Tough Decision...

[follyistheworld]

I will be going to graduate school for history but I have an interest that is outside of how most schools breakdown their departments. My interest is the modern political history of Iran and India. I would hate to have to give up one state to focus on the other. Does anyone know if I would be able to participate and focus on both countries in grad school? My plan is to finish my masters first and enhance my language skills in Arabic and Hindi, then go on to a doctorate program. I want to be able to research and write about both states but I also do not know how I could connect these areas expect by doing more comparative work.

[telemaque]

I will be going to graduate school for history but I have an interest that is outside of how most schools breakdown their departments. My interest is the modern political history of Iran and India. I would hate to have to give up one state to focus on the other. Does anyone know if I would be able to participate and focus on both countries in grad school? My plan is to finish my masters first and enhance my language skills in Arabic and Hindi, then go on to a doctorate program. I want to be able to research and write about both states but I also do not know how I could connect these areas expect by doing more comparative work.

Many departments have international/transnational/global/etc fields for comparative work just like you're describing; in fact, it seems to be the "trendy" thing these days. For the ones that don't, I'm in a similar situation with my research interests and have had success contacting POIs and simply laying out my research interests and asking them which field they think I should apply under. Many have told me that X field is more competitive numbers-wise but more open (in terms of what the faculty is doing) to comparative/transnational work even though Y field is more closely aligned with my regional interests, or something similar, and then given me advice about which field would be more advantageous for applications. So I would really recommend contacting professors directly and asking them. I'm sure they'd be extremely interested to hear about your research and language skills. Plus, if you're already in an MA program, your adviser would more than likely have some ideas about this. In sum, ask around - sounds like you have an interesting project in mind and in my experience the professors at these schools are more than willing to help in the pre-application stages of the process. Good luck!

[TMP]

What I think you need to do is really think about why you're so drawn to both Iran and India. Take some time to reflect on it. Thank about your personal and professional interests, even when you were a child (so much of our tastes and influences come from our childhoods). I promise you, it'll be worthwhile to push off your applications until you have that "ah-ha!" moment. It took me 2-3 years to figure out what was it about my interests that made me so interested in everything. It wasn't easy believe in it but once i had that clarity and understanding where my interests originated, it made for much more effective SOPs and conversations with POIs. They totally bought my case and thought my questions were just so interesting, they just had never thought about these topics in this or that way.

As for "choosing" a primary region in programs that have yet to offer transnational focus/field, it will depend on which survey courses you'd rather teach as a TA, and eventually as a professor- the Modern Middle East or history of Southeast Asia/India. Look at some of the course offerings in various universities to get a sense of what you may be expected to teach when you apply for the job as a professor of Southeast Asia or Middle East, if it's not

open to just "Asia" history.

Even so, after you get your PhD and choose to take a non-academic job in a think tank or government, which country's policies would you primarily like to work on?

[Irulan]

I will be going to graduate school for history but I have an interest that is outside of how most schools breakdown their departments. My interest is the modern political history of Iran and India. I would hate to have to give up one state to focus on the other. Does anyone know if I would be able to participate and focus on both countries in grad school? My plan is to finish my masters first and enhance my language skills in Arabic and Hindi, then go on to a doctorate program. I want to be able to research and write about both states but I also do not know how I could connect these areas expect by doing more comparative work.

No probably not. I'd specialize in one and then maybe as a subfield or long-term project you can still keep the other in mind.

If you do modern India you'll be encouraged to think comparatively within South Asia especially doing readings about Pakistan,Nepal, Bangladesh, as well as getting to grips with the tremendous internal variation of India. I can't speak for Iran but I imagine your encouraged to look for your comparisons to other arabic countries - unless you have some compelling case for the comparison with India above being interested in both.

Also what's great about doing Modern India (probably also true for Iran) is that there are a few parallel disciplines to history which take up the topic. You might want to keep in mind disciplines like international development, South Asian Studies, or political science in order to broaden your search - there could be excellent supervisors or more funding opportunities outside history.

[kotov]

No probably not. I'd specialize in one and then maybe as a subfield or long-term project you can still keep the other in mind.

If you do modern India you'll be encouraged to think comparatively within South Asia especially doing readings about Pakistan,Nepal, Bangladesh, as well as getting to grips with the tremendous internal variation of India. I can't speak for Iran but I imagine your encouraged to look for your comparisons to other arabic countries - unless you have some compelling case for the comparison with India above being interested in both.

Also what's great about doing Modern India (probably also true for Iran) is that there are a few parallel disciplines to history which take up the topic. You might want to keep in mind disciplines like international development, South Asian Studies, or political science in order to broaden your search - there could be excellent supervisors or more funding opportunities outside history.

Not to be petty, but Iran isn't an Arabic country. The people there speak Farsi (aka Persian), which is an Indo-European language.

[superfluousflo]

I'll jump into the language bit. Depending on the period of Indian political history you want to study, you might want to brush up on Urdu more than Hindi. Modern Indian political history will offer a lot of sources in English. Luckily, Urdu and Persian are similar.

Also, more broadly, does the forum think that comparative history is something that one moves toward through a career? It's a thought that I have about interdisciplinary work in general. I mean, on some level, you have to become expert in two disperate things, whether it's governance/governmentality/politics or if you want to combine anthro and history, or literary study and history. They are independent modes of study and each needs to be respected on its own terms. Or, can you use tools from other disciplines and call that interdisciplinary? Just a thought.

Edited February 1, 2012 by superfluousflo

[Irulan]

Not to be petty, but Iran isn't an Arabic country. The people there speak Farsi (aka Persian), which is an Indo-European language.

Yeah I neglected to edit that after I posted it, figured people would get the point. 'Middle Eastern' would have been more appropriate, I was just getting at that you'd be generally encouraged to think about Iran in comparison to countries on its west rather than its east.

But you can really compare any country with any country as long as you can make a rigorous academic case for it - probably best achieved through some sort of thematic specialization like ethnic conflict and identity/Labour or Gender history etc. In general terms though Iran and India despite their proximity are segregated into different regional fields.

[follyistheworld]

I want to clarify my reasons to improve my Arabic inside of Farsi. I already speak Farsi, which is why I need to work on my Arabic skills and not Farsi. Arabic is a very important language to know when studying anything in the MIddle East. Not all of the Iranian documents I have researched with are in Farsi. Plus Arabic is a base language or Urdu which is very important to the India side of my interests. By knowing Arabic I will be able to understand and speak Urdu easier since the base is with Arabic whereas Hindi is based on Sanskrit.

[Hilversum]

I'd just like to point out that Hindi and Urdu are to all extents and purposes one and the same language with only minor variations - they simply employ different writing systems. Knowing this will be useful to those who want to specialize in South Asian history.

[superfluousflo]

I'd just like to point out that Hindi and Urdu are to all extents and purposes one and the same language with only minor variations - they simply employ different writing systems. Knowing this will be useful to those who want to specialize in South Asian history.

You'll do yourself a favor to understand the non-Sanskitic roots of Urdu. There are a lot of similarities, but Urdu writers in Urdu will use considerably more Arabic and Persian root words than a Hindi speaker writing in Urdu. Also, there are confusing differences in syntax if you try to approach Urdu through Hindi.

Edited February 2, 2012 by superfluousflo

[Hilversum]

You'll do yourself a favor to understand the non-Sanskitic roots of Urdu. There are a lot of similarities, but Urdu writers in Urdu will use considerably more Arabic and Persian root words than a Hindi speaker writing in Urdu. Also, there are confusing differences in syntax if you try to approach Urdu through Hindi.

I'm not suggesting anyone approach Urdu through Hindi or vice versa. I'm simply pointing out that mastering Arabic and Persian - while useful for the study of Urdu in much the same way that it is useful for the study of Turkish - will not take you very far at all when learning Urdu (or Turkish), which is a language influenced by but not otherwise really related to them. Hindi, on the other hand, although subjected in modern India to a different set of influences than Urdu, is, especially on the colloquial level, hardly distinguishable from Urdu.

In any event, claims to the effect that Urdu is "based on" or "similar to" Persian and Arabic are simply too bold. There is overlap, but knowing Arabic and Persian simply won't give one that much of a headstart when learning Urdu. Hindi will - but those who want to learn Urdu should probably just learn Urdu and be aware of the simple fact that Urdu and Hindi are linguistic twins that have been subjected to different influences in recent history.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Hilversum

[superfluousflo]

I voted that up because it's true.