There were two extremely interesting articles completely unrelated to business and economics in recent editions of Mint. The first one, 'A Battle About History' was written by T R Ramaswami who according to Mint is a "former commercial and investment banker" on the 23rd of May. Ramaswami examines one of the most debated phases in Ancient Indian History - the arrival of the Aryans and the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization. This is an issue that has puzzled historians and archaeologists to a great extent. Why did the Indus Valley Civilization die out? Who were the Aryans? Where did they come from? Were they involved in the decline of the Indus Valley cultures? These are questions that have either no answers or hotly debated ones. Opinions abound on who the Aryans were and where they originated from.
Ramaswami is undoubtedly an 'Invasion Theory' supporter. The entire theme of his article can be summed up in his last few lines "Was Ram a Cossack, the most famed of all horse-people? Doesn’t “Valmiki” sound Russian, perhaps a corruption of Vladmikhailovich, who lived in the present Russian town named Sverdlovsk, formerly perhaps Swargalok?". He goes on to say that even if the Invasion Theory is incorrect, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata occurred outside India (possibly in Russia) and were then carried to India by the 'horse-people' where they became a part of folklore.
I may sound elitist over here, but I do believe there is a certain way in which articles ought to be written, especially those that deal with ambiguous issues such as this. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramaswami has not followed this path. There is an inherently I-know-everything attitude to the whole article that tends to sharply divide the readers into either enthusiastic supporters or angry rejectors. Sentences like "Here's what happened..." immediately invokes a "How does he know?" reaction from lots of readers including me. It's no small wonder that a brief glance at the comments section shows one a number of angry replies including some who advise Ramaswami to stick to being an investment banker and not venture into areas beyond his expertise.
The following week, there was a reply by a certain Jaykrishnan Nair who, according to Mint, maintains a history blog and "hosts the Indian History Carnival at Desipundit.com". The article is called 'Genetic Data Refutes Theory'. The difference between Nair's article and that of Ramaswami is starkly apparent. While Ramaswami's article was loud and declarative, Nair maintains a more subdued tone, being more analytical and technical in nature. Nair doesn't support the Invasion Theory and unlike Ramaswami, most of his statements don't appear to be speculative but rather backed by scientific data (more specifically DNA testing). To sum up the differences between the two, Ramaswami, seems to be shouting into a microphone while standing on a stage while Nair seems to be giving a quiet lecture in a small room. And I have noticed, that it is usually these personalized lectures that connect more easily with the audience than a massive congregation.
I am an Invasion Theory supporter myself (though not as over-the-top as Ramaswami) for a number of reasons but Nair's article has certainly made me re-examine my beliefs about history. It will take more than one newspaper article to change a fundamental part of my theories about Indian history but if confronted with enough convincing evidence, I may change my theories in the future.
Which brings me to another small point. It's all very well to criticize Ramaswami for inadequate research, tall claims and (in my case) bad writing but one thing I was offended about was how some comments on his article were directed at his occupation and why he "ought not to meddle in areas beyond his expertise". Please, for the sake of humanity, don't disbelieve someone's theory just because he's not an expert on them. Experts are not always correct and amateurs are not always wrong. And sometimes, it's good to bring in amateur theories because it cleans out years of clutter accumulated through experience. On that note, I'm signing off.
Ramaswami is undoubtedly an 'Invasion Theory' supporter. The entire theme of his article can be summed up in his last few lines "Was Ram a Cossack, the most famed of all horse-people? Doesn’t “Valmiki” sound Russian, perhaps a corruption of Vladmikhailovich, who lived in the present Russian town named Sverdlovsk, formerly perhaps Swargalok?". He goes on to say that even if the Invasion Theory is incorrect, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata occurred outside India (possibly in Russia) and were then carried to India by the 'horse-people' where they became a part of folklore.
I may sound elitist over here, but I do believe there is a certain way in which articles ought to be written, especially those that deal with ambiguous issues such as this. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramaswami has not followed this path. There is an inherently I-know-everything attitude to the whole article that tends to sharply divide the readers into either enthusiastic supporters or angry rejectors. Sentences like "Here's what happened..." immediately invokes a "How does he know?" reaction from lots of readers including me. It's no small wonder that a brief glance at the comments section shows one a number of angry replies including some who advise Ramaswami to stick to being an investment banker and not venture into areas beyond his expertise.
The following week, there was a reply by a certain Jaykrishnan Nair who, according to Mint, maintains a history blog and "hosts the Indian History Carnival at Desipundit.com". The article is called 'Genetic Data Refutes Theory'. The difference between Nair's article and that of Ramaswami is starkly apparent. While Ramaswami's article was loud and declarative, Nair maintains a more subdued tone, being more analytical and technical in nature. Nair doesn't support the Invasion Theory and unlike Ramaswami, most of his statements don't appear to be speculative but rather backed by scientific data (more specifically DNA testing). To sum up the differences between the two, Ramaswami, seems to be shouting into a microphone while standing on a stage while Nair seems to be giving a quiet lecture in a small room. And I have noticed, that it is usually these personalized lectures that connect more easily with the audience than a massive congregation.
I am an Invasion Theory supporter myself (though not as over-the-top as Ramaswami) for a number of reasons but Nair's article has certainly made me re-examine my beliefs about history. It will take more than one newspaper article to change a fundamental part of my theories about Indian history but if confronted with enough convincing evidence, I may change my theories in the future.
Which brings me to another small point. It's all very well to criticize Ramaswami for inadequate research, tall claims and (in my case) bad writing but one thing I was offended about was how some comments on his article were directed at his occupation and why he "ought not to meddle in areas beyond his expertise". Please, for the sake of humanity, don't disbelieve someone's theory just because he's not an expert on them. Experts are not always correct and amateurs are not always wrong. And sometimes, it's good to bring in amateur theories because it cleans out years of clutter accumulated through experience. On that note, I'm signing off.
