10-29-2004, 02:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Rajita Rajvasishth+Oct 18 2004, 12:19 PM-->QUOTE(Rajita Rajvasishth @ Oct 18 2004, 12:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe there are two different things: 1) History the science and 2) The national narrative.
History the science is like any other science an investigative reconstruction of the past. So I believe there are no other principles beyond the basic scientific principles in doing history, when it is pursued as a science.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can history be really studied as a science? Will a muslim historian view the islamic invasion of the Indian subcontinent in quite the same light as a Hindu historian? History can not be studied from a purely objective angle because history is the past viewed through the particular individual lens of the historian. All one can say is there are several possible versions of history and their rightness or wrongness will depend on the ideological bent of the reader of history.
History the science is like any other science an investigative reconstruction of the past. So I believe there are no other principles beyond the basic scientific principles in doing history, when it is pursued as a science.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can history be really studied as a science? Will a muslim historian view the islamic invasion of the Indian subcontinent in quite the same light as a Hindu historian? History can not be studied from a purely objective angle because history is the past viewed through the particular individual lens of the historian. All one can say is there are several possible versions of history and their rightness or wrongness will depend on the ideological bent of the reader of history.