Talk:The Argumentative Indian

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

India: Literature Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Why does the article have only a criticism section? Without a sufficient summary or other forms of reception, adding just a criticism section gives a biased feel to the article. I suggest adding reviews from some known critics. (59.180.5.81 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To the Hindu nationalist critics of this book. It is OK to add criticisms to the book, what its not ok is to add your own criticisms and then add a reference that is only tangentially related. Both adding your own criticism and the weak reference are wrong by themselves. Find a published critique and then take from it. Even though I am not going to remove the Durant quote, I think its possible to find a criticism that refers to this book and not a quote from a 1935 book thats very shaky on its "oriental" history.140.247.243.171 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnson review[edit]

I am cut-pasting below the exchange I had with 70.113.114.144 (talk · contribs) on my talk page after I had reverted his this edit which violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV and misrepresented the source. I infer from the above comment that this is not the first such instance, so the following information may be of use to other editors watching this page. Abecedare 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the problems with the criticism section in the argumentative Indian. I read the critical review and added excerpts that summarized the legitimate criticism of the work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.114.144 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for responding, but I am afraid that you are still inserting your personal POV into the article through the first sentence of these edits , which is bad in itself (see WP:NPOV) but doubly so when you wrongly ascribe your views to a external source. In the review , [1], Johnson is basically saying that Sen repeats (what in Johnson's opinion is) a historical cliche in painting Akbar white and Aurangzeb black ... while Johnson's considers them both to have shades of gray. As such your addition to the article, "The book stands exposed as an attempt to camouflage the roles of some of the more oppressive Muslim Emperors in India (such as Aurangzeb) in an attempt to whitewash the Persecution of Hindus in India.", is diametrically oposite to the source you cite. I assume good faith and hope that this is just a matter of misreading on your part and does not reflect malicious intent. I also recommend that you register an account on wikipedia, which will facilitate communication with other editors. Thanks. Abecedare 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intimation. I directly quoted from the review. I did not misrepresent anything. The review states (and I quote):

"There is a more serious distortion of Mughal history. The Mughal emperor Akbar, who ruled from 1556 to 1605, is always compared to Aurangzeb, who ruled from 1658 to 1707. There has long been a 1066 and All That view of these rulers, and it is one to which Sen repeatedly subscribes. Akbar was a good thing because he was nice to Hindus, was non-discriminatory in his policies towards his many and varied subjects, took little account of religion in public affairs, and consequently ran a successful state.

By contrast, Aurangzeb seized power illegitimately, espoused religious causes, was a fundamentalist Islamic bigot and implemented policies that discriminated against his non-Muslim subjects, which was all a bad thing and caused the downfall of the Mughal Empire. But this is a grossly over-simplified account of Akbar, whose reign saw some pretty bloody politics and whose position on religion seems not too far removed from that of contemporary European princes with their resort to axe and fire. And it misreads the whole of the second half of the 17th century. Of course Aurangzeb was keen on Islam (or on a particular strain of it), and his piety spilled out into public policy. Of course he was cruel to his subjects, among them Hindus. But under Aurangzeb the Mughal Empire reached its greatest extent and successfully incorporated military, political and social elites of all religions into its structure. By the time of his death, the Mughals had created an extraordinarily sophisticated political and economic regime commanding consent despite its intolerances and its religious enthusiasm."

Clearly, he criticizes Sen for equating Akbar with Aurangzeb. May I ask what your agenda is in trying to hide this?70.113.114.144 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same review ? Clearly, Johnson is critiquing Sen, but not for "equating Akbar with Aurangzeb", but rather for making, what Johnson considers, a over-simplistic reading of these rulers in which Akbar stands for "good" and Aurangzeb stands for "bad". Perhaps other editors can weigh in on our two readings. I'll ignore your comment about "agendas" and request you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Anyone interested can look at our editing histories and your previous contributions as 70.113.95.213 (talk · contribs) Abecedare 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference between the two? Obviously I am an illiterate unbeliever so don't know wanything.70.113.114.144 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all the difference between "equal" and "not equal". Accoding to Johnson, Sen says "Akbar = good for Hindus, Aurangzeb = bad for Hindus" (which, logically, is only "equating" the two if what is good for Hindus is at the same time also bad for Hindus, and vice versa), while Johnson emphasizes that both were pragmatic emperors and if Aurangzeb broke more eggs, it was because he was making a larger cake. I don't know if .144 is an "unbeliever", but he certainly doesn't believe in boolean logic or coherence. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, 70.113.114.144 was given a 24-hour ban for violation of the 3RR rule, and an administrator has sprotected the page to cool off unproductive edit wars. Buddhipriya 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnson review can be summarized adequately to the effect that Johnson deplores the simplification of history even for honourable ends, precisely because of the appalling methods used by those Sen criticizes, viz., the Hindutva demagogues who simplify Indian history to a ludicrous caricature of a millennial Vedic Bliss up to the point the evil Muslim Hordes set foot to the subcontinent. It would be more beneficient to give a differentiated account of history, debunking blatant Hindutva demagogy for what it is while still admitting that both Akbar and Aurangzeb were medieval pragmatists, not the Good vs. the Evil Face of Islam. As it is, you just end up with history as something completely malleable by ideology, used to de-escalating effect by the good guys, and to escalating effect by the ideological hatemongers, but history itself loses out either way. dab (𒁳) 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

small content - lots of criticism[edit]

not a very good article. --13Peewit (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]