"Imagine how different India would be had Sher Shah ruled for couple of decades more and left able successors"
Now, this is a real difficult imagination for class 7 students. It presupposes that the students have not only a thorough knowledge of medieval Indian history but also a strong sense of history (pl also note that the problem has two hypothetical conditions that both need to be met for a solution to emerge; a tough proposition even for more matured persons).
One of the reasons I very often suspect the motive behind this decision to teach history in lower classes is that history can be (and often is) taught in a very subjective manner. Also, the quality of teachers, especially in lower classes, for an important subject like history needs consideration. Though it would be gross simplification, I believe that a portion of blame of Hitler's idea of Aryan superiority that finally ended up as homicidical also has to be shared by his history teacher in school who was effective and yet crooked.
Back to the Sher Shah problem. I wonder why the author of the book thinks it's an important issue for class 7! And why does the history teacher agree with the author so much so that she has given a project on this topic?
I mean, I do understand if a similar question is framed with Rana Pratap or Shivaji. They were Hindu so may be this thinking that their reign would have somehow rejuvenated the otherwise rotten Hindu society and united India to a path of prosperity and a common cause, thus evading the catastrophe caused by the marauding Europeans. This is a roundabout way to propose the concept of a Hindu nation-state for a time period when this modern idea of nation-state was not even conceived. Being a born Hindu I do understand this mindset, if not indulge it. But Sher Shah?
Is it that, in some strange way, Akbar is representing Muslims here in this problem and Sher Shah, an imaginary resistance? A less Muslim? A more agreeable one, or a less dislikeable one? After defeating Akbar, he and his able successors would have established Ram-Rajya and served it in accordance with Manusmriti!
I am just thinking aloud; more a rambling than thinking really. Is this an over zealous author stretching the long dead idea of Hindu renaissance bit too far? Or perhaps a person with strong sense of humour, having a quite dig at the now fashionable again Hindu revivalism! Also, want to understand why this problem was considered appropriate for a group of very young children!
ps: My daughter in her report has essentially explained why Akbar & co did alright and Sher Shah & co were probably not going to do much beyond what Mughals already did (all my fault; I am her guide). Does she run the risk of being branded a traitor in her school (a Hindu missionary one, I must add).
Now, this is a real difficult imagination for class 7 students. It presupposes that the students have not only a thorough knowledge of medieval Indian history but also a strong sense of history (pl also note that the problem has two hypothetical conditions that both need to be met for a solution to emerge; a tough proposition even for more matured persons).
One of the reasons I very often suspect the motive behind this decision to teach history in lower classes is that history can be (and often is) taught in a very subjective manner. Also, the quality of teachers, especially in lower classes, for an important subject like history needs consideration. Though it would be gross simplification, I believe that a portion of blame of Hitler's idea of Aryan superiority that finally ended up as homicidical also has to be shared by his history teacher in school who was effective and yet crooked.
Back to the Sher Shah problem. I wonder why the author of the book thinks it's an important issue for class 7! And why does the history teacher agree with the author so much so that she has given a project on this topic?
I mean, I do understand if a similar question is framed with Rana Pratap or Shivaji. They were Hindu so may be this thinking that their reign would have somehow rejuvenated the otherwise rotten Hindu society and united India to a path of prosperity and a common cause, thus evading the catastrophe caused by the marauding Europeans. This is a roundabout way to propose the concept of a Hindu nation-state for a time period when this modern idea of nation-state was not even conceived. Being a born Hindu I do understand this mindset, if not indulge it. But Sher Shah?
Is it that, in some strange way, Akbar is representing Muslims here in this problem and Sher Shah, an imaginary resistance? A less Muslim? A more agreeable one, or a less dislikeable one? After defeating Akbar, he and his able successors would have established Ram-Rajya and served it in accordance with Manusmriti!
I am just thinking aloud; more a rambling than thinking really. Is this an over zealous author stretching the long dead idea of Hindu renaissance bit too far? Or perhaps a person with strong sense of humour, having a quite dig at the now fashionable again Hindu revivalism! Also, want to understand why this problem was considered appropriate for a group of very young children!
ps: My daughter in her report has essentially explained why Akbar & co did alright and Sher Shah & co were probably not going to do much beyond what Mughals already did (all my fault; I am her guide). Does she run the risk of being branded a traitor in her school (a Hindu missionary one, I must add).
No comments:
Post a Comment