Shoutout to prominent archeologists and anthropologists on highly doubtful early Iron age claims in Tamil Nadu

 

Shoutout to prominent archeologists and anthropologists on highly doubtful early Iron age claims in Tamil Nadu

Dear Sirs,

In the early part of 2025, The Chennai based Frontline magazine published a series of widely publicized cover stories suggesting how new archaeological evidence in Tamil Nadu completely rewrote global and Indian Iron Age timeline backed by claimed evidence from sites such as Mayiladumparai, Adichanallur, and Sivagalai, all located in Tamil Nadu state. This was based on an article released by the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology which was titled “Antiquity of Iron: Recent Radiometric Dates from Tamil Nadu”, which claimed that iron was actively used in Tamil Nadu from 3345 BC, which interestingly is placed a couple of decades before the start of the Kot Diji phase, or the early Harappan phase. We do not know if this is purely coincidental or not. This pushes the origin of the Indian Iron Age back by more than a millennium and a half and also turns long-held global archaeological paradigms and axioms on their head. The standard textbook theory is that iron smelting technology emerged from copper smelting in Anatolia somewhere between 2000 BC and 1200 BC, which Frontline wants to negate in a gungho fashion. All of this must be construed as rampant sensationalism of the highest order, though critics are welcome to negate our assertions. Mainstream researchers, including metallurgy experts such as David Killick, note that iron smelting developed incrementally and in stages from copper smelting in regions like Anatolia which equates to modern Turkey somewhere between 2000 BC and 1200 BC. This is the standard textbook narrative.

But what exactly is pseudo-archaeology? Pseudoarchaeology refers to the use of distorted data or highly biased and flawed methods in order to generate fake and dubious narratives regarding the past—it is dangerous because it damages science, society and the education system heavily, and leads to dubious narratives being mainstreamed if not kept or held in check.  In some cases, these are linked to wholly dubious pseudo scientific narratives such as Atlantis and Lemuria which have been long discarded. Pseudo archeology is mostly derived from a fervent and feverish desire to boost sectarian pride, and proponents of such theories often revel in conspiracy theories or resort to persecution complexes to justify their claims. One theory claims that there were ancient aliens at Palenque- This theory was proposed by Erich von Daniken in his book “Chariots of the Gods”, but he was clearly a fraudulent writer.  The Piltdown man hoax was a famous early twentieth century hoax proposed by Charles Dawson, but it was eventually and ultimately exposed, and brought to light though a great deal of damage had been done to science in the process. In India, fallacies abound; for example, some people wish to treat the great Indian epics literally, though Sanskrit literature obviously contains more than a nugget of historical information – as accepted by Dr Michael Witzel of Harvard university and others. During the period of feverish historical revisionism in India some twenty years ago, an eminent Indian magazine carried a much publicized cover story claiming that a lost civilization had been found in the Gulf of Cambay, and it was some 9000 years old. This was based on the alleged discovery of a sherd. This is obviously a fallacy, but the Frontline magazine is intentionally falling into the same trap, and causing the same degree of harm to scientific temper. History in India is often seen as a ding-dong battle between the left and the right, i.e north and south India (i.e “Aryan” versus “Dravidian”, and much of the faultlines are ideologically driven.

There is a great deal of skepticism regarding Tamilnadu’s Iron age claims, and this magazine is obviously setting a dangerous trend and compromising severely with scientific temper. It is a clear case of rewriting history using decibel and fake propaganda. Most archaeometallurgists argue that an Iron Age date around the fourth millennium BCE before Christ skips or bypasses the copper age transition and predates established global smelting frameworks. Extraordinary claims obviously require extraordinary evidence. It has also been pointed out by skeptics that early radiocarbon dates can be flawed if there is a contamination from charcoal or other substances produced from burning wood, which would obviously cause errors to be generated, and these would point to a date of the age of wood itself. Of course, objectivity in mindset is required if error-proof research is to be generated, and this is obviously in short supply. Technologies do not pop up in isolation, and such isolated claims negate well accepted theories of cultural diffusion, which means that artifacts would have spread to neigbouring parts of south India and elsewhere. Why did this not happen? Why did even the much more advanced Harappans move into the Iron age when they were situated between South India and West Asia? There was also no advanced urban civilization in Tami Nadu in 3345 BC, and what was the motivation to produce such “advanced” Iron technologies as Dr Sharada Srinivasan has claimed? Iron smelting requires controlled smelting at temperatures well above one thousand degrees Celsius which rural folk many not have been able to achieve. Moreover, why did they not transition from a copper or a bronze age when the technology was already available in North west India? Others criticize the methodology of taking the fringe and earlies over-ambitious radio carbon dating readings from a sample instead of getting them verified by a large or a broad cross-section of experts from around the world. Samples taken from same data sets in the above mentioned sites in Tamil Nadu yielded widely different dates, (many as recent as after 1500 BC) and this makes the whole methodology highly suspicious and dubious – also driven by a false subregional pride rather than skepticism and scholarly objectivity. Also, furnaces and workshops have not been unearthed, along with other supporting infrastructure which would have been so essential for such a culture to evolve and reach maturity.

Most likely, southern India had not even entered the Chalcolithic age at the time, Such isolated and random carbon dating is not accompanied by a widespread evidence of actual large-scale iron-smelting infrastructure or major societal shifts that must be associated with such claims. Such claims are clearly therefore being conflated with Dravidian identity politics, and many claims are highly extravagant or ambitious in scope.  Most ideologically driven proponents are not interesting in what is factually correct, but take refuge in fake narratives driven by a high degree of shrill sensationalism and chest-thumping. No pan India integration is attempted (neither is a broader integration attempted across regions) only a crude north India versus south India rivalry. Of course, Tamil Nadu has a rich and glorious past, and this cannot be disputed. They had early major dynasties, the Sangam age, and brief territorial expansion into North India and South East Asia Why cannot all this be highlighted, as a part of Tamil identity and pride? Rakesh Tiwari states that Iron originated in North India much, much later, around 1800 BC (even this date may be slightly over-ambitious) from a west Asian origin. Some other early iron artifacts have also been dated much later to the second millennium before Christ in regions like Ahar-Banas in Rajasthan, the Central Ganga Valley, and in Malhar.

There are several critics of Frontline magazine’s claims. For example, Prof. David Killick who is an international archaeometallurgist who reviewed the radiometric data for the findings expressed deep skepticism, arguing for terminal dates between 1300 BC and 1800 BC for the development of iron technologies, and calling such early dates even outrageous and shocking. Prof. Parth R. Chauhan who is an archaeologist at IISER has also expressed a high degree of skepticism. There is also a great deal of skepticism from the Archeological survey of India. The Archaeological Survey of India has raised red flags over the methodology adopted and has called for exercising a great deal of restraint. The ASI has also criticized the practice of making massive press announcements to sway public opinion, in lieu of robust and rocksolid research. ASI vetting experts also note that the claimed and postulated fourth millennium BC dates may have been primarily obtained from Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) from organic charcoal, ceramic bits, and paddy husks pulled from surrounding soil layers, rather than from the iron objects themselves. This is highly fallacious and misleading to say the least. ASI experts also point out that many southern urn-burial sites are known for being heavily disturbed or highly stratified. In such cases, older charcoal fragments routinely invade younger layers, leading to erroneous results being obtained. It was again noted that a variety of objects found close together have yielded widely different dates defeating the theory of cohesiveness. The absence of furnaces and ovens was again highlighted, and this is highly concerning.

Why we are critical of Frontline’s claims in addition to the fact that such timelines are highly implausible. The following are our twelve major reasons.  

1.       Such claims have been made from mainstream media outlets such as Frontline, and mainstream media must not commit cardinal errors

2.       Mainstream media’s association with a non-scientific ideology i.e. association with Dravidian nationalism raises cause for alarm

3.       Prominent Tamilnadu state government departments are involved such as the state department of archeology

4.       Association with obsolete paradigms, obsolete intellectualism and academic Marxism is another cause for concern

5.       Possible association with pseudoscience and pseudo archaeology

6.       Attempts to sensationalize  and approach the uneducated public first thorough massive media engagements, instead of forging a consensus among specialists sets a dangerous trend and precedent

7.       Attempts to mainstream narratives in academic institutions in an underhand fashion damages science, society and the education system very badly

8.       Fostering a culture of non-objectivity in general is extremely dangerous and antithetical to science

9.       Setting a bad trend and example: This sets a bad trend and example for others to follow

10.   A very serious affront on scientific temper: This is a very serious affront on objectivity and objectivity in mindset

11.   Needs validation by a variety of experts: Experts from a wide variety of fields must validate or disprove Frontline magazine’s claims  

12.   Prevent recurrence of events of a similar nature: Such nefarious chauvinistic and parochial tendencies must be nipped in the bud before they raise their ugly head in future  because they set a bad example for rival groups as well

As we have always observed, “ one kind of biase legitimizes every other kind of bias

Warm regards,

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Founder director

Institute for the study of the globalization of science

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is automation of education possible even in the long-term?

 There’s a lot of automation that can happen that isn’t a replacement of humans, but of mind-numbing behavior.

~ Stewart Butterfield

”The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.” —Bill Gates

The objective of this article is to critically examine whether automation of education, either fully or partially will be viable or feasible in the long-term. We begin this article by defining what pedagogy is, and tracing its origin, history and development over time. We then examine language acquisition theories, both first and second, and how they have either impacted or been constrained and limited by pedagogical concepts and pedagogical theory.

We also then review much more recent concepts such as educational technology and computer-based education and review and trace their history. The role of artificial education in education which has greatly increased is also examined, along with an examination of its current successes, limitations and challenges in the field of education. The importance of ethnography and its role in pedagogy, along with a review and examination in carrying out evidence-based, data-driven and metric-driven outcomes is also carried out.

The cons of automation of education are also reviewed, and the need for a human touch, and a practical and a pragmatic approach reiterated and emphasized. The role and the importance of educational infrastructure in realizing such goals is also emphasized, and we conclude that we have a long way to go before dreaming of such goals. A meaningful and a comprehensive debate can of course, be constituted rightaway. The time is already ripe for this. We hope and expect that this article will be an important cog in the wheel of our globalization of science movement, and can help is critically analyze whether, such approaches can drive education in developing countries in the long term, and optimize human capital.

If done, it can achieve perhaps miraculous results, though only when the times comes for it. Let a million scholars bloom! Let a million intellectuals bloom! Let a million scientists bloom! Let a million though leaders bloom! If not today, at least tomorrow.

What is pedagogy?

The word pedagogy which refers to the art and science of teaching and learning is said to have had its origins in the ancient Greek words “paidos” (meaning child) and “agogos” (meaning leader). According to another alternative expression, the word breaks down into the two Greek words as follows: “pais” (meaning, “of a child”) and “agogos” (meaning “leader”).

Thus the word “pedagogy” therefore refers to the act of leading and guiding a child. The Latin word for pedagogy is “paedagogia” which in turn is said to have been derived from the aforesaid Greek word “paidagogia”, which means “escorting or sending a child to school”. Pedagogy is therefore commonly understood the theory and practice of teaching in learning, the isolation and identification of optimal teaching and learning practices and methods, and how this process influences, and is also in turn influenced by, various social, political, and psychological preferences of learners.

Some other aspects such as the interaction between students and teachers, and student and learner psychology are also researched. It has also been instituted as an academic and a scientific discipline, and is formally taught in universities and academia all over the world, particularly in the west. It is particularly for this very reason, that concepts and frameworks in pedagogy are somewhat Eurocentric in their orientation.

However, many aspects of pedagogy remain poorly researched, particularly learning outcomes, and learning abilities of students in non-western contexts, by socioeconomic group, sociocultural group, learning needs and outcomes of children with special needs and different abilities, and the relationship between learning outcomes and economic outcomes. Non-formal instruction such as on and off the job skilling and vocational training are also sometimes formally adjudged and evaluated.

History of Pedagogy

The early history of formal and informal education remains fairly hazy and nebulous to this very day. This may be in large part due to the fact the there is a dearth and a paucity of evidence, and also because the topic remains very poorly researched to this day. Early humans, particularly in pre-literate and pre-Old World Civilizations, apparently were not imparted any form of structured education at all, apart possibly and probably basic life skills, tool making and later on in the Upper Palaeolithic age, and the Neolithic age, agriculture, some arts and crafts, and a formal structured approach to education is a relatively recent phenomenon, particularly one that is monitored and studied closely.

We still have some more way to go before it can become a cogent and a coherent discipline. i.e. a data-centric and data-driven discipline. According to some researchers, the earliest formal school in any sense of the term was launched in Ancient Egypt’s middle kingdom under the supervision of Kheti, who was a treasurer to Pharaoh Mentuhotep II. Formal training may also been imparted to a very small number of elite scribes in both Mesopotamia and Egypt who were privileged to be allowed to read, write and use early hard and difficult to master scripts such as hieroglyphs, and cuneiform.

There was also probably no education for women for much longer who were typically assigned more mundane, tedious and repetitive chores, and given secondary status in society. There may have been some form of a formal or a quasi-formal training for Indus Valley administrators (by inference) but there is no way to attest to this, or reliably prove this.

In the Vedic period of Ancient India which may also be referred to as the Post-Harappan period in view of the multiplicity of cultures present in the region, Vedic knowledge along with some kind of medical knowledge was taught. The Upanishads and other literature may also have been taught along with archery and other arts, and most of the knowledge there transmitted orally, in spite of the prevalence of limited literacy in the region.

A Gurukul system of education where students learnt from a preceptor in the latter’s place of residence, also existed and is attested to in some later tests, but was limited to small groups of people. During the Zhou dynasty of Ancient China which ruled from between the tenth and the third centuries before Christ, there were national schools which taught different arts, and imparted different skills such as rituals and rites, horse riding music, archery, chariot riding, drawing, painting, calligraphy and mathematics.

In other early civilizations such as Greece, education was both public and private, though Greek civilization made enormous strides were made in science, arts, literature, and mathematics. The accomplishments and achievements of Greek civilization continue to be widely respected and admired to this day.

The earliest versions of modern universities were established in Western European nations such as England, Italy, and France between the eleventh and the twelfth centuries, teaching theology, science, arts, law, commerce and medicine. Some scholars consider these early universities to be midway between monastic schools or monasteries, and full-fledged or comprehensive modern universities. Great Islamic centres of learning were also established after the eighth century, and Islam also had its own golden age between the Eighth and the Fourteenth Centuries.

The Islamic golden age was a period of cultural, economic, and scientific renaissance with progress in science, medicine, astronomy, art, and philosophy. Modern universities are a mix of all these concepts, though many changes have indeed taken place since then. India and China also continued to prosper, thrive and flourish, though Japan and other countries were cut off from the outside world. Mass literacy levels however, were abysmally low even in the west till the 1600’s, but increased gradually in the 1700’s and the 1800’s, as the renaissance and the enlightenment took root.

This pattern of increase in public literacy levels was not duplicated in many other parts of the world till much more recently. The Japanese education system emulated the Western Education system after the Meiji restoration of 1868 which led to the emulation of western concepts. Likewise, a Western style education was introduced in India in the 1830’s based on recommendations by Lord Macaulay. While this may have benefited India greatly, some xenophobic elements want a partial reversion to the old Gurukula system of ancient yore. Education was made compulsory in most European countries only in the 1800’s and the USA eventually followed suit. By the year 1900 AD, literacy levels in the west hovered at around the 90% mark, while the rest of the world lagged badly behind with low literacy rates, and non-existent intellectualism. Today, virtually all countries in the world have made education mandatory, with varying quality of education by region. Developing countries are slowly catching up with the developing world with falling illiteracy rates, though there are indeed many variations.

There was an great interest in educational methods, tools, approaches and techniques in the Eighteenth and the Nineteenth centuries and several attempts were made to evaluate, compare and rank different teaching methods and create academic rationales became a true science in its own right. We need renaissances and enlightenments in the East, and that appears to be taking much longer than anticipated or expected. Pedagogy itself needs to be reinvented, and modernized though there is not much conceptual clarity yet on this vital score. Twenty first century skills also need to be taught to students such as analytic reasoning, complex problem solving, communication skills, practical learning and teamwork, interpersonal skills, as opposed to mere knowledge-based academic skills.

Concepts in pedagogy

Many different definitions have been proposed for the term “pedagogy”. According to a definition provided by the erudite scholar and thinker Giovanni Genovesi: “Pedagogy is an autonomous science because it has its own language and is aware of how to use it according to its own method and its own ends and, by this language, pedagogy generates a body of knowledge, a series of experiments and techniques without which any construction of education models would be impossible.” Indeed the term pedagogy is now a very wide-ranging and a very encompassing term covering a wide range and a breadth of topics such as educational content, teacher training, teacher remuneration, and motivation, learner psychology and student behaviour, and student motivation. Pedagogy may be construed as both a theoretical and an applied science, and straddles both realms in equal measure.

Many different learning theories, approaches and models have been applied across the course of the history of pedagogy, and some have eclipsed others during the long course of its history.

Learning theories are therefore, conceptual frameworks that attempt to understand and analyze how students acquire, absorb, retain, assimilate, digest and process knowledge during the process of formal and informal learning. According to many early and classical theorists such as Plato of Ancient Greece and later, the English philosopher and famous and eminent physician John Locke, learning was a continuous process, with knowledge built like an edifice or a house of bricks upon more basic rudimentary concepts; Therefore, foundational knowledge is very important in determining or dictating the course of affairs – John Locke also proposed the idea of tabula rasa or blank slate, where knowledge was continuously built upon an empty or a blank slate. Knowledge is acquired through a process of enculturation or acculturation, and knowledge acquired from endo, meso, and exo environments.

The first formal chair of pedagogy was established at the University of Halle in Germany in the second half of the eighteenth century. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi of Switzerland and Joseph Lancaster of Britain also pioneered the study of pedagogical techniques formally and scientifically. Under the supervision and guidance of Wilhelm von Humboldt, the university of Berlin was founded in 1809 which quickly and rapidly became a model for other universities in Europe to follow. Johann Friedrich Herbart played a major role in instituting Pedagogy as a separate and a distinct discipline), Immanuel Kant emphasized knowledge, human nature, learning, human values, truth, eauty, transmission of values, societal norms and opportunity.

Henri Bergson emphasixed on perception and memory, Edwin R. Guthrie emphasized contiguous conditioning, and Stanko Gogala emphasized cultural Pedagogy. The theory of Behaviorism was proposed by eminent thinkers such as John Watson, B F Skinner (Skinner’s theory was also known as “Operant Conditioning”), Edward C. Tolman (“Purposive Behaviourism” and Sign Learning), Clark L. Hull (“Systematic Behaviour Theory” or Drive Theory), and several others. According to the Social Learning theory, new behaviour is usually acquired in a social context by observing and imitating what others are doing. This concept was developed based on earlier work by Canadian American psychologist Albert Bandura and the eminent Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Constructivists likewise argue that learners interpret or understand new knowledge on the basis of what they already know, and that new knowledge continuously built over existing knowledge.

The Transfer of Learning Approach and Connectionism were by the American psychologist Edward Lee Thorndike and others. The Theory of Psychodynamics which is another important theory, was proposed by the Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud who also additionally explored many other diverse topics such as psychoanalysis and hedonism. Other leading lumiaries in the history of education have been the American founding father Thomas Jefferson, who, way back in the year in 1781 published his views on education in ‘Notes on the state of Virginia’.

John Dewey, another highly influential educationalist, proposed the idea of functionalism, and was associated with pragmatism as well. Dewey argued that education and learning were mostly social and interactive processes, and students interacted with the curriculum, and developed their own learning processes.Margaret Haley, another educator of eminent repute, focussed on a child-centric pedagogical approach in the early part of the Twentieth century. Other influential figures in the field of education have included Daniel Payne, Paul Goodman, Edgar Z. Friedenberg, Herb Kohl, Alexander Crummell, Mary McLeod Bethune, WEB DuBois, Inez Beverley Prosser, Jonathan Kozol and Booker T Washington. Benjamin W. Arnett and and Daniel Hale Williams focused on learning for blacks, and John Amos Comenius supported learning in local languages.

We also had Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (he formulated several modern principles in education), Otto Friedrich Theodor Heinsius, Friedrich Froebel (who proposed the idea of Kindergartens), to Soren Kierkegaard, Max Stirner, and Friedrich Nietzsche, all of whom were great and eminent thinkers. These were followed by theNew School or the Alternative schools movement (which included, and James Herndon), George Snyder’s non-directive pedagogies (Snyders, 1974), Fernand Oury and Institutional pedagogy which focuses on the complexity of the learner and the unconscious factors which the learner brings to the classroom (Lobrot, 1967; Oury, Vasquez, 1967) and constructivism and contextual learning (This philosophy proposed by Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky and others, proposes an ontological perspective of how humans make an interaction in relation between their experiences and their ideas). Another important doctrine is contextual learning which places a great deal of importance of cognition and problem solving.

There has also been a gradual shift from a teacher-centric approach with a great emphasis on rigid pedagogical content to a more learner-centric approach. Other more controversial approaches to pedagogy have been the field of “Critical Pedagogy” which is based on works by Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire. This field ties learning with oppression and social justice along with other political realities and contexts. Another new area of interest is Dialogic learning which derives its power from egalitarian dialogue where validity of arguments and not authoritarian power play the most central role. Educational Psychology is another important interface between education and psychology, and this branch of applied psychology deals with the problems, processes and products of education. It also applies the psychological principles, theories and techniques of human behaviour in educational situations. In the 20th century, new promising trends in the field of education have included Montessori schools developed by the Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori based on a child-centric approach and development of Waldorf education first proposed by Rudolf Steiner. Language acquisition theories for both first and second language acquisition have been proposed. These include the Behaviorist theory, Cognitive theory, Nativist theory, Interactionist theory, etc. Theories must be split up into first language and second language acquisition theories, and English must be taught differently to people in developing countries or erstwhile colonized countries because it is not their first language. All these theories are driven by myopic and dyed in the wool approaches; There is no attempt to make them data-driven, leave alone data culled from diverse cultural contexts.. At the same time, we must foster a scientific temper. Pseudo science is still rampant- people still believe in flying rishis etc- all this must change. Please refer our earlier papers on pedagogy as well, which we have published over the years.

What is edutech?

Educational technology which is also known as edutech, or edtech is the use of many different technologies such as computer hardware, computer software, and concepts in and pedagogy to allow for smoother and faster learning. Therefore, educational technology combines both theoretical and practical frameworks not only from pedagogy, but also sociology, anthropology, and pedagogy, in order to arrive at a holistic, coherent, and a cogent result. Edutech comprises several domains such as computer-based training and education, online learning, mobile learning, and artificial intelligence all of which are designed to offer dynamic and pleasant learning experiences to the learner. If they are to be made into a winning proposition, they must also enhance leaning outcomes qualitatively and quantitatively. According to the Association for Educational Communications and Technology educational technology is “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources”. Therefore, educational technology includes both the theory and application of the design, development, management, supervision and evaluation of technology in learning. It may also make use of equipment such as televisions, laptops, tablets, powerpoint presentations, projectors, whiteboards, mobiles, etc. Learning management systems and education management systems may also be often employed through the use of information and communication technology. Learning may be either online or offline, and face to face learning may still often be employed. Content is also digitized and highly standardized, and social media platforms may also sometimes be used.

Computer based education which was introduced in the 1970s albeit in a very small way, implies the widespread use of computers in education, often to achieve uniformity and consistency, instill and inculcate higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. Uses of computer based learning lie in the field of teaching, mentoring, coaching, research, administration, etc. Concepts in computer based education include computer assisted Instruction for student instruction, computer based instruction, computer managed instruction, computer assisted learning, computer based training, computer managed learning, etc. Automations of lessons or tutorials, mock drills, mock exercises, training Simulations, instructional games, etch may be used not only for problem solving, but also to boost creative thinking.

There are many advantages of computer-based learning. Computers, unlike teachers, are available all the time the learner wishes to learn. Computers are never tired and can be used to provide instruction for many hours. It allows for the learner can learn at his or her own pace. Computers do not frighten students, and most students are at ease with them. Computer learning is also increasingly less expensive than conventional institutional education. Courses can be tweaked for different types of learning, and the learning patterns or learning styles of different types and categories of students can be easily accommodated. Many foundational concepts such as the fundamentals of mathematics, physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, etc. can be taught repeatedly, and students can go through the same course again and again multiple times, without any teacher fatigue. This will also bring about a great deal of consistency, reliability, quality, and repeatability. Time will also be freed up for higher learning skills, and this will lead to improved concentration and comprehension, encourages critical thinking. It will also facilitate distance education which can particularly be promoted in higher courses – quality content will then be available online. Virtual classes can be encouraged and promoted, and brick and mortar classes kept optional. Multilingual content can also be provided, and this will help students assimilate subject matter more readily, quickly, and easily. Students can also practice at home after school hours, and the lack of parental guidance may no longer be a barrier. This will help students from the lower strata of society. Improving quality of education is also extremely important as birth rates continue to fall. We already have distance universities in India such as Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Netaji Subhas Open University, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University (BAOU), Tamil Nadu Open University, and Karnataka State Open University – the last one is a failed university. Even exams can be conducted online by making use of a proctor. In some cases, such universities have become successful and there has been a decline in traditional coaching centres based in Kota and other places. Gitam universities and other universities are also now developing fully digital classrooms.

Artificial intelligence is also being widely used in learning and teaching models these days, though its potential has not yet been widely tapped. AI in education allows for educators to develop useful simulations, conduct personalized tests, and adaptive exercises that are tailored for individual student’s learning patterns. It will also allow for recursive learning, personalized approaches, adaptive approaches to education, better quality of education, and an overall reduction in cost. it can also be used to promote mass literacy. However, on the flip side, it may allow for the automation of bad ways of teaching, may compromise creativity, and may compromise ability to think independently. The human touch may be lost, and Human traits may not be replicable in teachers. Human guidance is important, and morals, ethics, values must also be imparted.

Some progress has been made in the automation of teaching. A school in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala has launched a groundbreaking innovation in education with the introduction of India’s first saree-clad artificial intelligence teacher robot named ‘Iris’ This AI-generated school teacher robot, was developed by Makerlabs Edutech. This robot is powered by a cutting-edge robotics and generative AI technology, and comprises an in-built voice feature that runs on an Intel chipset. This teacher was developed under the Atal Tinkering Lab project orchestrated by the eminent India think tank NITI Aayog, and aims to revolutionize traditional teaching. This humanoid is currently proficient in three languages, though its developers plan to extend its language capabilities to cover several other languages as well. Robot Shalu is another educational humanoid robot developed by the technologist Dinesh Kunwar Patel, from Mumbai. It can speak a total of forty seven languages, Indian and foreign. Teacher robots will improve gradually as technology progresses, and this is something we can wait for.

There are many advantages of automation of education. For example, the dichotomy between global north and global south can be brought down, and the causes for differentials understood between different regions and classes of people. This will help is institute remedial measures. Customization, tweaking and modification is required to assess the needs of students belonging to different sociocultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly the downtrodden and the underprivileged sections of the population. Modification and cultural adaptation are also required in many cases. Pilot studies must be carried out, and pilot studies must be carried out, capturing a wide variety of parameters. It has several other benefits too; for example, it can help overcome linguistic barriers; It can help overcome poor quality of teaching; It an benefit developing countries in relative terms; It can help developing countries catch up with developed ones and even leapfrog them. It can help overcome racism of many types.

However, this may only be a long term solution. There must be reliability of power, and infrastructures must be in place. The infrastructure in Indian classrooms is pathetic and most lack blackboards, reliable water and power supply and toilet facilities. Other basic amenities are lacking, and teacher absenteeism is high. Solar power, and other forms of renewable power must be used, and persovskite and cadmium telluride based options explored. The PM Surya Ghar program must be implemented; it is still in its infancy. All schools must have reliable power supply, and the current dismal scenario of unreliable power supply stopped. We are not talking about just reliable power supply here, but 24X7 power supply. In many rural regions, power outages of upto twelve hours a day are common. Indeed, we need a power revolution in India, just as we had a telecom and a highway revolution, but this is decades away; Solar power can step in, and this is poised for a huge boom, and an exponential increase. We need to understand language dynamics, and the theory of linguistic expectation, and the theory of non-linguistic expectation. Linguistic ethnography must be used. To reiterate, ethnography is a widely qualitative research method that involves studying in order to understand their culture, social dynamics, and worldviews. It is yet to become popular in linguistics and pedagogy. In other words, more data-driven approaches are required.

There must be no technology for technology’s sake, and a human touch, and a practical, pragmatic approach must be maintained. A back up mechanism will always be required, and teachers must still be qualified and trained. The quality of training must remain intact, and good teachers are still a must. This is because teachers are mentor and, guides. They provide spiritual, moral, ethical, and practical guidance to students. Output based metrics and other quantitative and qualitative metrics must be gathered at regular intervals. We must keep learning recursively from mistakes, and course corrections are always required. Theories of pedagogical content must be developed and there must be no rote learning except for the foundational elements and the basics. In short, it is a brilliant solution, but the time must come for it. Developing countries like India must use it to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and close gaps with the developed world. More debate and discussion are required, and we have time to go till technology evolves. This gives us time to debate and discuss issues deeply. We request readers to read our earlier papers and our book on pedagogy. Automation may seem like an over the top solution, but it may become mainstream eventually. This may take several decades, and we must begin with colleges and universities first. Other streams and phases of education can gradually follow suit. This approach can be used to teach in either English, or it the mother tongue. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages, and the use of automation in either stream can have their own advantages and disadvantages. More and more research papers are required, and we can understand that education makes or breaks nations.

Automation can also solve many problems in this day and age of obsession with English education which has its own benefits and drawbacks. Many teachers cannot speak English properly – this is the biggest obstacle to English medium education. High quality teacher training is also required. However, bottlenecks will remain. Automated education cannot be a substitute for good quality teachers, particularly at lower levels of education. We must remember that teacher provide students succour; teachers provide students empathy; teachers shape moral values; teachers shape cultural values; teachers provide a human touch; teachers shape students’ personalities; teachers are specially important in lower grades. However, education can be gradually automated as students become more emotionally mature. Composite approaches can also be adopted. Government can also initiate pilot studies on the automation of education, and educationalists, sociologists, and anthropologists roped in as required. In short, it is a brilliant solution, but the time must come for it.  

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.