I read this in Romila Thapar's History of Ancient India Today:
Mythology and history are often counterposed and myth cannot be treated as a factual account. Yet the prizing out of social assumptions implicit in a myth can be helpful to reconstructing some kinds of history. The interpretation of myths, if handled with caution, can invoke some of the fantasies and subconscious beliefs of their authors, while the structure of the myth can hint at the connections and confrontations in a society of those sustaining the myths.
2 comments:
So true! I had an argument with my dad once and while he asserted that he knew of no instance in the 'true scriptures' (who alone knows who the judge of that would be) where a lower caste person had been subject to cruelty. I cited the example of Shambuka Vadha and surprisingly my dad was not even aware of the incident in his knowledge of Ramayana! I showed him an excerpt from Ambedkar's speech 'The Annihilation of Caste' (which incidentally was never delivered), but he was not willing to believe it. He was convinced that there was some distortion of 'facts' here. Given some more time, however, my dad would have certainly convinced himself that a true morality lay in the story.
while my parents are not really "scripture followers", my mom does have this "old is gold" hangover.
whenever there are 2 competing ideas, products or behaviour, she inevitably picks the "old" one, always citing some "wise old saying" thingy in defence. A common point of contention, ofcourse, is the length of my hair.
Apparently "the ancients" (whoever they were) frowned upon long hair. :-/
Post a Comment