A central government committee set up last week to define Indian culture is drawing flak on many fronts. Prahlad Patel, minister for culture, has announced a 16-member committee to study the origin and evolution of Indian culture over 12,000 years.

The committee has no women members, and no members from the southern and north-eastern states. “Also, scholars who have worked on Dalit and non-Hindu subjects are also conspicuous by their absence,” says historian Malavika Binny.

The panel reminds her of the all-white all-British Simon Commission which set out to study and recommend Constitutional reforms in India, she says.

Here's the link to the rest of the article : https://www.deccanherald.com/metrolife/metrolife-cityscape/academics-slam-indian-culture-panel-891570.html

Here's the list of the committee members : https://imgur.com/a/V5FFBaC

What do you y'all think about this? This is really concerning to me personally, especially looking at numbers 13 and 14 from the committee list. The Indian government/centre indirectly pushes the narrative that Indian culture is Hindu culture and Sanskrit is the oldest superior language in the world, ignoring and overlooking the literature and achievements of other languages in the country. They also have a tendency to twist history to support their agenda.

In medieval Europe, I've heard it was common for nobles to marry very young and have no say but was this the case for an average peasant?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how maddening are people finding this "Who is the bad guy in history who isn't actually a bad guy?" on /r/askreddit?

Cuties - the movie not the fruit.

This has been in discussion a bit. Would like some historical context.

1. I am told French films love nudity - yeah?
2. Nudity (if it’s in there, I haven’t seen it) for young girls in French films is kind of a throwback to prior films
3. French people have a different view on nudity due to historical traditions yada yada yada. Really? And that hasn’t changed in context of the internet?

All I have seen is condemnation of Cuties. Which I 100% agree with. Have seen no good defenses. I have to believe there is something out there. The director has to have an interesting POV other than it being a social commentary.

​

I'm reading Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower." It's painful to continue. Any Advice?

I went halfway through an audiobook for Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism." I think the audiobook for Tuchman is the same woman. Both books are incredibly verbose and spend so much time describing the personalities of certain figures and events in what I'm assuming (please confirm/reject) was the style of the period in which both books were written. Point is, they are exhausting and boring. And I read "Guns of August" ten years ago and didn't feel the same way.

So how do you historians get through a book such as "The Proud Tower"? I think I need to move on.

Due to its significant historical span and interdisciplinary implications, this questionmay be better as a standalone post or even a pan-Reddit enquiry. However, I've always wanted to know: why do fools fall in love?