Heliodorus, being a vAsudeva bhakta, is a part of Indian civilization

So is James Prinsep, who helped decipher Brahmi and Kharoshti script, and studied Benares in such detail

Ram Mohan Roy in contrast represents an Indian attempt to embrace Enlightenment thought. That's not a bad thing

We should study him. But in my view that's not Indian civ.

James Prinsep ought to be discussed more than Ram Mohan Roy when we talk of Indian civilization

People may get touchy and get mad at these tweets. But am just being honest

Even if I ask myself - am I civilizationally Indian?

The answer is - Not quite

About 50% of me is English. Having been brought up in a public school culture

And about 50% Indian

Am not "fully Indian" to use an expression often employed by Subramanian Swamy often :)