Now that we have a real President again in the US (President Elect Biden), let me turn to something bothering some folks --

How I usually talk about the Mughals vs. my recent article on the Mahabharata. Short #THREAD https://aeon.co/essays/the-indian-epic-mahabharata-imparts-a-dark-nuanced-moral-vision

In brief, I usually argue that we should understand the Mughals on their own terms. In my recent Mahabharata article, I interpret the story as one that speaks to our times.

The basic difference here is history vs. literature. The Mughals are history; Mahabharata is a story.

Moreover, the Mahabharata has never been a single story. As I discuss in the article, it has been retold countless times, and it changes every time (scholars sometimes call it a fluid text). As a work of literature, you can reinterpret it for any time, to speak to human issues.

You can also interpret the MBh using a historical lens. It is not hard political history, but the text lends substantial insights on the nature of politics, society, & more in premodern India. I don't do that in this article, although I do when I teach the epic in history courses

Here perhaps it helps to remember that, in addition to being a historian, I'm also a literature person. I was trained as a philologist. I retain that set of interests in addition to history.

So, folks, be open to asking different types of questions of different types of materials.

Premodern India is full of riches, both of the historical and literary varieties. Be clear about what you're looking at, the sorts of questions you're asking, and you'll find much of worth