Rating: 
Summary: India: Who Ruled Where and When
Review: This is a great book for a very specific audience. If you are looking for a book that will give a detailed account of which dynasties ruled which parts of India during which times, this is a wonderful and thorough history.However, if you are a reader looking for a rich history of India and her people, this is a dry and empty read. Keay has a tendency to simply march through dynasties, giving the reader little clue as to what distinguished one from another, except the area of the subcontinent from which they hailed. One example is his rather frustrating habit of referring obliquely to amusing yet apocryphal tales, and then not telling the actual story. These stories must be told, even if their veracity is uncertain. This is what would make the rest of the history worth reading to a person not deeply involved with pre-modern South Asian history. Keay's prose is competent, but not particularly engaging. I suspect his style is more appealing to Britons than American readers. The bottom line: There is a great need for a thorough, rich, and readable history of India. This book does not fill that void.
Rating: 
Summary: neophyte raves
Review: This is an excellent book. The author's geographical and temporal scope are impressive. In particular I appreciate the fact that he draws on Indian historians of various viewpoints. One gets the feeling that in this way he may get closer to a true sense of what has happened. It is also worth noting that I was unable to find a single typograhical error in the body of the text (I always look for them) which hints at good checking and review. The writer uses maps and dynastic timelines extensively and to pretty good effect. I would have liked even more of them. The pictures are arranged in 4 groups. It would have been preferable - although doubtless expensive - if they had been more closely linked to the chapters.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, as always
Review: This is yet another well researched, eminently readable book by John Keay. As with his other books, he does not have a particular ax to grind, which seems to disappoint some other reviewers. Certainly there are persons, events, cultural trends, which are omitted, but I fail to see how this could be avoided in a one volume survey. I found it fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, as always
Review: This is yet another well researched, eminently readable book by John Keay. As with his other books, he does not have a particular ax to grind, which seems to disappoint some other reviewers. Certainly there are persons, events, cultural trends, which are omitted, but I fail to see how this could be avoided in a one volume survey. I found it fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: A Eurocentric View of India
Review: We despair of the coming of a writer who will present India with a full command of the Indian texts and the new archaeological finds. Keay has failed us like the previous authors weaned on the colonialist school of historiography. The tone is set by the unfortunate repetition by Keay of the now discredited Aryan invasion theory (see the recent books by Kenoyer, Gupta, and Lal for the archaelogical findings establishing a continuity that goes back to 6500 BC). I hope the author will soon bring out a revised and corrected version of this book.
Rating: 
Summary: A critical overview of John Keay's book, India
Review: While John Keay does a decent job in trying to piece together a plethora of difficult historical facts that constitute what he claims to be the "history" of India, he misses the mark on many occasions, and despite his subtle claims to the contrary, he fails to extricate himself from classic Euro-centricism. Given his predisposition to this myopic viewpoint, he misses several opportunities to soar to higher heights. For example, he claims that the Vedic scripture written in Sanskrit has no mention of the elephant, and he uses this rather trivial fact to support the claim that Aryans must have therefore migrated into the Indian subcontinent. He also provides clues as to why he thinks the epic Ramayana occured and/or was written after the great epic The Mahabharata. Now, the Mahabharata is full of mention of elephants but the Ramayana has no mention of it...so by his own rationale the Ramayana should predate the Mahabharata. Additionally, he overlooks the Vedic god Indra's vaahana or "vehicle". It is Airaavata, a white elephant! John also makes the classic error of "defining" India as the land south of the Hindu Kush, which is a grave error, but not uncommon to the Euro-centric mind. In fact Vedic civilization and its progenitor, the Tantric civiliation, was not confined to the "sub"-continent. He dismisses casually as "memory loss" the glaring fact that there is no mention or memory of Aryans migrating into India either in their Vedic scriptures or in the collective memories of the "conquored" Dravidians. Rudradaman, for example is claimed to be a "non-Indian" in this book and the author frequently makes annoying remarks about "foreigners" conquoring India... something that is totally unnecessary in an otherwise well organized book. Perhaps it could be related to his leanings to Dr. Kosambi, a scholar who is nonetheless an ardent critic of the Vedas. The author TOTAALLY neglects the possibility that the Aryans could have migrated OUT of India into the "heathen" Sumerian and Egyptian worlds. Net, the book a fair attempt to pigion-hole India into neat little cubby holes, much like attempts in the past. I believe this book will attract lukewarm respect by scholars in India.
Rating:
Summary: A critical overview of John Keay's book, India
Review: While John Keay does a decent job in trying to piece together a plethora of difficult historical facts that constitute what he claims to be the "history" of India, he misses the mark on many occasions, and despite his subtle claims to the contrary, he fails to extricate himself from classic Euro-centricism. Given his predisposition to this myopic viewpoint, he misses several opportunities to soar to higher heights. For example, he claims that the Vedic scripture written in Sanskrit has no mention of the elephant, and he uses this rather trivial fact to support the claim that Aryans must have therefore migrated into the Indian subcontinent. He also provides clues as to why he thinks the epic Ramayana occured and/or was written after the great epic The Mahabharata. Now, the Mahabharata is full of mention of elephants but the Ramayana has no mention of it...so by his own rationale the Ramayana should predate the Mahabharata. Additionally, he overlooks the Vedic god Indra's vaahana or "vehicle". It is Airaavata, a white elephant! John also makes the classic error of "defining" India as the land south of the Hindu Kush, which is a grave error, but not uncommon to the Euro-centric mind. In fact Vedic civilization and its progenitor, the Tantric civiliation, was not confined to the "sub"-continent. He dismisses casually as "memory loss" the glaring fact that there is no mention or memory of Aryans migrating into India either in their Vedic scriptures or in the collective memories of the "conquored" Dravidians. Rudradaman, for example is claimed to be a "non-Indian" in this book and the author frequently makes annoying remarks about "foreigners" conquoring India... something that is totally unnecessary in an otherwise well organized book. Perhaps it could be related to his leanings to Dr. Kosambi, a scholar who is nonetheless an ardent critic of the Vedas. The author TOTAALLY neglects the possibility that the Aryans could have migrated OUT of India into the "heathen" Sumerian and Egyptian worlds. Net, the book a fair attempt to pigion-hole India into neat little cubby holes, much like attempts in the past. I believe this book will attract lukewarm respect by scholars in India.
|
