Dangers of non-objective historiography in an Indian context

This short and very brief article in a way extends our previous papers and publications on historiography, though it is in many ways quite important to our core mission. Its importance cannot also not be discounted based on our general observation that non-objective and non-purposeful constructs of history are widely prevalent across the intellectual spectrum, and both from the left and the right, and various errors of omission and commission to this effect and deeply and foundationally entrenched. Therefore, it goes without saying that course-corrections are in order, and that the dangers of non-objective and highly biased and prejudiced constructs of history, especially those driven and propelled by ideology must be driven home to the broader and larger public. These assume added importance and significance in the Indian context for several reasons. Firstly, it precludes a scientific temper being inculcated among the laity, as they cannot trust mainstream scholarship any longer. Scientific constructs of history are also so important to relegate religion to the background eventually, and keep it in its place. Such constructs also lead to a culture of non-objectivity becoming deeply entrenched and it invariably begets counter-reactions from other ideologically driven groups. In addition, it is bound to severely compromise interdisciplinary approaches and integration across multiple periods and geographies all of which are so essential to the healthy growth of scholarship. In situations and circumstances where there are ideologically-driven ding dong battles as is presently the case, we may even need to adopt an outside in approach and educate the general public about non-objective and non-scientific constructs of history first. We are also at a loss to understand why a culture of service of historians to science, society, and the education system is not well-entrenched, and immediate course-corrections are in order to promote objectivity in mindset at all costs, and under all circumstances. Such endeavours must be marginalized at the general public frown own them and cease to tolerate them.

What is historiography?

Humans have always had a strong affinity for their traditions and their culture and have always taken a keen interest to discover their past. This has been, from period immemorial, one of the hallmarks and defining characteristic of the human species, and one that is not present in any other species. History, and historical consciousness have also been always inexorably and inseparably intertwined with culture and ethnic identity, and history therefore has always been a sensitive subject which has often evoked strong and very emotive passions in many quarters. It therefore, comes as no surprise that Historiography as a formal field of study began to evolve into its present form from very early times, and a keen and an acute interest in the past has been known from time immemorial. The term historiography may be defined as a body of historical work on various topics pertaining to a study of the past, and various inter-related fields which come under the canopy and umbrella of historiography. The term historiography also refers to the art and the science of writing history. Historiography may also be defined as “The history of history”, and encompasses various tools and techniques used therein. Historiography is also often defined and studied by topic, examples being the “Historiography of the French Revolution,” the “Historiography of the Spanish Inquisition,” the “Historiography of Ancient India” or the “Historiography of Ancient China”. The term Historiography has also seen the development of highly specialized approaches, methods and tools employed for the study of history. The direction of research in the field of historiography has broadened and changed over time, beginning with traditional and now possibly very outdated views of history as comprising mere narratives of events to Marxist historiography with all its emphasis on historical materialism and post-modern schools of historiography which have evolved in very recent times. In the past couple of years, there has been an acute interest in formulating newer approaches, particularly in areas such as cultural studies, and the field is now set for a major renaissance and renewal with a plethora of new innovative approaches and techniques. Several debates undoubtedly continue well into the present day, and among them is a controversy as to whether historiography is to be construed and classified as an art or as a science. Historiography in its simplest definition, is a formal study of the art and methods of writing history and research pertaining to various aspects of history, subtopics within the umbrella of history and several other allied fields. It may also be defined as a body of knowledge containing the principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation. Historiography is the writing of history based on a critical examination of varied sources, the selection of well-balanced data from authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of time and rigorous and critical scrutiny. History may also be defined as “The study of past events, particularly in human affairs with profound and far-reaching implications for the future, and the study of a series of events in relation to humans and human actions. We had discussed various schools of historiography in our previous papers such as Greek historiography, Roman historiography, church historiography, historiography in China, India, and the Annales school, and there is no need for us to delve deep into any discussion surrounding these matters multiple times.

Marxist historiography is a school of historiography heavily influenced by Marxist thoughts and ideas. One of the core principle of Marxist historiography is the centrality of social class and economic constraints in determining historical outcomes and an emphasis on historical materialism. Marxist historiography in its orthodox and canonical form is teleological and deterministic in that is generally posits an origin in history at the start of the revolution of the proletariat. Marxist Historians who use Marxist methodology in historiography, but do not endorse mainstream Marxist economic or political thought, describe themselves as Marxist historians beginning with a lowercase M. Marxist historiography has made stellar contributions to the history of the working class, subaltern studies and history from below. A famous quote from Marx is given below: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” The drawbacks and disadvantages of Marxist historiography were discussed at significant length in our previous paper and it would be pointless to reiterate them here. Nonetheless, few would agree that such approaches in their canonical and undiluted form, have already begun to be associated with senility, and consequently such approaches are already in slow but terminal decline throughout the world. Some Marxist historians in the Indian context also appear to have demonstrated a pathological dislike for wide-ranging and comprehensive approaches and reconciliation between different schools of thought. In view of its blatant deficiencies, inadequacies and contradictions, some scholars have already opined that aspects of this school of thought are not just already outdated, and may need to be re-examined in the light of the changed circumstances of the Twenty-first century.

prejudices in Colonial historiography particularly in the works of English scholars such as James Mill who were very hostile antagonistic to India. It also arose from the desire to search for a national identity and displace what was widely perceived to be the colonial mind set. One of the progenitors of this school was Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. The Indian nationalist school of historiography, on the other hand, was accused of being over reactionary, and as a result of its innumerable flaws which also included methodological ones, had never made much headway in forging a broad consensus among a wide range of scholars. In addition, R.C. Majumdar and other Nationalist historians were often accused of Hindu nationalism and communalism. They were also accused of trying to glorify India’s past and lacking objectivity, consistency of method and rigour. It was also accused of being casteist, and lacking a subaltern perspective. Some scholars belonging to the nationalist school have also contributed to pseudo scientific pursuits, at times supporting the indigenous Aryan theory and other nationalist constructs. However, nationalist historiography has greatly contributed to the study of India’s cultural history. It has also contributed to the study of regional cultures.

The Hindutva frenzy began sometime in the 1990’s possibly as a reaction against outdated colonial constructs. While a few Hindutva efforts may have been well-meaning, many Hindutva ‘scholars’ were associated with fringe elements like the RSS. Most scholars believe that many Hindutva approaches cannot hold up to any kind of a rigorous scholarly scrutiny, and most would not qualify as bona fide approaches at all, being largely driven by ideological constraints such as the Hindutva desire to maintain that ‘Aryans’ were natives of India or to prove that the Vedic culture was older than the IVC, and is known for its casuistry and sophistry as well. Among their more publicized and now well-known strategies is a perverse criticism of a long-abandoned theory known as the ‘Aryan Invasion theory’ with a view to replace them with ideology-driven constructs such as the ‘Vedic Indus theory’, ‘Indigenous Aryan theory’, or in some cases even the ‘Out of India theory’. Although many colonial constructs are still in use well into the twenty-first century, Hindutva approaches, unlike those of the Indian nationalist school, may not be just reactionary or ill-conceived; they may, in certain cases, be even full of dubious and convoluted logic and paralogisms used to push a certain point of view even if it has little mainstream or intellectual backing. Hindutva approaches can also be identified through their polemical constructs and their minatory posturing, and Hindutva forces had nearly managed to wrest control of key institutions in India in the early 2000’s. The author has discussed Hindutva strategies in great detail in his papers on the ‘Aryan problem’ published by the ICFAI University press, and anyone who reads those papers will be convinced that they are just hogwash and baloney, and anything but valid scientific approaches meritorious of serious consideration. Any twenty-first century approaches to historiography will need to take into account the importance of countering such ideologically-driven approaches and interpretations of history which may well devour the field if not checked in time.

We had discussed how we believe Marxist historians have proven to be an affront on science, society and the education system; their performance against our objectives enshrined in our papers on historiography by objectives, core principles of twenty-first century historiography and the like has been subpar to say the least. We have evaluated their performance against each of our objectives and principles point by point, and readers are required to read them for what it is worth. Similarly, and likewise, “Hindutva historians” (there is no such official term) are outside the purview and ambit of mainstream historical scholarship, as they are driven entirely by a fervent and feverish desire to boost sectarian pride. The same holds good for Dravidian nationalists as well; what do we then have? A ding dong battle where objectivity is scarcely given any importance. As a matter of fact, it is, in many cases thrown entirely outside the window.

Non-objectivity unlimited, non-objectivity amplified

Let us begin by a quote from Pranab Mukherjee, a former president of India. Former President of India Pranab Mukherjee stated that historians must guard against the “saffronisation” or “crimsonisation” of history. Speaking at the Indian History Congress in December 2006, Mukherjee emphasized the need to maintain and pursue objective truth, avoid partisan biases, and protect the intellectual freedom to disagree as long as evidence is provided. In this connection, we must reiterate that saffronisation refers to pushing a Hindu nationalist view, while crimsonisation means pushing a rigid Marxist or communist view. Both trends force complex history into narrow boxes, and led to invariable and inevitable counter reactions. Here is another interesting quote by Ramachandra Guha eminent historian, “Marxist historians may be silly, limited, one-sided, flawed and lacking elementary commonsense, but allowing religious groups to take control of history textbooks will lead to street fights and an erosion of India’s scientific temper’ – Ramachandra Guha circa 2016(Quoted non-verbatim). Here is yet another quote, “ “ Casting off the legacies of colonialism opens up exciting new possibilities for the understanding of Indian proto-history provided the constraints of the colonial period are not replaced by an equally constraining insistence on a different ideologically driven reading of the historical evidence, whether ‘western elitist,’ ‘secular Marxist’ or ‘Hindu nationalist.’ Unless attitudes to this issue change from all sides, I foresee the perpetuation of two widening divides as the ‘Indigenist’ position becomes more vociferous: one between western Indologists, and the more persistent voices from the Hindu diaspora, and the other much more serious confrontation between ‘leftist’ and ‘rightist’ academics in the subcontinent itself. Most unfortunate, if this trend continues, will be that the entire field will suffer due to loss of communication between differing opinions and points of view—the lifeblood of a progressive field of study. “ – Edwin Bryant, Rutgers University.

In the view of many, and in many cases, Marxist historiography is teleological and deterministic and posits an origin in history at the start of revolution of the proletariat. Marxist historiography, at least in the Indian context, has proven to be one-sided and polarizes (can never promote convergence of thoughts, and healthy dialogue and debate). It was of course responsible for the rise of Hindutva, and the rise of the reactionary and non-reactionary not in the least because Marxist historians did not focus and emphasize on the more crucial and critical aspects of history. This is therefore, not in any way a battle between science and religion, but a battle between two rival and competing ideologies clamouring for public attention. As long as Marxist historiography is dominant, parallel schools are likely to exist due to the reasons mentioned above. Limited and one-sided approaches breed incompetence, and limited and one-sided approaches do not serve the cause of science and promote healthy scholarship. In India, many Marxist constructs were based on old Eurocentric paradigms; do not take local realities into account (Even promote racism and Eurocentrism indirectly) Can we provocatively refer to it as the Colonial-Marxist-Imperialist school, as we have done before? Such approaches may even promote ideological discrimination between religions and cultures (E.g. Marxist historians in India glorify Buddhist and Islamic periods to the detriment of others). Marxist historians often neglect study of cultures and cultural factors in shaping society, role of individuals etc. While promoting subaltern studies which anyone can do, they often neglect the role played by individuals in shaping society. They do not follow inter-disciplinary approaches (this may well be the weakest link in the social sciences, and they stymie growth and progress in other related fields). Also, would any Indian make sense of a bucolic and peripatetic post-Harappan India concept, and migrations around 1500 BC?

They therefore, do not help scholars from allied disciplines to achieve their objectives. Some Marxist endeavours are less scholarly and more political; such approaches breed limited, one-sided intellectualism. They may have failed, from an Indian perspective, to promote national integration strategies and promote unity in diversity. They may have wrongly believed that over-centralized approach to history narration is the way forward. Nothing can be further to the truth. They may not only have neglected the study of regional cultures, but also neglected the study of important cultures like the cultures of the Gangetic plains. In many cases, they have tended to think in binaries, and exaggerate such binaries out of proportion – Upper caste versus lower caste, “Aryan” versus “Dravidian” etc, while whitewashing some other periods of Indian history unduly or unnecessarily. Their endeavours are not tied to the principles of the Sociology of science – how social sciences can be used to better society. They simply do not serve the cause of science, society and the education system in many or most cases. Their approaches are often riddled with contradictions – for example, Marxist historians block a study of Economic history and a study of the caste system by suppressing certain periods in history. Marxist historians have stated the rise and fall of kings is not important, but kings have often made history- moreover, Marxist historians have written at length about Asoka and the Mughal Emperors, and have harshly criticized some other periods such as the Gupta period. Marxist historians have stated that no dynasties have existed in the Pre-Buddhist era but have resurrected them whenever talking about them in a negative light –double standards and intellectual dishonesty always. They are known for poor integration between pre-history, proto-history and history, and poor integration across periods and across cultures. Their approaches and endeavours invariably and inevitably conflict with objectivity and rationality and the pursuit of the truth. Their endeavours and approaches are known for theoretical underdevelopment and lack of a long term and a flexible context and situation-focused or context and situation-dependant strategy. They have no appetite for innovation- research on novel areas like history of science and technology is lacking. This eventually leads to loss of control of mainstream institutions. Such approaches cannot continue beyond a generation or two.. Gets associated with senility and old age. Even Glasnost and Perestroika cannot save them. Their approaches may be seen by future generations as weird, illogical approaches. If Marxist historians had championed the cause of objectivity and focused on the right issues in their research (such as interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approaches), then maybe Hindutva would not have reared its ugly head at all. There are other serious flaws too – for example, their pronouncements are based on obsolete historical models, or obsolete and one sided views about Hinduism and Indian religious tradition. Base their notions on a simplistic and an obsolete idea of Hinduism as it suits them: Hinduism was shaped by many forces: Harappan, Vedic, Dravidian as well as several lesser cultures across different parts of India. They are not up-to-date with current historical models. They have failed to understand Indian culture and ethos in their obsession and preoccupation with matter.

Some Hardliner dogmatists among Marxist historians have had another strange affliction – polarize more, do not change with the times, ‘hate” a particular religion even more .Clearly, this is not the way, but this tendency, strand and streak i.e of suppression and polarization appears to run common through all facets of Marxist thought, whether political or academic. Suppression is not the way, and neither is alienation. Reconciliation is. Many left leaning academics the author has interacted with have a penchant for behaving oddly and bizarrely when confronted with reality. This alone should serve to educate people of the limitations of their strategy.

Some Marxist historians also frown upon winnowing the past for glory equating it with bourgeoisie nationalism, but all we ask for is objective assessments and objective reconstructions of history. Some Marxist historians may also extrapolate the concept of ground zero constructions of history in new or novel directions, while others may look for material and economic output alone. Agreed, there is no monolithic Marxist school of historiography as such, but this is a broad and a general observation. The Author, in an informal survey he had carried out in the 1990’s, noted that most educated people in North India were unaware and blissfully ignorant of the Cholas, Cheras, Pallavas, and the Pandyas, or Krishnadevaraya, Hampi or Vijayanagara, Most of what they were taught was how great Mughals were. Such approaches are naturally exclusive to comprehensive and all-encompassing interpretations of history, and polarize as much as Hindutva and Dravidian nationalist groups do. With the latter, they were even hand in gloves for most part of their existence. Again Marxist historians have claimed ad nauseum that all schools of historical thought have been encourage (we have no insider view of the internal dynamics and politics of the Indian Council of Historical Research or any other organizations), but this is clearly not the way, at least not in the long term. All wayward approaches must be scrutinized, probed and investigated, and if necessary discarded or phased out, not given a change to perpetuate their unholy and unfortunate existence. Marxist historians also often naively believe that the general public – educated ones included, are gullible or ill-informed enough to believe in the narratives that Marxist historians put out- this naivety is central to their approach, and is often used to legitimize their existence. Do they need –and are amenable to – Perestroika and Glasnost- or are they doomed to disappear without a whimper or a sigh- time will also serve as the best judge of this. Others overemphasize academic freedom over responsibility to science, society and the education system – causes which they are ill-equipped to serve, and overemphasize subjectivity of interpretation over objectivity as well.

In sum, Marxist historians have polarized people and encouraged Hindutva even more by breeding disenchantment among the larger and general populace. They are largely responsible for the Frankenstein Monster called Hindutva. People do not get the information they require from mainstream textbooks, and fall for alternative narratives instead. Hardliner dogmatists like late D N Jha instead of modernizing the field, have polarized people more. If India is to be made a scientific superpower, all ideologically driven approaches must be shown the door whether it be Hindutva, Marxist approaches, or Dravidian nationalist driven approaches. A split up of scholarship into schools such as Hindutva, Dravidian Nationalist and Marxist is highly undesirable in this age of globalization. In sum, a Marxist historian ceases to exist as a multi-dimensional scholar and more as a “politician” primarily opposed to Hindutva forces.

Here is an interesting quote by the doyen of Marxist historiography, Romila Thapar. “Barring a few exceptions, early Indian history is still generally taught in many schools as it was half-a-century ago. Out-of-date textbooks, sometimes factually incorrect, written in a dull and plodding fashion, are used to smother students with boring information, chunks of which they are made to learn by heart and reproduce in examinations. There is little attempt to convey the idea that history is a process of gaining an understanding of the past and not a body of information to be memorized. No attempt is made to integrate the different activities that went into the making of the past, or to explain why there are differences in various parts of the country and how they came about. Even the differences in the nature of the societies of early times and of now are not discussed. The continuity between periods of time and the transmutation of ideas and institutions are absent. Distortions are sometimes not even noticed, leave alone being corrected. The results of modern research are not reflected because those authors of history textbooks who are not historians seldom consult historians or their work. The writing and prescribing of textbooks used to be a cottage industry; it has now become a factory system. One has therefore to ask where the profits go before the mess can be cleaned up. “ – Romila Thapar

Majority religions must be treated on par with minority religions for the purposes of scholarship, and ideologically driven preference cannot be given to one religion over the other. One cannot adopt one strategy in India and one in Bangladesh, for example – we are living in an increasingly globalized and an interconnected world. Marxist historian lose credibility (Cry wolf syndrome) No one believes them even when they are right. This edges them automatically out of existence. The older Western elite and Indian Marxist historians are strange bedfellows (just as Indian and Western Hindutvavaadins are strange bedfellows). This is in spite of the fact that many of these western scholars do not profess to be Marxists – this is a strange alliance of convenience. Marxist historians in some cases may stand accused of building a climate of non-objectivity, which is then misused by other opposing groups. They sometimes unknowingly provide a cover for racism and imperialism; they provide a tacit support to Dravidian nationalism . These are only a few of their errors of omission and commission.

We must also note that absence of malefide intentions can be no excuse: the path to hell can be paved with good intentions. This is an oft-quoted and an oft-cited adage, but is absolutely pertinent and relevant for this context. Hindutva “historians” are outside the purview of mainstream scholarship. The task should be to educate them and bring them into the mainstream. That is why we are critical of the limitations, foibles and perils of Marxist historiography. They lie at the core of the (current) mainstream. Hindutva, both in their reactionary and non-reactionary formats, are only an unfortunate outcome. Polarization encourages Hindutva even more, and can be no solution. Other scholars not swearing allegiance to the Marxist school too have failed to come up with via media solutions. The Indian education system is also ill-equipped to foster and engender productive and creative thought. This study has broad implications for the rest of the world too, and for science and scholarship in general. The performance of Marxist historians vis-à-vis the objectives and principles of the twenty-first century school of historiography is assessed here, though rebuttals are welcome. Time for another God that failed? We had proposed a total ten Gods that failed in this context, though refutations are again always welcome. Non-objective scholarship (along with one sided scholarship; rigour is not equal to objectivity, harmony or balance) brings science and scientific endeavor a bad name. It may bring the scholar a bad name by impacting his self-respect and dignity

Hindutva approaches

Pushing the Vedic period back to impossibly early periods, some as far back as even 8000 BC, 10000 BC and 12000 BC- needless to say, these are highly unscientific as most technologies associated with the epics or post-Harappan India did not exist anywhere in the world at such an early age. They are also known for the promotion of autochthonous Aryan theory or the indigenous Aryan theory. They are also known for their promotion of the out of India theory, both of which were once critically examined and abandoned in mainstream scholarship. Of course western scholars did not study Indian culture properly and in all its dimensions, (some proposed the over simplified Aryan Invasion theory) but Hindutva writers apparently have no interest in science, society or the education system either. They are virulently unscientific too for example, the earliest antecedents of the metal age date to around 9000 BC, but the Chalcolithic or the copper age began after 5000 BC, and the Bronze age after 3300 BC. The Iron age began around 2000-1500 BC, but revisions need concrete evidence. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The wheel did not exist before 6000 BC, and this gradually morphed into the potter’s wheel and was also subsequently used for transportation too. The first bullock carts probably began to appear in Mesopotamia around 3500 BC, and Horse chariots became common after 2000 BC. It is very difficult to date PIE or the Proto Indo European before 3000 BC, and the Kurgan hypothesis which was proposed by the Lithuanian archeologist and anthropologist Marija Gimbutas and supported by JP Mallory remains the most popular theory. The Anatolian hypothesis proposed by Sir Colin Renfrew is not as widely accepted or popular. The Indus valley civilization could not have been Vedic. The IVC lies to the West of the Aryavarta and west of the River Saraswathi- while the Aryavarta lay to the east of the Saraswathi. The IVC went into decline by 1900 BC and disappeared by 1400-1300 BC, while the Vedic culture continued till 600 BC and beyond. We have provided a detailed criticism of the Vedic Indus theory; read our previous papers and publications. We have also provided as detailed criticism of the Dravidian Indus theory and the Paramunda Indus theory. On the other hand Marxist historian RS Sharma once argued that the IVC was Dravidian and that the Harappans had moved all the way south to Tamilnadu leaving all the other intermediary regions vacant. He also effectively argued that post Harappan India did not exist, and his publication was banned by the Jan Sangh. FE Pargiter and even Witzel attempted to construct the history of this period however. A strange case of an Indian acting against India’s interest. Ill-conceived Marxist dogma. Also note that eminent western scholars Hermann Kulke, Dietmer Rothermund, Frank Raymond Allchin, George Erdosy, Edwin Bryant, Jim Shaffer, Piotr Andreevich Eltsov, and others also have spoken about the settlements of the Gangetic plains before the Buddha. Anyone familiar with Indian culture would vouch for them. More recently, a book called “The lost kingdoms of the Vedic age” has appeared: Revealing the missing history from Rgveda to Buddha. We are yet to read the book, and therefore cannot comment on it. The book was authored by Ashwin Mehta. Even eminent scholars such as Gregory Possehl were forced to depend on antiquated scholarship for the most part, and this is how misinformation disseminates, and is amplified and magnified. The Author’s own work on the Aryan problem was however ratified broadly by Edwin Bryant, Neville Ramdeholl around the year 2010, and it was also reviewed approved for publication by an eminent India archeologist who acted as a reviewed for ICFAI. Would any Marxist historian or Hindutva driven proponent act in the interests of science, society, and the education system, or entertain any idea with neutral objectivity?

Other biases

As we have repeatedly observed, “One kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias.”. Hindutva must be marginalized through better awareness, not given a reason to exist. We must also annotate Frontline magazine’s tacit and direct support to Dravidian nationalism, which is deplorable and condemnable in the twenty-first century. More nauseatingly and disgustingly, Marxist historians also followed the same pattern, and have never bothered or cared to challenge antiquated intellectual and academic dogmas. The Frontline magazine has provided a platform for Dravidian nationalist writers such as R Balakrishnan who supported the Dravidian Indus theory, or posited and postulated direct links between the Indus valley civilization and Tamil Nadu using bogus and pseudo scientific claims– claims that we have admonished and critiqued severely and comprehensively. The Frontline magazine is the worst possible affront on objectivity and scientific temper, and this must be critiqued and admonished at all costs. The Frontline magazine has also published supposedly groundbreaking and sensationalized claims surrounding Tamil Nadu’s postulated hoary Iron Age as far back as 3300 BC on flimsy and unattested grounds, that claimed to upend the traditional timeline of South Asian and global metallurgy completely and turn it on its head. If Tamilnadu, why not Karnataka, Kerala or Andhra, we may ask. Don’t we smell a rat here? Of course, the standard old theory is that the Hittites pioneered and originated Iron smelting, but more recent evidence points to a more complex pattern of development including Iron smelting breakthroughs made in pre-Hittite Anatolia. Claims have also been made for parts of Africa. All claims must be critically evaluating including those made by Frontline which must be brought under the scanner – no bogus and ideologically driven claims must be left unspared. As already noted and observed Marxist historians – and even Michael Witzel for that matter – did not bother to counter and challenge other ideologies besides Hindutva.

All theories must also be vetted and ratified, wherever required, possible and relevant against theories of diffusion in cultural anthropology such as British diffusionism promoted by Grafton Elliot Smith and W.H.R. Rivers (of course this school of thought is widely considered to be obsolete), German-Austrian diffusionism proposed and championed by scholars like Fritz Graebner and Wilhelm Schmidt, and American Diffusionism led by Franz Boas, which viewed culture as a complex mosaic of innumerable traits gathered from various origins and woven into new contexts. Frontline’s iron age theories would apparently fail this test. Why didn’t Harappans also develop iron smelting during their heyday since the Indus valley was located and situated between West Asia and South India? Clearly, the Frontline magazine is politically motivated, and is imposing its own ideology. They are not acting in the interests of science, society or the education system. We also have excessive and ideologically driven bowdlerization of history such as work by Audrey Truschke, an American historian of South Asia and a Professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University, on the Mughal emperor Aurangazeb, also published in Frontline. While all forms of objective analysis and inquiry are welcome, balance and ideological neutrality are important – rigour must also be coupled with balance, harmony and objectivity – the interests of science, society and the education system must be borne and kept in mind. While Hindutva is openly communal and partisan, do all other rival camps adhere to lofty standards of objectivity and neutrality?

Intended and unintended consequences

The consequences of non-objective constructions of history particularly from an Indian standpoint are indeed many. For one, a culture of non-objectivity is built up, and once in place, it is very difficult to shake off, because it has the potential to degenerate into a no holds barred slugfest. Therefore, a scientific temper is severely compromised with. The Author has had to deal with several Dravidian nationalists but has also had to deal with people who believed that the Gangetic plains were the centre of the universe. Thus, a non-scientific temper is built up. People discard mainstream history books as they cannot bring themselves to believe in them. People resort to Amar Chitra Kathas, Adarsh Chitra Kathas and Chaturang Kathas. A parallel cottage industry is built up. This observation was made by none other than Michael Witzel of Harvard University. Unfortunately, he did not delve into the causes behind this as he was associated with the mid-nineteenth century school of Indology. Mythological narratives take precedence in the public psyche. In some cases, even localization of myths are resorted to. This is because people want to know about the origins of their culture, and this is not just an innate curiosity, but also a natural instinct. Marxist historians are naïve and impractical, in this regard and connection, as they very often are. Ideologically-drenched individuals are all the more likely to shun interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary research. This would damage the cause of science in general, and the cause of multiple allied fields. Such endeavours may have several other consequences as well. Researchers may not pursue integration across historical periods or integration across geographies. Multiple fields of study may be impacted as a result. While it is true that issues such as the Aryan problem are complex, what initiatives did Marxist historians who dominated the intellectual milieu and landscape take in this regard? Objective readings of history alone can build up a scientific temper, and this is particularly true of India where, traditional narratives abound. It is only when scientific constructs of history are attempted that the public will sift the grain from the chaff, and distinguish between history and mythology. Our criticisms in this article only provide a short and brief summary; read our multiple criticisms on academic Marxist where we had analyzed the performance of Marxist historians point by point.  

How India’s scientific babudom hampers the healthy growth of science

 

We have, on the basis of past interactions on multiple occasions with them, strongly critiqued some among the Indian academic bureaucracy, calling "bureaucracy-entrenched government scientific bodies" (or quasi-government institutions) some of Indian science's biggest enemies in some cases. As a post-colonial theorist, anthropologist, and founder of the Institute for the Study of the Globalisation of Science (ISGOS), we have argued that the administrative and systemic frameworks of Indian academia stifle independent thought, innovation, and objective progress. Our specific assertions and criticisms of Indian academic bureaucracy center around the following pillars:

 

Persistence of a Colonial Clerk Mentality: We have pointed out that India's education and academic systems were originally designed during the British era to produce compliant clerks for the East India Company. We have asserted, based on our interactions that the modern academic bureaucracy continues this legacy, prioritizing rigid administrative compliance over innovation, creativity, and structural intellectualism. Therefore, a generational change and transformation may be required in some cases, and future generations of bureaucrats in India’s scientific establishments must not fall into the same rut, but must instead pursue ideologically neutral pursuits.

 

Ideology-Driven Gatekeeping: We have criticized institutional gatekeepers for allowing academic circles to be dominated by political and ideological agendas rather than "ideology-free science". We have primarily positioned bureaucracy as a vehicle that perpetuates a "ding-dong battle" between factions like academic Marxists, Dravidian nationalists, and Hindutva groups, which ultimately leaves very few Indian thinkers capable of independent analysis. We have also argued that ideology drags down the quality of intellectual enterprise badly, and hampers and stymies the progress of science too. For example many Marxist historians have perpetrated colonial paradigms, have supported ideologies such as Dravidian nationalism, and this has led to a reactionary right in most cases. The presence of ideology-drenched “scholarship” means that objective thought is often not encouraged, and such scholarship leads to situations where individuals become less and less of scholars and more and more of campaigners of an often obsolete ideology The interests of science, society and the education system are scarcely borne in mind. Many bureaucrats therefore, think, function, act and behave as bureaucrats, and do not have a temperament conducive to be scientists, or take up the cause of Indian science to any degree. Again, a generational shift, and a generational transformation is required.  Even some government bodies for example, charge for publications to be uploaded on their site. What paltry sums of money are they after? Does this not stifle science?

 

Suppression of Openness and Careerism: We have also additionally argued that the highly bureaucratized structure fosters institutional careerism. This makes entrenched researchers highly resistant to data-driven corrections, cross-disciplinary sharing, and independent and non-subjective critiques. Additionally and most unfortunately, this also leads to a fossilization and ossification of intellectual thought, ensuring that science does not progress, and that intellectualism is limited and highly flawed.

 

Failure to Decolonize Knowledge: We have often highlighted a strange and rather bizarre paradox where many mainstream Western researchers often assist in decolonizing scientific frameworks, while India's own state-backed academic bureaucracy actively resists structural change and scientific globalization, preferring to preserve the status quo. We had written to a major Indian scientific institution on the need to decolonize and modernize social sciences, and they reacted in a most absurd and foolish and absurd kind of way, calling it “sloganeering”. In many cases, the cloaks that they don are a mere sham. Instances such as these should alone serve as a wake up call. Maybe, criticism can move things a bit.

 

In sum, and to recapitulate and reiterate, a major lamentable fact is that even Indian scientists, researchers and thinkers are very weak in foundational science, scientific method, and the philosophy of science; this is because the India education system emphasizes rote learning, and was initially designed to produce clerks for the British East India Company. We have also observed through our various interactions that the Indian scientific establishment is still stuck in very old ways, and is ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. They are extremely conservative and bureaucratic to boot, steeped and entrenched in ideology. This is what is known as scientific babudom or intellectual babudom- their mindset dates back to the pre-1991 pre-liberalization era. They appear in a way to be the last holdout of that era, even though counter ideologies such as Hindutva and Dravidian nationalism also persist as evidenced by the publications of the Frontline magazine. The right wing is dangerous too, and as such it mostly falls outside the scope and boundaries of legitimate and bonafide academic and scholarly debate. The author does not wish to reveal the names of the Indian government departments at this state, but truth be told, an overwhelmingly vast majority of them are ill-suited or unfit to be scientists only bureaucrats. Thus, everything needs to change from the grounds up. They may need a Pererstroika and a Glasnost – of course all assertions need to be backed up by raw and hard data as there may be different types of people involved, and different types of forces at play. This is necessary if the American research ecosystem is to be replicated elsewhere, India included. India is in no way ready for a giant or a gigantic leap in science yet, as we need a complete overhaul of research infrastructure. Ideology-driven proponents cannot generate, foster or create a culture of objectivity; they only willy nilly generate a culture of non-objectivity. In short, we do not have a culture of science as yet, and have still some more distance to tread.

 

That is why we had proposed several other approaches to promote science in India and other developing countries – read our multiple papers and publications such as “ Countering ideology in science: How ideology drenched science automatically perpetuates different kinds of vested interests and conflicts of interest”,” Fostering a “culture of science” in India and other developing countries: Towards intellectual revolutions in India and other developing countries”, “Combating extreme ideology and dogma in science: Towards scientific activism and proactive approaches in nurturing ideology-free science”, and “ Replicating the success of the American research ecosystem everywhere: Towards quantum advancements of science in the developing world” among a couple of others. We have also written extensively on twenty-first century intellectualism, and have shown that academic Marxism is utterly obsolete besides being of course one-sided, limited and flawed.   It is therefore already on its last legs, and cannot survive beyond a generation or two. To counter these bureaucratic limitations, we have advocated for an "Indian Enlightenment" besides renaissances and enlightenments in other developing countries. We have argued for more private investments in science, overhaul of educational systems, (we have written extensively on pedagogical reform, and had dedicated several papers and publications to this cause) and horizontal collaboration between developing countries in science. We have argued for pushing systemic overhauls through our movements, such as the Movement for Open, Transparent, High-quality, and Ideology-free Science (MOTHIS), and have called for multi-staged and decentralized peer reviews to bypass traditional institutional gatekeepers. In addition to traditional peer-reviews, multi-staged post-publication reviews would also be necessary.

 

We must emphasize Indian languages too along with English

 After India won its independence from the British in 1947 after a long struggle, the leaders of the newly-born Indian nation felt a need to unite the many linguistically-diverse regions of India with a common, universal language. Mahatma Gandhi felt that a common language was one for the pre requisites for the emergence of India as a united nation. He laid out five key requirements for any language to be accepted as the national language: 1. It should be easy to learn for government officials. 2. It should be capable of serving as a medium of religious, economic, and political intercourse throughout India. 3. It should be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India. 4. It should be easy to learn for the whole of the country. 5. In choosing this language, considerations of temporary or passing interests should not count. Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts on the question of national language date back to as early as 1906, when Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book Hind Swaraj or Home Rule, that the national language should be Hindi with the option to use both the Nagari and the Persian characters to foster Hindu-Muslim unity. Mahatma Gandhi also supported Hindusthani at times as a tool of integration between Muslims and Hindus, and many of his later speeches and writings favoured Hindusthani over Hindi. This position was also supported by the 1928 Motilal Nehru report. Mahatma Gandhi also often emphasized the importance of provincial languages, and the seeds for linguistic provinces were sown in the early 20th century itself. For example, the Indian National Congress in 1917 decided to constitute a separate Andhra Congress Provincial committee, and a consensus was also slowly emerging that administration had to be provided in a language that was understood by its people. In spite of a potential conflict between Hindi or Hindusthani as a national language and the concept of linguistic provinces, however, the Congress, at that time naturally wanted to avoid partition and show that it was not opposed to the interests of the Muslims, and emphasized religious harmony over linguistic identity. As English was widely seen to be a symbol of oppression and slavery, Mahatma Gandhi and most others only favoured a limited use of English in fields such as scientific endeavour, diplomacy and international trade, and most certainly not at the expense of Indian languages. Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders of India’s freedom movement were critical about the role of English in India, claiming it lead to intoxication, subordination of national interests, distortion of cultural values, denationalization, a stifling of innovative and creative thinking and a slavish mentality.

Mahatma Gandhi also blamed English for the lower level of competence achieved in other subjects. He claimed, for example, that had he been taught in Gujarati, he would have learnt Euclid’s theorems in half the time. After Partition, the support for Hindusthani declined drastically, and there were moves to purge Hindi of Persian loan words and emphasize its Sanskrit vocabulary. Hindi zealots also appear to have profited immensely from Gandhi’s avowed preference for Hindi or Hindusthani over English, and Hindi nationalists such as Purushottam Das Tandon, Seth Govind Das, R V Dhulekar, Babunath Gupta and Ram Manohar Lohia fought heroically in favour of Hindi, often adopting dogmatic positions over consensus-driven approaches, and as American scholar and expert of the Indian constitution late Granville Austin observed, at times creating deep schisms in the parliament and even going to the extent of imperilling India’s national unity. Among all the anecdotes that would serve to illustrate the above, none has perhaps become more firmly etched in the minds of people than this: On the 10th of December 1946, R. V. Dhulekar of the United Provinces moved an amendment and began speaking in Hindustani. The Chairman then reminded him that many members did not know the language. This was Dhulekar’s reply: “People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India. People who are present in this House to fashion a Constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not worthy to be members of this Assembly. They had better leave”. The remarks created a commotion in the House. “Order, order!”, yelled the Chairman, but Dhulekar then moved that the Procedure Committee should frame rules in Hindustani and not in English. “As an Indian I appeal that we, who are out to win freedom for our country and are fighting for it should think and speak in our own language (in singular form). We have all along been talking of America, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and House of Commons. It has given me a headache. I wonder why Indians do not speak in their own language (again, in singular form). As an Indian I feel that the proceedings of the House should be conducted in Hindustani. We are not concerned with the history of the world. We have the history of our own country of millions of past years. I request you to allow me to move my amendment.” The Chairman: Order, order! I do not permit you to proceed further. The House is with me that you are out of order.’

After much deliberation and consternation in some circles, the Indian constitution, in 1950, declared that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official language of the union. International numerals would however be used. Unless Parliament decided otherwise, the use of English for official purposes was to cease 15 years after the constitution came into effect, i.e., on 26 January 1965. The union government took many steps to promote Hindi with great zest and zeal. The Indian government either set up new institutions or strengthened many associations such as the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha which already existed at the time of independence to promote Hindi throughout India, even as Nehru and others insisted that Hindi would never be imposed on non-Hindi speaking peoples. The government also funded writers, poets, and translators to produce works in Hindi. Committees were formed to develop Hindi in order to give it a more comprehensive vocabulary which would allow it to discharge its official functions which much greater ease and efficiency. Even though Hindi was clearly the preferred choice in political circles, there were many blocks to its achieving success as the national language. One of these was the high position of English-a position it has retained until today despite the plan to phase it out of all government communications by 1965. However, because of English’s importance internationally and the many advantages conferred upon those who could speak it, the study of English continued with even greater vigour than before, whereas the study of Hindi was neglected in many regions where people felt very little or no need for it. This ensured that a large section of the educated workforce who joined government services needed to use more of English than Hindi in doing their jobs. Accordingly, English has not only shared its position as an official language with Hindi but has also relegated Hindi to second-class status. Interestingly, both English and other Indian languages have proven to be the biggest roadblocks in Hindi’s quest for unbridled supremacy, and many have all along opined that English and other Indian languages should formally share Hindi’s role as an official language of the Central Government. In a nation of mind-boggling diversity such as India, this was probably sine qua non.

Another thorn in the flesh for the hegemony of Hindi was the formation of linguistic states. While the idea of linguistic states predated independence, the movement for linguistic states got a fresh impetus in the 1950’s, and speakers of Marathi, Kannada, Oriya and later Gujarati wanted their own states. However, the strongest demand for linguistic states came from Andhra Pradesh where Potti Srirmulu, a long time disciple of Gandhi fasted unto death and became a martyr for linguistic states. This led to the division of India on linguistic lines, and naturally weakening the case for Hindi further. Interestingly, no attempts appear to have been made to re-examine the language policy in the light of the formation of linguistic states. Supporters of Hindi also never appear to have understood the role of trade, commerce, industry and the private sector in both directly and indirectly espousing the cause of English, and all their efforts were bereft and devoid of vision and clarity and were doomed to end in failure. Sometime in early 1965, when the associate official status of English was due to end, attempts were made to impose Hindi by brute force in Tamil Nadu, sparking widespread protests in the state. This was not the first time there were Anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu. The Tamils had been protesting the proposed national language policy since the 1930’s, and were often joined by smaller groups of people from the West, East and other parts of South India, and opposition to India’s proposed language policy in Tamil Nadu was almost universal. Although British divide-and-rule techniques and outdated historical models may have played a role in dividing North and South, as well as other cultural differences, it was clear that India’s proposed language policies would be highly discriminatory against Tamils and other non-Hindi speakers.

Firstly, it would require the students of some states to learn three languages while others could get away by learning two. Secondly, Hindi-speakers in the Hindi speaking states would learn it as their native language, while others would learn it as a foreign one. Thirdly, Hindi speakers in Hindi-speaking states would learn Hindi as a first language, while others would learn it as a second language. Within a few years, this kind of a policy would enable the native speakers of one language to take over the job market through unfair and unethical methods. Even Rajagopalachari, who had earlier espoused the cause of Hindi, had changed his stand in due course, and became an opponent of the language policy. In 1967, the DMK won the election in Tamil Nadu on the plank of India’s alleged discriminatory language policy. The Union Government was then left with no other option but to permit the use of English in the workings of the central government and in inter-state communication indefinitely. This naturally dismayed Hindi zealots, many of whom had worked hard, for example, to ensure that examinations like All India Civil Services Examinations would not be conducted in any language other than Hindi, and many of them saw it as treachery and betrayal.

The Angrezi Hatao Andolan or the Banish English campaign was a very strong and emotive movement in the early years of independent India; key leaders of the movement were Ram Manohar Lohia and Atal Behari Vajpayee and cities like Allahabad and Lucknow were eminent centres of the movement. This very significant movement to banish English was launched by Ram anohar Lohia in April 1957. As the country had gained independence from the British the English language was considered passé and a symbol of a bygone era and had to be phased out as quickly as possible keeping in mind the provisions of the constitution which favoured phasing out of English by 1965. By all accounts, this movement was a failure as it strongly reeked of parochialism, and came to be decried as Hindi imperialism- it had few if any supporters in the West and East, and had virtually no supporters in the South. This led the Hindi speaking belt to retreat into some kind of a cultural cul de sac. For example, Karpoori Thakur banished English as a mandatory subject in Bihar to help students hailing from or belonging to rural areas, and 1982, the left government in West Bengal did the same in their state too. Nowadays it is very difficult to imagine surviving without a minimal knowledge of English. It has not only become the tool and weapon of globalization, but is a practical neutral lik language in a polyglot nation like India unlike Sanskrit which is most probably non-implementable and non-communicable. Of course, the principles of language dynamics must be borne in mind at all times as a vital and a very significant guiding force,

However, the learning of English did greatly suffer and stagnate in the 1970’s due to India’s inward looking and autarchic policies and the thrust given by governments of both Hindi and non Hindi states to Hindi or their own respective languages. Some states like West Bengal took much more myopic and ill-conceived stands: not only was Hindi never taught, but the learning of English was effectively abolished at the elementary school level, only to be reintroduced many years later. In late 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated and the baton passed on to her son Rajiv Gandhi. Although his tenure as Prime Minister was short, the changes he brought in proved to be irrevocable, and the reforms he ushered in were continued by his successors across political parties. Globalization and liberalisation, besides the ubiquity and pervasiveness of English on cyberspace, have made English a window to the world, and interest in English has since increased by leaps and bounds, and has entrenched itself more than ever before in India’s history. However, India’s language policy is still perceived to be illogical and differences of opinion continue to surface from time to time between the central government and the states and between politicians belonging to various political parties. A minor agitation also took place in Tamil Nadu in 1986 against the opening of Navodaya schools in the state where Hindi would be mandatory, and in 2014, minor protests erupted as a result of the Modi governments Hindi push. In February 2015, India’s HRD minister Ms Smriti Irani hailed India’s linguistic diversity and seemed to acknowledge not only the fact that politically-driven attempts to homogenize India’s diverse cultures would come to naught, but also seemed to agree that there was no option but to celebrate India’s cultural and linguistic diversity. Speaking in a conference in Chennai, she said “Multilingualism in our nation extends back to several millennia. This multilingualism is an asset, a heritage we have inherited, and is in fact a resource we deeply cherish. There are more than thousand mother tongues spoken in our country. This is not just a number but a reason to be proud of.”

We have written extensively on linguistics and language dynamics, and this encompasses at least half a dozen core papers. Readers are requested to go through them as such. Planners must also naturally bear the principles we had enshrined in these papers in mind at all times. We had also written about the need to develop Indian and other non-dominant languages lexically (including technical guidelines for this). We had proposed a large number of practical and pragmatic guidelines for this. We had also developed the concept of linguistic skills, capabilities and performance, along with non- linguistic skills, capabilities and performance i.e. the theory of linguistic expectation, and the theory of non-linguistic expectation. Both are important to some degree, and their relative importance would naturally vary based on the job type besides several other factors including cultural and social ones i.e contextual ones. Even among those who study in Hindi/Telugu/Tamil medium schools, some go on to learn and speak English later in life. However, most do so only in their late 20s, and early 30s, and depending on the circumstances they are in in, and not as children. Also most learn technical words easily, and are unfamiliar with words used in English literature and poetry. But who cares? A majority of professions require functional, business and technical English mainly. Children also tend to express themselves much more clearly, lucidly, and eloquently in their early years, with English proficiency not being achieved till adulthood. In the age of the internet, advanced word processors, and AI-based translation tools, translation is easier than ever before, and many jobs emphasize technical and managerial skills too. The Author performed a study on this in 2018. Many people who study in their mother tongue tend to be technically strong. But there can never be a one size fits all bill. India is a very diverse country. That is why grounds up and data-driven assessments are also important, i.e. context-based ones, and the principles of sociolinguistics must also be borne in mind. As a crude rule of thumb, English and the mother tongue must be given maximum importance, or with the language of the state in some cases. A third Indian language or a foreign langue can come later, if at all they are required. At the same time, linguistics and various subfields of linguistics must evolve and mature with the times, and incorporate a wide variety and plethora of social and cultural perspectives from different parts of the world. The automation of education, and the use of AI in education can also be explored and expanded as and when technology improves and advances, while retaining a human touch. Functionalism is education must be pursued aggressively, and the unnecessary flab weeded out. It is also not possible to prevent children from being enrolled in English medium schools – in some contexts, they simply do not produce the right kind of results, This is also because in a vast majority of cases, particularly in rural regions, the teachers themselves barely know any English, and the students end up learning neither their own mother tongue, English, nor a third language like Hindi (some teachers in Rajasthan and UP put in their papers saying they were unable to teach in English- but government and vernacular schools can be made as attractive as possible. As such, readers are requested to read our various papers not only in linguistics, but on various aspects and facets of the globalization of science as well, particularly for the social sciences, which must become one of the foundational pillars for the twenty-first century.  Also, along with the lexical development of Indian and other non-dominant languages on the lines that Malaysia and Indonesia have done, other aspects must be promoted; for example, scientific journals could be promoted in various Indian languages. A judicious mix of English and Indian languages can also add to the gross national product. Of course, and as we had already stated multiple times in the past, the nexus between linguistic capability and economic performance also needs to be probed and deeply and thoroughly investigated by linguists and social and cultural anthropologists. 

Why "Limits to knowledge" must become a central tenet of epistemology

 “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.” ― Richard P. Feynman

The core and primary reason for the authorship of this article is that practitioners of science do not often bear the concept of limits to knowledge in mind, and there is often a sense of hubris prevalent among practioners of science, most notably in various fields of social sciences, where scholars are ageing, and caught in a Eurocentric mould and warp, along with a high degree of skeptopathy leading to an excessive and unjustified feeling of infallibility. This is often tied to Eurocentrism as well, and our globalization of science movement hopes to yield more capacious interpretations of scientific concepts in the long term, particularly in the social sciences. This is of course not in the interests of science, and we believe that intellectual humility can lead to faster scientific progress, and can light and shine forth the torch of objectivity and rigour. Knowledge may be defined as an awareness, understanding, or information about a subject gained through learning, study, or experience. In philosophy, and it is often described as a justified true belief, which is a epistemological definition of thee term. Epistemology is a field which accomplishes the formal study of knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits in many cases, along with a study of truth propositions. The term epistemology is derived from two Greek words, namely “episteme”, which connotes knowledge, and “logos”, which means a formal field of investigation or study. There are foundational and empirical limits to knowledge, and we will discuss these briefly in this article.

Hubris has accelerated noticeably over the past couple of centuries, particularly after the dawn of the industrial and scientific revolution, torched by genuine and bonafide human achievements and progress. This has become particularly visible in the twentieth century, as technological progress accelerated rapidly. A lot more work need to be done on the limits to knowledge, and the concept must become much more tightly interwoven much more tightly into epistemology itself. We believe that this is a major weakness at present, and one reason for this is that researchers themselves are wary of immersing themselves in this issue. A formal and a comprehensive study of a large number of case studies can become a useful trigger or a starting point, and that is why we discuss a couple of them in this article. As such, we invite a large number of other independent scholars and thinkers to contribute their insights to this vital and crucial, yet sadly neglected field. Epistemology and the philosophy of science also must form a part and parcel of the globalization of science movement as the context of knowledge is studied much more foundationally and deeply, given the fact that much of intellectualism has been birthed and gestated based on the ground realities and experiences of the west. That at least has been our firm and unshakable belief over the past several years

What is knowledge?

Let us begin this article by defining what knowledge is. Knowledge in general terms, may be defined as the awareness, understanding, or information about a subject matter or a particular event (or a course of events that take place over time) that a person gains either through practical experience or practical education. Knowledge therefore encompasses both theoretical and practical understanding of an issue or a matter at hand. In the realm of philosophy, the study of knowledge is referred to epistemology. Therefore, as per the principles of epistemology, knowledge is defined as “justified true belief”. This definition is sometimes attributed to the ancient Greek thinker Plato In the dialogue Theaetetus, though it has been expanded upon, and derived ever since. However, in modern and in contemporary times, Edmund Gettier critiqued this concept, and proposed the Gettier case in this regard. By belief, we mean that the individual or person must believe the proposition to be true. By truth we mean that the belief must be true, and not false. By justification we mean that the individual must have a good reason or valid evidence for the belief, such as experience, memory, or logical reasoning

Knowledge can be categorized into several distinct types and classes. For example, propositional knowledge (or knowledge-that) refers to theoretical knowledge about facts and truths that can be expressed in declarative sentences. On the other hand, procedural knowledge (which is also known as knowledge-how refers to practical skills or abilities. Thirdly, knowledge by acquaintance refers to familiarity with a person, place, or thing gained through direct acquaintance or a rendezvous. Knowledge may also be classified into explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is easily articulated, documented, and shared while tacit knowledge (less commonly referred to as implicit knowledge) refers to knowledge that is difficult to formalize, articulate, or share, often gained through extensive personal experience and long and tedious hours of practice. Knowledge is typically acquired through many different means and mechanisms, such as sensory perception, deep-rooted cogitation, reflection, and introspection, long-term and short-term memory, inference, direct and indirect testimony, wisdom, witness, direct experience as in the case of experiential knowledge, and formal education. Knowledge is the very basis and foundation for modern society, and scientific progress. We would all be nothing without it.

What is epistemology?

Epistemology is a very important branch of philosophy that studies knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits. The word is thought to originate from the Greek words episteme (which means knowledge) and logos (which means reason or study). This important field of study analyzes how knowledge is acquired and what makes a belief true instead of false. In Epistemology, knowledge is traditionally defined as justified true belief. In other words, in order to possess knowledge of a proposition, a person must believe it, it must be true, and the person must have adequate justification or a rational reason for holding that belief. The history of epistemology connotes the formalized philosophical study of knowledge production mechanisms across different eras and cultures, beginning from ancient Greek investigations into the nature of truth to more modern comprehensive debates that formally include science, logic, and social and cultural dynamics. The ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, building on Plato’s early ruminations and introspections on the topic of knowledge, emphasized empirical observation and abstraction that was derived from experience.

During the Middle Ages, epistemology probed and investigated the complex and multifaceted relationship between faith and reason with thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas making important contributions. We also then had empirical and rational schools of thought. Rationalism, of logic and reasoning independent of past experience, or experiential knowledge was heavily promoted by thinkers of the likes of Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza in the immediate pre-modern era. On the other hand, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, advocated for empiricism or experiential knowledge. In all probability, the two cannot be mutually exclusive and build upon and complement each other in the manner proposed by Immanuel Kant in his work, critique of pure reason. We would likely do similarly otherwise, and we have also developed concepts such as that of fuzzy logic for the social sciences, and variable logic. Of late, new subfields such as analytic epistemology, naturalized epistemology, and social and formal epistemology, and the field as such remains highly vibrant and ever-evolving to meet the complex needs and requirements of the information age and the digital age, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary and cross-cultural insights.

Limits to knowledge

The limits of knowledge as an epistemological concept refers to, and represents the fundamental boundaries of what can be known, fathomed, experienced, or proven by the faculties of the human mind, and by human cognitive processes. These limits are defined by empirical and sensory limits. Empirical limits to knowledge connote the boundaries of what can be known through sensory experience, observation, and scientific experiment. These constraints derive from the innate capacity of human senses such as touch, smell, hearing, sight and visions, etc, and the fact that human beings are able to perceive only a tiny band of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light) and a limited range of sound frequencies. Sensory faculties also vary from species to species, and many other animals possess superior sensory abilities, at least in some respects. Humans cannot also perceive and fathom very small and very large objects without the use of external and artificial tools, and their efficacy too is limited by technological constants. Cultural biases, and confirmation biases too shape human worldviews, and scientists are not often spared from subjectivity and bias. Humans also often tend to extrapolate their own cultural conditions to other cultures, and these may lead to fallacious conclusions – That is why we launched our globalization of science movement in the first place. This issue has not been as widely studied, probed, or investigated as it deserves to be, but approaches and attitudes in this connection and regard must change with the times. Human brains must process data and information, and this process is often constrained by subjective filtering. Scientists also do not always evaluate all assumptions for scratch, and operate within pre-defined theoretical (and often non-neutral) frameworks. Thus, misinterpretations and erroneous interpretations of reality multiply as rapidly as valid interpretations. These factors often impede the speed at which knowledge can be acquired. Humans ability for logical reasoning too is not without bounds, as is their ability to comprehend absolute philosophical truths.

Human critical thinking may also often be severely limited by brain capacity, available vocabulary, verbal intelligence, and less frequently social and cultural skills, and the ability to adapt too, and work in multicultural environments. We also then have the problem of induction, and the ability of sentient human beings to derive generalizations from large tomes of data. Humans cannot also make accurate predictions about the future based on existing data due to hindsight bias, and the problem of induction was discussed at length by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, and others. We also have the horizon of events problem, and there are valid cosmological boundaries as well. For example, conditions prior to the Big Bang or the internal subjective experiences of other human beings and other species, remain empirically unverifiable. For example, we cannot possibly know what Emperor Akbar ate on a certain day, or the precise time at which he ate. We also know that cats cannot taste sweet, or that dogs cannot see certain colours, but they are indeed limits to the accuracy and efficacy of experiments that expose or lay bare these facts. Time travel is not possible, and there are physical and cosmological limitations to time travel as well, though people have imagined time travel vividly in the past, most notable examples being HG Wells, Mark Twain, and Enrique Gaspar.

There are several other interesting concepts too. For example many sociologists and social scientists believe that the human being is born with an empty and neutral tabula rasa or a blank slate. However, some rationalists counter this view, stating that the human mind is not a blank slate, but is born with a degree of inherent structures, concepts, or truths that may exist independently of sensory experience, and are determined or derived genetically. Immanuel Kant too wrote about phenomena versus noumena; in other words, reality exists independently outside human perception, and we therefore have two distinct realms: namely phenomena (the world of appearances) and noumena (the world of things as they exist independently of the human mind). Humans may also suffer from overconfidence and hubris. Hubris represents an extreme, and a highly dangerous level of pride, arrogance, and overconfidence that leads to a person’s ultimate downfall. Hubris is not based on a simple miscalculation alone, but involves a mental, moral or cognitive superinflation where an individual believes they are above the rules, laws, or forces of nature. They may be blinded by their own past achievements and accomplishments, real or imagined, individual or cultural. A classic example is that of the archeologist and anthropologist Gregory Possehl, who is now deceased who was highly pompous and naïve in his interaction with the Author. Hubris inevitably and invariably leads to nemesis, and there are many examples from Greek mythology to illustrate this; we have the story of Icarus and Niobe, then the story of Arachne and King Tantalus.

Types of overconfidence include overestimation which is the act of judging one’s actual performance, skill, or other abilities to be higher than what they actually are. We also then have overplacement or the belief that an individual is more capable than others, and over precision – the erroneous and mistaken belief that a person’s observations are much more accurate than they actually are. We also then have the issue of skepticism versus skeptopathy, one that we have discussed at great length in our previous papers. Skepticism is a healthy, evidence-based approach of questioning claims, whereas skeptopathy is a term used to describe a pathological, irrational form of disbelief. There was a great deal of hubris in the early part of the twentieth century too. For example, the Titanic was marketed as being unsinkable. However, complacency led to several engineering blunders such as non water tight bulkheads (open top bulkheads), and a single layered hull on the sides. The steel was thought to be of inferior quality, and the riveting was not properly done. Limits to knowledge as often discussed in epistemological debates, but we believe that the time has now come to integrate it much more tightly with the field so that cardinal errors of omission and commission cannot occur, and so that the quality and reliability of scholarship is also escalated as a result. Examples of limits to knowledge include the mystery of time. How did time originate? How did time begin? How could something not have had a beginning? This is indeed mind-boggling, and shows that something exists that is beyond human conception of time, something that human beings cannot possibly comprehend. Some others talk about a fine tuned universe, and the strong and weak anthropic principle, though many different types of arguments have been proposed, both for and against. Narrow and shallow debates also alienate people, since communication must be both interdisciplinary and cross-cultural. It must also be deep and profound enough to account for practical realities.

The concept of God

The concept and general idea of God has intrigued man for aeons and millennia. Yet the concept of God continues to be ill-defined, and the term often means many different things to many different people, across, and within cultures. Some people speak of a religious God- with often varying and non-overlapping definitions across religions, others speak of a non-religious God, an agnostic, while yet others associate the term God with the sum total of nature; it is perhaps for this very reason that debates surrounding the term God remain highly opinionated and non-objective to this very day, even among academicians and scholars. In many, if not most religions, God is seen as the Supreme Being, creator, and ruler of the universe in monotheistic and polytheistic religions and belief systems. Yet there are religions without the concept of God, and at the same time, there are also people who believe in the pantheistic or natural concept of God without believing in any religion. In Western and Abrahamic views, God is viewed as the creator and ruler of all things, and as the eternal, all-powerful maker of all life and all forms of existence. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is also additionally seen as a personal, loving, and just judge who interacts with humanity. This concept is sometimes seen as a personal God. There are also monotheistic and polytheistic religions. In the case of the formers, there is only one God, while in the case of the latter, there are many or multiple Gods. An example of a polytheistic religion is Hinduism, though some say these are viewed as manifestations of only one God. The definition of God varies in eastern and other non-western perspectives. Many non-traditions, such as certain schools of Hinduism, view the ultimate reality as a formless, all-encompassing cosmic energy or spirit (like Brahman). Many other traditions define gods as multiple supernatural beings controlling specific forces of nature or different aspects of life. We had also discussed several uncommon definitions of the term God in our previous papers and publications. There is also an oversimplified God (Christian) versus evolution debate in certain western intellectual circles which we must deplore and condemn; we had also discussed concepts such as intelligent design, young earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolutionary theism previously on multiple occasions. Readers are requested to read these works.

Additionally and alternatively, Spinoza’s God is the concept that God and the physical universe are exactly the same entity, a philosophy known as pantheism. This idea mostly rejects the idea and concept of a religious God, and can be seen as being religion-neutral. This concept was first developed by the seventeenth century Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, for which he was severely criticized within his own Jewish community. This view by and large rejects the traditional idea of a personalized God who sits in heaven with a long and flowing beard, judges people on the basis of their actions and good or bad deeds, or performs miracles. Other ideas such as that of a horned, mythical creature, spitting and drooling blood, are also highly unscientific, and must be deemed as such. On the other hand, Spinoza argued that God is the infinite, impersonal, and rational system of nature itself, and he called it Deus sive Natura meaning that the terms God and nature could be used interchangeably. This concept also once relied heavily on monism, the idea that everything in the universe could be reduced to one substance.

The reason why this concept must be mentioned at least in passing in this context is that Spinoza’s ideas profoundly shaped the Enlightenment and modern philosophy, and many scientists latter commented on it. Most notable is Albert Einstein’s endorsement of Spinoza’s concept In the early part of the twentieth century. Carl Sagan also viewed this concept favourably, and so did many other scientists, all of whom rejected the traditional idea of God. Paradoxically enough, Richard Dawkins issued a disclaimer stating that the contents of his books did not apply to Spinoza’s definition of God, and Christopher Hitchens touched upon the issue as well. It is difficult to critique Spinoza’s God from a purely epistemological standpoint. However, they have been some religious criticism. However, refer our argument on the mystery of time, and several other arguments put forth in our book discussing the existence of God, both for and existence. Clearly, there are several issues and paradoxes at play, both epistemological and philosophical and naïve and hardnosed approaches may not work; correlate with our observations on the limits to knowledge.

What is atheism?

Atheism as a broad concept refers to the absence of belief in a God, a creator, or a supreme being or entity. A more vulgar manifestation of God is referred to as a deity. People who subscribe to atheism are known as atheists. Atheists reject the belief that any God or deities exist, and believe that man is the sole architect of his destiny. The term “atheism” is derived from the ancient Greek word atheos, meaning “without gods”. There are many types of atheism. One primary classification is implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism means not holding a belief in God without explicit or active rejection, while explicit atheism refers to a more assertive form of rejection in any divine being or entity. Atheism may also be sub classified into positive and negative atheism. Negative or weak atheism refers to a mere absence of belief in deities, whereas adherents of positive or strong atheism vehemently and vociferously assert the firm claim that no God exists. The British philosopher John Gray in his 2018 book, “Seven Types of Atheism”, outlined seven distinct categories of atheism. These categories are new atheism which connotes and represents a form of militant and outspoken critique of religion popularized by thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, secular humanism which subscribes to science, reason and ethical naturalism as a tool for societal progress, scientism which turns science into a dogmatic religion used to engineer human advancement and holds an oversized view of the advancement of science, political religion which uses religion as a political tool, atheism with a strange or a paradoxical faith in science, the atheism of God haters as represented by Marquis de Sade or Ivan Karamazov, atheism without progress and atheism with silence.

Atheism without progress is championed by philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and George Santayana who reject both God and the myth of human progress, and hold cynical views of the world. The atheism of silence on the other hand has been propounded by literary figures such as Joseph Conrad, and finds mystery in the universe without needing to provide any meaning to life or to existence. There are other terms too. For example, agnosticism holds that the existence of God is unknown or cannot be known. A large number of ordinary people including scientists, intellectuals and philosophers fall into this category. There are many variants of agnosticism, including strong and weak agnosticism. The idea of agnosticism was proposed and championed by thinkers such as Thomas Henry Huxley and Immanuel Kant. Antitheism is a virulent hostility to religion and religious beliefs, with a firm belief that a belief in God or religion is outright dangerous, and impedes human progress. A example of an antitheism is Christopher Hitchens. Pragmatic or apathetic atheism holds the view that the existence or non-existence of gods is irrelevant to daily quotidian life, and is therefore unimportant for the most part. Hemant Mehta and others study the intersection between religion, society, and culture, and there are many different shades and hues of thinkers with many different viewpoints; all this goes on to show that there are many unresolved issues and many dogmatic, ossified, and ideologically driven viewpoints. Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism holds the position that the term “God” is meaningless because it lacks a coherent, testable definition. Proponents of this position hold that that it is futile to discuss whether God exists until a clear definition is provided. We subscribe more or less to this school of thought.

Atheism existed in the ancient world, and in ancient India, the Charvaka school rejected supernatural claims and the doctrine of karma, advocating for materialism alone. In ancient Greece philosophers such as Diagoras of Melos severely criticized religious myths. Epicurus on the other hand, argued that even if gods existed, they were detached and uninvolved in human affairs. During the Islamic golden age, thinkers such as Al-Ma’arri openly criticized religion. During the European dark and middle ages, atheism was associated with heresy and blasphemy, and it was only during the renaissance and enlightenment, that the spirit of inquiry were rekindled and retorched. During this period, open atheism emerged, and some open atheists were Jean Meslier, Baron d’Holbach, and others. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which was published in the middle of the nineteenth century provided a natural explanation for human origins, triggering atheistic ideas in many thinkers. Charles Darwin himself, however, did believe in a Christian God for the most part. Karl Marx went as far as to call religion “the opium of the people, and the sigh of the oppressed creature” while Friedrich Nietzsche famously pronounced God to be dead. State atheism emerged in Communist states which severely curtailed the open practice of religion, with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge even banning it altogether. In the early part of the twenty first century, the new atheism movement emerged, and was championed by Richard Dawkins and evolutionary biologist, Christopher Hitchens, a journalist and social critic, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and a few others. Some of these thinkers even argued that religion was toxic and dangerous, and the root cause of most violence in the world.

The New Atheism movement however faced strident criticism from a wide range of critics, including philosophers, theologians, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and even many secularists. The primary criticisms centered on the movement’s aggressive tone, lack of philosophical depth, cultural naivety, and the adoption of political stances. Many note that proponents of the new atheism movement essentially engage in a Christian centric debate, do not distinguish between God and religion, etc. The idea and notion of God is vague and ambiguous and it is not possible to critique something which has been imprecisely defined; there are many different religions, and some do not subscribe to God at all. Critics such as Michael Ruse, who himself was an agnostic argued that the “Four Horsemen” lacked formal training in theology or philosophy, leading to shallow and over-simplistic arguments. The movement was also widely accused of “scientism”—the dogmatic belief that science is the primary source of truth and knowledge, at the expense of ethics, literature, and metaphysics. We had also argued that religion has personal, societal, political, social and cultural functions in society, and that is impossible to wish religion away with a magic wand, or dismiss it derisively. Centuries of atheistic thought have barely made a dent on religion, and religion continues to hold a sway on billions of people in different parts of the world. Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan also criticized some atheists for being extremely dogmatic, arrogant, and pompously naïve, arguing that absolute certainty about the non-existence of God is yet another form of dogma. Some even argue that dogmatic atheism which represents an absolute belief that God does not exist, along with an unwillingness to consider alternative evidence or arguments, mimics and replicates religious and theological dogma in many ways. Critics allege that some dogmatic atheists even shifts their stance from “I do not believe” to “I actively know God does not exist, and the matter is closed.” This is a form of rigid and dogmatic naivety, mirroring the rigid, unyielding mindset found among many fundamentalist religious groups.

Other related concepts

Reincarnation refers to a philosophical and religious concept that the nonmaterial components of a living being (such as consciousness or a soul) begins a new lifespan in a different physical form or body after biological death. Thus, the soul is immortal, and in some cases, eventually merges with a supreme God or being. Such claims are however mostly untestable, and therefore mostly fall beyond the boundaries of legitimate science. There are varying claims and counter claims made by various religions, and Christianity and Islam reject the concept of reincarnation altogether. Hinduism however, talks about a continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is known as samsara, which is driven by karma or action. Hinduism also states that the soul or atman is eternal and it continuously transmigrates through various life forms until it achieves moksha, a state of liberation where the individual soul unifies with the ultimate reality or Brahman. Other religions make different claims, and Buddhism for example, denies the existence of a permanent soul while talking about karma and nirvana at the same time. Sikhism and Jainism on the other hand, derive most of their concepts heavily from Hinduism. Since there are so many claims and counterclaims, everything must be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but formal, neutral, and non-partisan mechanisms must emerge to evaluate such claims. We look forward to more research being carried out in this regard, and new frameworks and paradigms emerging. Universities can play a crucial role here – including Western and American universities simply because they are better equipped at present, and we look forward to a new generation of scholars and researchers emerging.

Some research has already been carried out at the University of Virginia by Dr Ian Stevenson and Dr Jim Tucker, though more and more perspectives may be necessary. Claims made by Shanti Devi of India, James Leininger, and Ryan Hammons of the United States and others have also been investigated. An absolute commitment to the truth must be their motto and mantra, along with what we have always called “objectivity in mindset”. Cross-cultural, dialectical and inter-disciplinary approaches must also be applied wherever necessary. Various outcomes must be borne in mind and welcomed, including the possibility of fraud, (negative results must also be welcomed because they produce salutary lessons for science) and continuous validation and revalidation of results would also be required. Similar to reincarnation, out of body experiences (including near death experiences) have also been claimed (Such as the case of Pam Reynolds who was a famous American singer and song writer) leading to floating sensations, and visual and auditory distortions. However, most mainstream scientists are skeptical of such claims. Even claims made by astrologers, palmists, soothsayers, psychics, numerologists and others deserve to be much more thoroughly probed and investigated. Even if such claims are eventually falsified, they add fundamentally and foundationally to the body of human knowledge by holding out a warning to such practitioners and to society in general. As always, we must bear in mind the fact that many things are unknowable. For example, the question, “At what time did Emperor Akbar eat dinner on a certain day, and what did he eat on that particular day?” are probably unanswerable. Therefore, there are indeed limits to knowledge. We look forward to theoretical and foundational inputs here, by a wide variety of other scholars.

There have also been many psychics throughout the ages. One of them was Edgar Cayce. As an American clairvoyant and mystic who made supernatural claims, he was a foundational figure in the modern New Age movement. He often allegedly went into a trance, answered complex questions, and soon gained a large following. However, criticisms of him abound, and many researchers, including Martin Gardner, are highly skeptical of his claims more so because, Cayce made many claims which ran contrary to established scientific facts including claims of Atlantis and Lemuria. Another highly controversial; figure was Wolf Messing who attained a cult like following in the former Soviet Union as a hypnotist, and self-proclaimed psychic and telepath. Criticisms of Wolf Messing abound, and it is even alleged that his memoirs were ghostwritten by Mikhail Khvastunov, who was a highly controversial and polarizing figure. Other notable and highly controversial figures include Sylvia Browne, a popular author and television guest who also claimed to be a medium, John Edward, another controversial television personage who claimed to be a medium, Jeane Dixon, a famous American astrologer, Uri Geller, a psychic, and many more. Shamans have also routinely claimed to communicate with the dead, and with other spirits, though their claims have not been systematically verified. Many people have claimed to expose paranormal claims, and some such examples have been Harry Houdini who also testified before American Congress against fraudulent claims, Derren Brown who exposed many scams, Joe Nickell, a full time paranormal investigator, Michael Shermer who was the founder of the Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine., Susan Blackmore, Joseph and Sanal Edamaruku of India, Basava Premanand of India, the world-famous and class-leading James Randi and many more. As previously noted, dialectical approaches are required, unbiased investigations are required, and the principle of absolute neutrality. This is because one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. The field of “limits of knowledge” must become a major, vital and dynamic subfield within epistemology, and must be given the attention sand focus that it so richly deserves. Scholars and researchers from all walks of life must participate and contribute to such endeavours. We must also bear in mind the fact that negative outcomes and negative results can richly contribute to epistemological theory, and knowledge of this vital subfield of epistemological theory must be vitally imparted and disseminated to scholars and practitioners of science so that hugely improved and enlarged scientific output can result in many walks of science.