For my Master’s research project I will translate and analyze two texts: the Prithvīrajavijaya , composed by Jayanaka approximately in 1191 CE and the Hammiramahkavya composed by Nayachandra Suri in 1496 CE. Both poems chronicle the history of the Chauhan Rajput princes and their battles against the Turko-Persian slave armies between the 12th and 14th centuries. I will use a combination of literary and historical methods of analysis to investigate how the medieval Rajasthani elite perceived these Turko-Persian invaders and by extension how they perceived the categories of “Muslim” and “Islam.” Though several cantos of the Prithvīrajavijaya manuscript have been destroyed, the Hammiramahakavya manuscript is complete and includes many of the same stories as the Prithvirajavijaya. By analyzing the texts together, I will be able to “fill in the gaps” of the Prithvirajavijaya as well as compare and contrast elements of each text to discern whether the opinions regarding the Turko-Persians expressed by the authors were merely their personal views or more enduring opinions held by generations of the public elite.
As Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya argues, until recently scholarship on Muslims and Islam in India has been dominated by Orientalist modes of understanding, which tend toward homogenizing difference into such opposing monolithic categories as indigenous/other, masculine/feminine, and Hindu/Muslim. The goal of my Master’s research project is to identify and remove these problematic orientalist interpretive lenses through which the source materials have been viewed in the past and look at them again from a fresh perspective, with the recognition that my own work is limited by a particular frame of reference, to develop a fuller understanding of how the Rajputs perceived the Turko-Persians. By examining the literary techniques employed by the authors to describe the Turko-Persians I will be able to gain some insight as to how religio-cultural difference was perceived by the Rajput elite. Did they identify the Turko-Persians as “Muslim” and therefore entirely alien as some scholars have presupposed in their work or did they have a more specific or refined method of conveying the perceived differences and similarities between themselves and the Turko-Persians?
My research will contribute directly to a newly developing sub-field in South Asian religion focusing on the dialogue between Sanskrit and Persianate cultures in the medieval period. In the past, Persian literature was used as the primary source material for this particular region and time period in Indian history. My research is unique in that I will be looking at the same historical moment from the perspective of Sanskrit scholars in the royal courts of north India, filling a critical gap in present scholarship in the sub-field. In a larger socio-political sense, this research is deeply relevant today as it examines this initial interaction, what colonialists' and communalists' have identified as the start of the "Muslim" period of Indian history, and in doing so conceivably provide some new findings to challenge the received history as a clash between two monolithic religious groups. By challenging the received history perhaps I will be able to offer a counter-argument to the communalist belief that India is essentially one land peopled by two nations.
My undergraduate degree in the study of religion and history has given me a solid foundation from which I can begin to undertake this project. I have taken several courses in Sanskrit at the undergraduate level and have taken private classes over the course of five months from Dr. Sucheta Paranjpe of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India. In addition, I have begun learning German and Hindi for the purpose of reading secondary source materials and additional commentaries to the texts that I will be translating. After completing my Master’s I would like to pursue a Ph.D. in the study of religion in South Asia and teach at a Canadian university.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Amy,
I found your proposal excellent. You began with a detailed description of your intended MA topic, providing brief background information. From here, you immediately mentioned the particular methodology by which you would approach your topic. I think this is a strong way to begin your proposal. After this, you mentioned that one of the texts is incomplete (parts of it destroyed), which highlights your specific knowledge of primary sources and their condition. Yet, you also mentioned that you will use both texts together to "fill in the gaps". This demonstrates that you are familiar with the unfortunate consequences of historical decay, but you intend to use the available sources together to bring about a more complete understanding of the topic.
After this you mentioned the limitations of the field today, namely the outdated Orientalist interpretations and how you intend to provide a new, insightful perspective. Although you hope to overcome the problematic areas in scholarship, you do not fail to note the limitations of your own perspective. This is excellent and shows, in my opinion, your honesty and competency in the field.
You then mention how your research will contribute to the existing field of study and also how your work is relevant today, challenging existing historical notions. You state a possible counter-argument to a specific idea/perspective, which I think is a great way to end this particular paragraph.
Finally, you mention your undergraduate preparation, focusing on your language training. I found it particularly effective that you mentioned your training in a more traditional/non-Western setting, as this shows a diversity of experience in acquiring your language skills. Also, from experience I find learning language outside of a North American university far more beneficial (but thats just my opinion!).
All in all, an excellent proposal in my view. I am sorry that I could not offer any constructive criticism, as it was very well done. I look forward to reading your work!
-Adam
Amy,
I enjoyed the read. It seems to me that your subfield of “Sanskrit and Persianate cultures” is much in need of further development, and I am pleased to hear that you are stepping up to the plate. My first suggestion is that you rearrange your first two paragraphs a little bit. In particular, an outside reader (someone who knows little about Asian religions or culture) will not know that you are talking about Indian texts until the second paragraph. I think you need to make this more explicit in the first paragraph. I mean, the reader will know you are talking about the Prithvīrajavijaya and the Hammiramahakavya manuscripts, but what are they? Where do they come from? These questions are not answered until the second paragraph, and, in fact, the connection is not entirely explicit.
This brings me to a second point. I believe that the research you are doing will be very beneficial for filling “in the gaps”, which is a really exciting scholarly goal to aspire to. Moreover, I believe do a very good job of showing us (the readers) where the gaps are. However, I’m concerned that your voice sounds rather passive at times. In particular, at times, you sound like you are going to make a huge scholarly contribution through your research, but, then, your (author’s) voice becomes a little timid; for example, “[b]y challenging the received history perhaps I will be able to offer a counter-argument to the communalist belief that India is essentially one land peopled by two nations.” This sort of language can undermine your position. I’d suggest you be a little bolder in your writing style (at least in terms of writing proposals).
You have some great points in your writing; thus, don’t allow your writing style to sound at all hesitant. Instead, tell them that you will make “such and such” a radical contribution to the field by embarking on “such and such” a study.
All the best,
Andrew
Amy,
I think that by the mere fact that you’re sincerely filling in a genuine gap and not creating a pseudo-gap in scholarship, your proposal is strengthened. You mention your knowledge of the primary language and your pursuit of required secondary languages, which is also good. Now, a few points:
1) Right at the start, when you say that you will analyze and translate texts, specify their language, immediately.
2) I would edit this sentence, though this is just a suggestion, since I might be leaving out important information (see below):
The goal of my Master’s research project is to identify and remove these problematic orientalist interpretive lenses through which the source materials have been viewed in the past and look at them again from a fresh perspective, with the recognition that my own work is limited by a particular frame of reference, to develop a fuller understanding of how the Rajputs perceived the Turko-Persians.
My Master’s research project will aim to identify and minimize these problematic orientalist modes of interpreting the source material and to engage them anew so as to limit cultural bias to the extent that such a task is possible and to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how the Rajputs perceived the Turko-Persians.
Don’t make excuses for yourself, but you could seem less of a rebel by using such words as ‘minimize’, rather than ‘remove’. Just a suggestion!
3) I would excise ‘perhaps’. It’s right, no one can be that sure, but words like ‘hope’, ‘perhaps’ and the like just don’t seem egotistical enough for such a document, or perhaps too unsure. I don’t know – it’s always a battle when writing grant proposals.
By challenging the received history perhaps I will be able to offer a counter-argument to the communalist belief that India is essentially one land peopled by two nations.
4) why are these taken as possessives?
what colonialists' and communalists'
5) I’m not sure about how you use monolithic – perhaps you might use ‘polarized’ or ‘distinct’?
Anyways, I think you have a good proposal, but I would run it by much more experienced eyes than ours! I hope my suggestions helped, sorry if I couldn’t be more helpful!
Good luck !
babak
Post a Comment