I have watched it and will add my two paise. 1. The movie technically is good only in parts and is not at par with Schindler's list. 2. It gives some sort of closure/relief to KPs that at least someone recognizes their pain. 3. In the long run, this will be considered a seminal movie, not because of the treatment, but because of the content. 4. It is also a propaganda movie and have a long discussion around narratives etc.
A perceptive and well-written piece on TKF. Thank you.
I have a follow-up question regarding the below portion - can you please provide some sources/examples in support of this assertion. The RW has constantly made complaints about historical scholarship on India; however, I have not found methodologically strong critiques not have I come across examples that support the narrative of left-dominance and resultant distortion of history; or of consistent muzzling of other voices. Thank you.
"the value of encouraging contesting narratives about our history in the public domain. One of the mistakes in the early years of our independence was that we didn’t let this happen as much. An ‘establishment’ was created that dominated academics, culture and arts which swore by liberty and free speech but muzzled other voices than their own. The state often supported this overtly. There might have been compulsions of the moment then for the state to have propped up a narrative. But this continued far too long and over time turned into a cabal."
I have watched it and will add my two paise. 1. The movie technically is good only in parts and is not at par with Schindler's list. 2. It gives some sort of closure/relief to KPs that at least someone recognizes their pain. 3. In the long run, this will be considered a seminal movie, not because of the treatment, but because of the content. 4. It is also a propaganda movie and have a long discussion around narratives etc.
A perceptive and well-written piece on TKF. Thank you.
I have a follow-up question regarding the below portion - can you please provide some sources/examples in support of this assertion. The RW has constantly made complaints about historical scholarship on India; however, I have not found methodologically strong critiques not have I come across examples that support the narrative of left-dominance and resultant distortion of history; or of consistent muzzling of other voices. Thank you.
"the value of encouraging contesting narratives about our history in the public domain. One of the mistakes in the early years of our independence was that we didn’t let this happen as much. An ‘establishment’ was created that dominated academics, culture and arts which swore by liberty and free speech but muzzled other voices than their own. The state often supported this overtly. There might have been compulsions of the moment then for the state to have propped up a narrative. But this continued far too long and over time turned into a cabal."
What practical ways are there to foster Hindu Muslim unity in India despite all the historical (medieval and recent) baggage?