51:37 But didn't Bajirao Maratha called to create "Hindu Pad Padshahi" or something? So the word and its sense existed by 1700s atleast.... Edit: Also Vijayanagara kings considered themselves "Hindudharmudharaka"
They cling on to thiis question since it allows their existing frameworks to sustain {Goes like this - No Hindus before colonialism -> Modern politics since 1900's -> Unified identity = elitism & fragmented identity = negotiated one & so on....}. They overlook common threads from earlier periods when non standarization was the norm & make claims using anecdotal evidences. For e.g. the identity 'name' demand is born out of similar presuppositions with which scholars of Abrahamic religions used to work & denounce 'Indegenous identities' otherwise why would anyone expect to find evidence of orthopraxy in orthodoxy esp. among non-Abrahamic religions ? Books References - Unifying Hinduism Heathen Religion and Race in American History India in the Persianate Age 1000-1765
By the way this debate abt. colonial invention of Hinduism has culminated into a larger debate abt. modern categories & concepts like 'religion' without which academia can't function.
I have a lot of respect for Vinay's subject knowledge and have listened to many of his lectures. However, he does not do himself any favours by citing the economic data the way he does. I actually believe that, overall and in the round, colonialism did have negative effect on economic development but there is a lot of debate in the economic history literature for a reason. Even Indian economists like Trithankar Roy take much more nuanced views. In this case, citing relative GDP numbers when the context is a growth in GDP due to the industrial revolution which the West led and which had never been seen in the history of the world is the context. So if your economy had been stagnating for centuries and constituted 15% of global GDP and suddenly global GDP explodes due to things that are happening elsewhere, your percentage of that GDP will obviously fall. The question is to what extent that explosion of GDP was due to the exploitation of others through colonialism and otherwise. That is where the debate is and the fact is that it is a very difficult question to answer. I would stand in the camp of saying it had a lot to do with it but I recognise that it is hard to prove. Throwing out Maddison's data in this way does not help and makes the argument seem naive.
I agree in part with what has been said and understand fully well the perils of using Angus Maddison's without some real interpretation. But the lecture was not being delivered for a scholarly audience, and the context is important: the brief was to do something on colonial rule as a whole, and a 200-year canvas, in which I was expected to make some observations on politics, political economy, culture, society, and history, and all this against the background of the colonization of India, compelled me to make some choices. I might also say that Trithankar Roy is hardly the last word on this matter: he is, on the whole, a conservative economist, just as Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik, arguing from the other side of the divide, err in offering estimates of the loss to the Indian economy which appear outlandish even to the most vigorous of the anti-colonial critics. To say what I did before an older white audience in the heart of what was the empire is necessary, considering that there are many in Britain who still resolutely defend the empire.
@@dillichalo I find this whole 'Economic' debate useless since it is unprovable as it is being measured using parameters & frameworks colonizers created to suiit their arguments. Can there be industriall revolution without natural resources {Greater in colonized nations} & would humans have went on a path of exploiiting nature without ideas like 'providence of nature' ? There are clear direct links if you get the jist.
First, I would say that if it goes on youtube, you are likely to garner a slightly more knowledgable audience. Second, I think it is important, no matter the audience, to have a "grown up" conversation. You otherwise make a very convincing case but if anyone in the audience picks up on my point from some source, their tendency, given their initial bias, will be to dismiss the rest of the argument. As I have your attention, it would be great to hear people from your perspective respond directly to the likes of J Sai Deepak or Meenakshi Jain. I find Deepak's rhetoric in particular to be excessive but what do you make of the core points that one can identify a common Indian Dharma which should be the basis of Indian society (to heavily summarise!!) on the one hand and on the other, their much more critical take on what they would call muslim colonialism. Have you written or spoken on these topics (beyond your broader lectures) anywhere?
@@dillichalosir plz explain in a video about "Hinduism " origin that u mentioned in this video. Even Vijayanagar kings called themselves "Hindudharmudharaka", and Marathas used "Hindu Pad Padhshahi" to unite Hindu kings against Mughals. In what sense are these terms used then?
Slide isn't focused in the video....
51:37 But didn't Bajirao Maratha called to create "Hindu Pad Padshahi" or something? So the word and its sense existed by 1700s atleast....
Edit: Also Vijayanagara kings considered themselves "Hindudharmudharaka"
They cling on to thiis question since it allows their existing frameworks to sustain {Goes like this - No Hindus before colonialism -> Modern politics since 1900's -> Unified identity = elitism & fragmented identity = negotiated one & so on....}. They overlook common threads from earlier periods when non standarization was the norm & make claims using anecdotal evidences.
For e.g. the identity 'name' demand is born out of similar presuppositions with which scholars of Abrahamic religions used to work & denounce 'Indegenous identities' otherwise why would anyone expect to find evidence of orthopraxy in orthodoxy esp. among non-Abrahamic religions ?
Books References -
Unifying Hinduism
Heathen Religion and Race in American History
India in the Persianate Age 1000-1765
By the way this debate abt. colonial invention of Hinduism has culminated into a larger debate abt. modern categories & concepts like 'religion' without which academia can't function.
Also Vijayanagara kings considered themselves "Hindudharmudharaka"
I have a lot of respect for Vinay's subject knowledge and have listened to many of his lectures. However, he does not do himself any favours by citing the economic data the way he does. I actually believe that, overall and in the round, colonialism did have negative effect on economic development but there is a lot of debate in the economic history literature for a reason. Even Indian economists like Trithankar Roy take much more nuanced views. In this case, citing relative GDP numbers when the context is a growth in GDP due to the industrial revolution which the West led and which had never been seen in the history of the world is the context. So if your economy had been stagnating for centuries and constituted 15% of global GDP and suddenly global GDP explodes due to things that are happening elsewhere, your percentage of that GDP will obviously fall. The question is to what extent that explosion of GDP was due to the exploitation of others through colonialism and otherwise. That is where the debate is and the fact is that it is a very difficult question to answer. I would stand in the camp of saying it had a lot to do with it but I recognise that it is hard to prove. Throwing out Maddison's data in this way does not help and makes the argument seem naive.
I agree in part with what has been said and understand fully well the perils of using Angus Maddison's without some real interpretation. But the lecture was not being delivered for a scholarly audience, and the context is important: the brief was to do something on colonial rule as a whole, and a 200-year canvas, in which I was expected to make some observations on politics, political economy, culture, society, and history, and all this against the background of the colonization of India, compelled me to make some choices. I might also say that Trithankar Roy is hardly the last word on this matter: he is, on the whole, a conservative economist, just as Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik, arguing from the other side of the divide, err in offering estimates of the loss to the Indian economy which appear outlandish even to the most vigorous of the anti-colonial critics. To say what I did before an older white audience in the heart of what was the empire is necessary, considering that there are many in Britain who still resolutely defend the empire.
@@dillichalo I find this whole 'Economic' debate useless since it is unprovable as it is being measured using parameters & frameworks colonizers created to suiit their arguments. Can there be industriall revolution without natural resources {Greater in colonized nations} & would humans have went on a path of exploiiting nature without ideas like 'providence of nature' ? There are clear direct links if you get the jist.
First, I would say that if it goes on youtube, you are likely to garner a slightly more knowledgable audience. Second, I think it is important, no matter the audience, to have a "grown up" conversation. You otherwise make a very convincing case but if anyone in the audience picks up on my point from some source, their tendency, given their initial bias, will be to dismiss the rest of the argument. As I have your attention, it would be great to hear people from your perspective respond directly to the likes of J Sai Deepak or Meenakshi Jain. I find Deepak's rhetoric in particular to be excessive but what do you make of the core points that one can identify a common Indian Dharma which should be the basis of Indian society (to heavily summarise!!) on the one hand and on the other, their much more critical take on what they would call muslim colonialism. Have you written or spoken on these topics (beyond your broader lectures) anywhere?
@@dillichalosir plz explain in a video about "Hinduism " origin that u mentioned in this video. Even Vijayanagar kings called themselves "Hindudharmudharaka", and Marathas used "Hindu Pad Padhshahi" to unite Hindu kings against Mughals. In what sense are these terms used then?