Assertion (A): Research in media history in India is imprecise and shabby.

Reason (R): Because Indians depend too much on oral history.

(A) Both (A) and (R) are true.

(B) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation.

(C) (A) is true, but (R) is false.

(D) (A) is false, but (R) is true.

Correct Ans: (C)

Explanation:
Research in media history in India is often criticized for its lack of precision and depth. While the field has seen progress, the methodologies used sometimes fail to meet rigorous academic standards. The imprecise and shabby nature of this research can be attributed to several factors, including limited access to primary sources, inadequate documentation, and insufficient scholarly focus on critical analysis. Moreover, the fragmented approach to studying media history often overlooks the need for systematic investigation and corroboration of facts.

The suggestion that Indians depend too much on oral history as a reason for this imprecision is not entirely accurate. Oral history does play a significant role in India’s cultural and historical narratives, but it complements rather than replaces documented evidence. Oral traditions offer valuable insights and perspectives, particularly in regions where written records are sparse. However, relying solely on oral accounts without cross-referencing them with archival evidence or other credible sources leads to gaps in accuracy and reliability.

Thus, while media history research in India may have limitations, the issue lies more with the methodologies and resources available than with the reliance on oral history alone. Strengthening archival practices and adopting multidisciplinary approaches can improve the precision of this research.